What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

You are certainly welcome.

 

Great. Thanks for the admission.

 

You are welcome for whatever you think I admitted.

 

He stated it. You agreed. Seems you're lost and losing more.

 

Cool thread.


IMHO Socialism is the realization of 'E Pluribus Unum' ... that any $$$ wealthy organism, only becomes wealthy, once the poor/non-wealthy ordinary organisms make them wealthy and iconic. Well, then, Capitalism takes over from there.



skinny: feed the hands which fed you?

 

Well, with only 4 posts under your belt, I'll wait to see how it turns out, but your post here lacks clarity and language precision. I have no idea what you're saying about socialism.

 

Oh I sincerely apologize for any of my words causing a lack of understanding, but please please do consider how your (-) energy and its peculiar approach really are not necessary when you are posting to me. Ever.


I come here with love and the beautiful exchange of ideas, as my faculty and staff, so please consider that in the future as I do invite you to always let me know if you feel I should've elaborated better on my remarks.


Peace Be Unto You, Kode.

 

Kode, I just read some of your old posts, and you are a very brilliant, astute force in these discussions. So I think theres a chance that you might be, just kidding, here, where you do in fact clearly comprehend my stance and the precision within my words.

Moreover, I think your high intelligence might also understand the reality that Socialism and Capitalism's Democracy, really are interchangeable. Yes. They are all the same thing.

Veraciously analyze the world's largest, oldest Socialist societies, and you can see Capitalism's Democracy at work. Do the same for the world's largest, oldest Democracies where Capitalism rules, and the Socialism is so very clear.

For example, my fav reality of the later is within our nation's very own Top 1000 Largest Corp. which all combine to epitomize the success of Capitalism where [thanks to Democracy's treacherous lawmaking system, yet] they all still have to deal with some annoying little Socialists called... Labor Unions!

 

When did Unions become socialist? There are certainly socialists amongst them, but a bargaining mechanism within capitalism doesn't necessarily scream socialist!

Before you go with flowery lingo, get the basic political economy right!

 

No flowery lingo here, just facts of this matter.

Labor Unions seek to attain things (usually $$$) which the employers don't won't them to have, as unions seek those 'things' in order to share them among all workers* who do not have = resources as the employer enjoys, thanks to the wealth employers attained within capitalism. This constitutes a "Socialism" stance which unions have always taken.

And since unions have been here about as long as Capitalism has been here then... are they not just one, sole machine operating in unison?




*that is the denotative meaning of Socialism.

 

Please name for me an old, large socialist society, and tell me why you consider it to be socialist.

"The later"? You mean specifically "favorite reality of the world's oldest democracy where capitalism rules"? For now, I'll assume that to be what you mean.

Is your point, then, to object to both labor unions and the laws that allow them, as being "socialist" and "treacherous"?

It would seem that you are trying hard to write in clever, almost flowery language. But I prefer the clarity of straight-forward language that is free of effort to present an appearance. That may be part of my trouble understanding you.

 

Repeating drivel won't create sense. The presence of unions does not constitute socialism. It demonstrates only that labour are attempting to use bargaining power to minimise underpayment. This would be understood by the likes of Adam Smith and co, so no excuse!

 

On the day which unions stop trying to "take from" employers' profit, so to distribute it, among the workers who each have far less than the employer ((aka Socialism)), will also be the day my words become drivel.

So I'll be waiting for you to inform me of 'that day' when labor unions no longer do what they do. Fair?

 

Sorry, but you've again repeated drivel. The Unions do not own and control the means of production. They simply try to minimise the damage engineered by capitalist ownership. To call that socialism is not credible. Indeed, I know many right wing Unionists (some of whom, unfortunately, are in the Labour Party)

 

Capitalism is private ownership of productive assets for private profit.
Socialism is worker ownership of the productive assets for social good.

Both entail class struggle and class conflicts which produce that struggle.

The class interests of capitalists and their various "agents" require workers to organize in opposition to those class interests and struggle for fairness, democracy, justice, and eventually for control of the productive assets. This struggle as it is expressed in the workplace necessitates organization of workers, and that organization takes the form of labor unions.

