Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

Shame really. It would have given even more impetus to the 51st Highlanders during the Battle of El Alamein. Those dastardly Antifa!

 

Sorry I have never heard of a shirking model.

 

Its an understanding of how involuntary unemployment is created. The right wing approach, understanding unemployment purely through extra-market interference (e.g. minimum wages stopping a market equilibrium), proved to be an empirical dud. Economists were forced to look to alternative perspectives. The shirking approach is essentially based on the notion of the 'reserve army' of the unemployed. This ensures worker compliance, increasing productivity while also minimising bargaining power.

 

You live in a different world than I do.

 

There's nothing sane about the authoritarian personality though is there?

 

Oh I forgot, leftists never spank children, they let them run loose while they themselves never grow up either.

 

Sounds like you don't know about the analysis into the authoritarian personality. Of course part of that is hatred of evidence, so shame on me

 

LOL@authoritrians throwing out accusation of authoritarianism at each other. Almost like you are in competition.

 

Look at the pretend anarchist puffing out his chest

The authoritarian personality is repeatedly confirmed in psychological testing.

 

The premise is distribution. There is no "re" distribution, because whatever is distributed in the first instance is entirely absorbed. There is no SURPLUS, remember. Surplus would make it capitalism.

You're making a fundamental error. You're talking about capitalism - the only model which generates surplus, aka, profits. Profits which purchase luxuries like welfare and free education. How you spend (or as you call it, redistribute) your capitalist profits has nothing at all to do with the model. It's still capitalism.

 

It's driven by resentment and laziness. Never a good combination.

And yes, they always admit - when feet are held to fire - to a 'communism' unlike any which ever has, or ever could exist. Somehow it will magically allow for the feelings and preferences of every individual to be catered to, and no one will ever have to live a crappy house in a crappy location, amongst people they don't like, or do jobs they don't like. Everyone will get to live in Portland, Oregon (so to speak), and have lives just like they have now, only they'll have more time for their art and cafe attendance because rich people will pay them for existing.

 

Look Crank - you seem like an intelligent person - and you are at least interested in the topic enough have formed an opinion - but, I am not talking about Capitalism.

Wealth - be it an ear of corn or the tool to dig that corn up - or a gold coin - or a house - is Wealth - and you are trying to define it as something else - and you are wrong - demonstrably so.

In a collective - that wealth is collected and redistributed - some on the collective contribute more than others - throw it into the pot.

You want to say "NO NO NO" - it is "Distributed" rather than "re-distributed" on the basis that "re-distribution" infers that some one previously owned it .. where in a pure socialist system - no one owns anything.

this only holds for "pure Socialism" - which doesn't really exist in its pure form - and close approximations such as Stalin's Communism or Cuba - don't matter - because no nation of import has such a system.

So "hypothetically" - you could have a system were all wealth is distributed. What bearing has this is in a conversation about US Politics - or anything on this planet in general ?

In the real world - wealth is "partially owned" by the State -and Gov't redistributes that wealth.

When you are paying 10K a year in property tax - to live in your home - can you really claim to be the owner of private property - or are you a partial owner who pays rent to a landlord.

I am not interested in talking about a definition of socialism that does not exist in my localized real world - nor in the outside world in general.

I am interested in how much money the Gov't is going to take from me - and what they are doing with that money.

You don't want to label this "Socialist Policy" OK - Don't. But when Sanders is calling himself a Democratic Socialist - he is not referring to your pure - non real world definition of Socialist policy.

What Bernie is talking about is .. what he is doing with the money - and how much he is going to take.

So what shall we label Bernie - if not "Democratic Socialist" "Democratic wealth redistributor" ? The DWR Party

 

Anyone saying "pure socialism" is talking out of their arse. Socialism is feasible or it isnt. The liberal bobbins referring to pure socialism, or pure capitalism, are just talking prance.

 

For once, we agree.

 

1) If capitalist profits (surplus) are involved, then yes you ARE talking about capitalism. Once surplus is present, the 'collective' has moved beyond non-surplus work-to-eat, and necessarily engages in buying/selling of labour and resources. IOW, capitalism.

2) The wealth of the socialist collective is limited to land and labour. Whatever is harvested or built via that land and labour, is sufficient only for the immediate use of the collective.

3) Yes, it's DISTRIBUTED amongst the collective. It can only 'go around' once, because it's immediate consumption. Remember that the socialist collective is not dealing in money. It's dealing in land and labour.

4) Incorrect. In a socialist collective the land is jointly owned by members, or owned by an individual and shared in perpetuity with members at no monetary cost. Land (and its resources) ownership is essential to socialist collectivism.

5) We don't pay property taxes in my country, so can't help you there. We pay 'land rates' to local councils, but it's no more than about $1500 a year. In rural areas it's half that.

6) On the contrary, collectivism exists all over the world, in every culture and on every continent. You 'can't' see it because its reality is beyond your comfort zone.

7) Bernie is a flaming capitalist. Always has been. The communists kicked him out of the commune because of it.

 

No Property Taxes ! - sounds wonderful

 

Well, my encounters with commies involves their vision of a stateless, classless society. There will be no rich people in this utopia, primarily because they will have been purged.
Then they will eliminate money altogether. People will then work for nothing because they want to. So nobody will need money, because everything will be free, LOL.

 

In other words, crazy people

 

Let your little hellion grow up to be a bully. You betcha!

 

Star Trek fanatics believe that rubbish.

 

Hey now .... I'm a Trekker

 

Stand down there, Space Cadet. I'm also guilty of collecting Star Trek, except for the original series --- because Shatner. Especially because Shatner.

And the super-preachy Next Gen deserves its slice of the jugular. Wesley Crusher would go out an airlock on any decent vessel. (And what's Wheaton done since then but irritate people?)

Dip Spice Niner? Fracking brilliant. Far better characters than other series. Marc Alaimo and Micheal Dorn are incomparably fine. O'Brien? Keiko? Quark? MORNNNNNNNNNNN?

...And then there's that ghastly, forgettable Season 1 of Discovery, made infinitely better with Christopher Pike having hung up his Hell on Wheels sidearms in Season 2. It does not take a military expert to tell you that someone court-martialed and stripped of rank DOES NOT give orders to the legally authorized captain. The entire premise was junk and if it was Bryan Fuller's idea he deserved to get fired.

Star Wars? I got fooled once with a 3-in-1 package of the 4th, 5th and 6th ripoffs and criminal waste of earthly resources. It surprises me the fans kept falling for it.

 

I have a new definition:

Leftist: a pseudo-intellectual that thinks they can come up with a formula that will create utopia if imposed against the free will of the population, provided a bunch of idiots believe them.

 

Socialism: belief in victimization resulting in siezure of wealth.

 

Are you on a sponsored random reply? I've merely referred to the experimental evidence into right wing authoritarianism. Indeed, psychologists refer to it so much that they have to just use RWA.

It would be interesting to see how many right wingers support Trump's camouflage shirts. It goes against the usual "feds are evil" narrative, but it also feeds deliverately into the RWA tendency towards simple prolemics and the binary: "Their leadership has, for months, lost control of the anarchists and agitators. They are missing in action. We must protect Federal property, AND OUR PEOPLE. These were not merely protesters, these are the real deal!"