Here is what Happens in a Socialist Economy.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Both Cuba and Venezuela are affected by the "socialist economy."

FWIW
Cuba and Venezuela are not "socialist economy" they are dictatorships painted as socialist.

There are also numerous types of socialism and ownership rights under them.

Having said that this is where the socialist democrats are WRONG and refuse to acknowledge. You will NEVER get a true socialist program ,industry, or system if you do not tackle the massive corruption in DC first. Otherwise, you will end up with an oligarch manipulated controlled bastardized socialist system resembling our current capitalist system but with more corporate control.

The socialist democrats need to STFU about socialism and focus on getting conflict of interest out of DC first , if they really want to implement a real socialist solution. Ofcourse once you get the conflict of interest reduced, the need for a socialist system will likely go away as well.

a reply to: ketsuko

I dont think that's what he meant.

A short way of describing his vision was for people to pursue their passions and offer to society what they are good at. The other stuff was based off the manifesto which included communes. And was a propaganda piece, to make communism sound more appealing. He wrote more than just that.

His vision was that future economies would turn into capitalists states eventually destroying itself within.
He viewed machines were the beginning of the end basically.

His vision is becoming more appealing the closer we get to automation. Which he predicted. It's becoming a reality, end stage capitalism is coming.

The problem is people here point at things that aren’t necessarily socialism, like socialized medicine or education; and yell “that’s socialism!”. Then they go point to nations that may or may not have practiced socialism, and blame socialism for their failures, ignoring other things that contributed to those nations situations. Also ignoring the fact that leftists never claim they want to emulate those specific nations. And then they act like leftists all want the us to be like the ussr.

And I have to say, while I don’t consider the ussr to have been socialist, regardless of the name, they were actually state capitalists. But that aside, whatever you call them you have to give props to the fact that a nation with a far smaller economy and military had the US, the most powerful “capitalist” nation in the world, in fear and paranoia for several decades during the Cold War. But I suppose, in review, that’s not saying a lot as the most powerful capitalist nation in the world has been in a frenzy of fear multiple times from such tiny, weak nations as panama, Iraq, Iran, etc. can’t wait to see how they manufacture fear and consent for their Venezuela campaign. Guess they’ll be looking for yellow cake down there soon too. Seems capitalism is awful frightened of tiny, non threatening nations of serfs.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Breakthestreak

That's exactly what Marx proposes!

Marx is only seen as communist because he was a paid propagandist for a commune.

His philosophies literally take on social and capital means of production. People should not work as slaves, yet should not be bound to the means of production for other people, he had a vision, and it's hard to dispute, but because it's more of a socialist vision people lose their minds over it.

No. His vision is not hard to dispute.

His vision discounts simple human nature. He envisions a society where no one wants more or better for themselves, but all are perfectly content to have only as much as everyone else decides they need and only as as much as everyone else no matter what they do or how hard they work.

In a society of people who are competitive and always have been, this will not work out very well. In a society of people who are individuals who have their aims and needs and desires, this will not work out very well. Not everyone wants exactly the same things as his neighbors in exactly the same quantities. Some want different things and all will want them in different amounts.

Marx seems to have discounted that entirely from his equation in favor of thinking everyone would be happy with the same box house or apartment, eating the same amounts of the same foods, getting the same of everything, and working industriously to see everyone else got it forever.

Exactly, socialism, collectivism, etc all fail because they discount human nature. There will always be people who want to better themselves or who can add more value.

The reason these systems never work is because if you are in the group who can and is willing to work harder and smarter, govt has to oppress you to keep from upending the system. In addition, the system starts to collapse under the weight of people who won't work or contribute.

Eventually, people realize that their efforts are not rewarded so the productive stop being productive.

At the end of the day, socialism just drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator and keeps them there by oppression. Except for those in charge, of course.

Capitalism works because it relies on free will for the exchange of goods and services. The invisible hand of the free market tends to correct ills. It isn't perfect, but it does eventually work to expose and correct bad players in the market. You see this on a local level when a business gets bad reviews and some businesses boom by word of mouth.

Those complaining about monopolies, etc need to realize that government is what eventually causes that situation by allowing a business to use the power of regulations, etc to stifle competition.

Competition is what keeps prices low and acts as a natural regulator of business. Anything that limits competition will typically result in less favorable outcomes for consumers.

a reply to: oldcarpy

You can use the same rhetoric for capitalism as well or creates an underclass.

a reply to: strongfp

You could, but usually capitalism does not end in a failed State.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: oldcarpy

You can use the same rhetoric for capitalism as well or creates an underclass.

Every society has an under class. It is a natural order of things. The big difference though is that capitalism and freedom provide a means for people to move up in class. Your class is not defined by birth, name, profession, etc.

In capitalist societies, you can be born dirt poor and wind up a multi-millionaire or even a billionaire. Very few people in America remain in the lower classes. We have class mobility which is why so many people immigrate to America.

A big flaw in data that leftist never can address is that just because you may be considered in poverty in a given year, it does not mean you remain in poverty. The vast majority of people who are in the top 1% of income earners do not stay there as their incomes fall.

a reply to: Edumakated

And marxs addressed this. That capitalism will inevitably lead to a massive underclass. The best form of capitalism is no competition and slaves basically. Automation will create a massive underclass.

a reply to: strongfp

And Marx has been proved right soooo many times?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

And marxs addressed this. That capitalism will inevitably lead to a massive underclass. The best form of capitalism is no competition and slaves basically. Automation will create a massive underclass.

Again, there will ALWAYS be an underclass because we are not all equal in terms of work, value of said work, intelligence, etc. There is no society on earth that doesn't have an underclass. Even in socialist utopias you have a massive underclass. In fact, the entire society except for the few elites and their minions who live life's of luxury wind up being poor.