I see problems with labor unions today, but rather than eliminate those unions, I advocate changes that provide corrections.

But since labor unions and capitalists conflict by their very nature, and the form of that conflict is class struggle, I do not see the two as "just one, sole machine operating in unison".

 

Again, Socialism is the result.

Once the worker decided that the "basic pay rate" he agreed to, is no longer enough, then unions got formed to try to take away more of the employer's profits to distribute among all workers; Socialism. This idea has been around as long as Capitalism, itself, therefore they work in unison as a machine within a Democracy. That is a colossal example of many which verify there is no difference between Socialism and Capitalism's Democracies.

Yes indeed, and the concept is a derivation of the exact reason why Socialism and Capitalism are viewed as conflicting.

 

<Rule 3>

I agree. Which is why I never said they owned anything. I clearly laid out how the employer owns the means of production.

Yes, and since the method of "minimizing damage" does exactly consist of taking away the employers' profits ---which will be distributed among all workers; To call that socialism is very credible.

 

It is blatantly absurd on the face of it to say there is no difference between Socialism and Capitalism's Democracies.

 

Oh well, then, I guess it means that sometimes the truth and the facts can indeed be, blatantly absurd, especially wherever critics cannot present a valid argument to override any truths nor facts eh?


Labor Unions are at the heart of the success within the world's most-Capitalistic societies. That's wherever 1)Capitalism owes its success to Democracy [treacherous lawmaking system] and 2)Labor unions = Socialism.


Two mechanisms, two cogs working in unison to ensure that that machine called "Democracies" are the leaders of the free world.

 

Round and round you go, making silly claim and pretending otherwise. A bargaining tool is not socialism. It merely informs us of the obvious: that perfect competition in labour markets has no relevance. Until you bother to ensure valid political economy runs through your comment, it will just be fluff.

 

<Rule 3>

You are correct that a labor union is a bargaining tool which is not Socialism, itself, however it is exactly a bargaining tool working to create a result which = Socialism.

This is proven by the fact that we see political economy still gets "ensured" even within our nation's right-to-work states' where labor unions are always frowned upon and sometimes even prohibited.

Those corps. which enjoy that life/facing no labor unions but they still sort of thrive within Capitalism's Democracy, are all proof that political economy runs vehemently through my comments and without me needing to say so.

<Rule 3>

 

I'm bored of it already. The idea that bargaining, leading to improved worked conditions and reduced rent, is a sufficient condition for socialism is neither credible or sensible. However, it's your right to be completely reliant on misinformation. God bless!

 

No pal, you cannot 'put the cart before the horse' here, <Rule 3>

When every American underemployed/unemployed worker allows a non-Union, Capitalistic org to take advantage of his employable worth, then that worker gleefully signed onto the idea of improved working conditions and reduced rent. The employer fulfilled the legal requirement which Democracy's laws said he must fulfill in order to offer jobs to We The People of Capitalisms' Democracy. There was no need for any Labor Unions.

A long time ago Democracy's treacherous lawmaking system made 'the corporation' into, a person, and fortunately now we all get to enjoy a Tort society. Therefore workers can easily sue Capitalisms' employers, if they feel wronged, so there's no need for a labor union. Never was. Exercise your Right To Sue!


...but...


That is only, in theory.


<Mod Edit> America's largest, most-successful corporations do all have to deal with Labor Unions. Plus since you know that I knew that you know Socialism is generally a ___* and yes that is also exactly what labor unions do to Capitalism's owners??


God Bless



...








_* = system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control - MW

 

You don't know the basic definition of socialism or the different between it and capitalism.

Here it is in just 7 minutes. Tell us what's wrong with it. Skip the ad.

 

Thank you sir for posting that video, since it in fact solidified what I have already posted here:

0:55 - 1:02 your vid explains the same thing which Labor Unions do to Capitalism's owners.

2:29 - 2:54 your vid again explains the same thing which Labor Unions do to Capitalism's owners.

3:20 - 3:40 your vid explains the same thing I already said that Labor Unions do to Capitalisms' owners, especially where you see "__*" in my previous post.