Capitalism works so well that the underclass in America would be considered the rich in most countries because our free markets have created a standard of living that is unmatched. To be poor in America still means having a solid home, air conditioning, food, education, cars, nice clothing, latest electronics, etc. Our "housing projects" look nicer than middle and upper class homes in many countries.

a reply to: oldcarpy

So far he has. Other than his communist blabbings talking about how great living in a commune is his critical thinking towards capitalism is spot on. He basically created the idea of it.

a reply to: Edumakated

I dont think you're grasping the whole concept here.

When a huge underclass cannot sustain itself anymore it starts to create problems. We've seen it throughout history hundreds of times.

If all of a sudden every car maker in the US could hypothetically go 100% automation. And then sell those cars back to the American people for massive profits, who gains in the society from that means of production? What will those tens of thousands of laid off workers do?

Marx was making more of a prediction for long term. He wasnt anti capitalism, he was addressing the dangers that will happen, and gave his idea of what people should do instead of revolting basically.

Capitalism is a good stepping stop towards a brighter future, but if transition doesnt happen, and you get massive divide between rich and poor it's not going to end well. That's where socialism has its perks.

a reply to: Edumakated

In fact, the entire society except for the few elites and their minions who live life's of luxury wind up being poor.

I wish when they interview these hollywood socialist they would ask them where they envision themselves in their socialist society? Are they going to be in the group of society primarily dependent on the system or part of the group making the decision for the system?

Secondly , what is stopping them from taking their millions and starting their own socialist hybrid utopia? In reality a publicly traded corporation is like a quasi socialist entity where the many (stock holders) put their faith on the hands of the few (board of directors and ceo) to run their entity the big difference is that you will likely not be able to jump ship.

a reply to: strongfp

So what do you think? Have we corrupted the true meaning of socialism that marx was trying to explain. It was socialism for the wealthy and the oligarchs. It was a type of control placed on the wealth extracted from society through malicious / nefarious means. Even if ill intent isn't the driving force, there is a lot of grey areas out there through which people take advantage of others through lack of education or wisdom.

There could be a way to have a hybrid of freedom of enterprise that also has restrictions on certain paths of income. There could still be freedom of the creation of a business and ownership if that served the community but restrictions on rent seeking or capitol gains.

What if the idea that gambling with ones money (labor turned fiat) was considered wrong. Wouldn't that solve many many issues?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

I dont think you're grasping the whole concept here.

When a huge underclass cannot sustain itself anymore it starts to create problems. We've seen it throughout history hundreds of times.

If all of a sudden every car maker in the US could hypothetically go 100% automation. And then sell those cars back to the American people for massive profits, who gains in the society from that means of production? What will those tens of thousands of laid off workers do?

Marx was making more of a prediction for long term. He wasnt anti capitalism, he was addressing the dangers that will happen, and gave his idea of what people should do instead of revolting basically.

Capitalism is a good stepping stop towards a brighter future, but if transition doesnt happen, and you get massive divide between rich and poor it's not going to end well. That's where socialism has its perks.

Workers have been displaced since the beginning of time. They do what they always did, find another means of earning money. People always look for ways to increase their productivity whether it is using a wheel, cotton gin, or the internet. It doesn't matter.

I'm sure cars displaced a ton of people of buggy manufacturers. Where did all the travel agents go? Where did all the phone operators go?

There will never be 100% automation and you forget that new industries and fields of work continually are created and evolve.

Hell, I work in a business where I am pretty sure that my job will be significantly automated to the point I might not be needed anymore. This could happen in five to 10 years. Am I crying about it? No, I just prepared for it and will move on when I determine that time has come.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Edumakated

In fact, the entire society except for the few elites and their minions who live life's of luxury wind up being poor.

I wish when they interview these hollywood socialist they would ask them where they envision themselves in their socialist society? Are they going to be in the group of society primarily dependent on the system or part of the group making the decision for the system?

Secondly , what is stopping them from taking their millions and starting their own socialist hybrid utopia? In reality a publicly traded corporation is like a quasi socialist entity where the many (stock holders) put their faith on the hands of the few (board of directors and ceo) to run their entity the big difference is that you will likely not be able to jump ship.

That's the thing. The useful idiots like hollywood elite and academics never see themselves as part of the masses. With leftists, their policies are never meant for the elite. This is why people like Al Gore can talk about global warming with a straight face while flying private jets and living in a 15,000 square foot house. Or leftist politicians can push gun control while they have armed security. Or push for public schools while they send their kids to private schools.

The ironic thing is that 90% of these people would find themselves the first eliminated. You look at any communist/socialist regime and the first people they usually go after are the academics.

a reply to: Edumakated

That's the thing. The useful idiots like hollywood elite and academics never see themselves as part of the masses.

Yep that was my point. Its also funny how they would praise Castro and Chavez like danny glover and the rest but yet they still lived in the good ol USA.

Heck most of these azzhatz were buddy buddy with Chavez such as sean penn, glover , oliver stone, etc and there was nothing stopping them from donating all there money to Chavez and becoming part of that great system chavez had running. Yet the continue to live and work in a capitalist society.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Are you absolutely blind to the problems with laissez faire capitalism?

People who are cultist capitalist are just as bad as cultist communists!

We may have full shelves but we also have monopolies and cartels out the yin yang.

I have seen you post this same video numerous times...

Most of us here have ACTUALLY researched his work. Not just his talking points like the video you keep posting.

Hence our skepticism.

History doesn't lie...
Our capitalist system has outlasted numerous socialist and communist systems. Created more opportunities than death.