About Socialism

Who owns the 'means of production' is utterly irrelevant. If it's a profit driven enterprise, it is CAPITALIST. Makes no difference whether it's owned by one billionaire, or a village. If it's a profit driven enterprise it's not socialism.

 

Social mobility is provided for via free education and free healthcare. The ultimate level playing field. If people CHOOSE not to avail themselves (or their children) of the boon of free education, that's on them. They've made the choice freely, and without interference.

Story time: It's a kinda sour joke amongst remaining Commies, that the modern Left hates us more than the Right does. No one likes to be told that their politic is fatuous lip service to things they don't have the spine for.

 

Nothing has been hijacked. All of this has happened in a state of liberty. Besides, people have had 'several decades' to adjust to the changing economic climate. Some have, some haven't. HUMAN NATURE. Those who chose not to are enjoying the fruits of that decision. It's not govt's place to interfere in those freely made choices. That would be totalitarianism, or something like it.

At the end of the day, until there's a famine or war or something, we're still the luckiest people on earth .. with all the resources needed to keep up with a changing FIRST world. I'm just one person, and I know multiple people under 30 who have educated themselves to a wealth level higher than their parents ever had. It's going on all the time. You make the conditions work for you (and they can work for you in changing markets), by being willing to work WITH the conditions. And simply by being willing to work .. period. None of it is easy.

 

Nope. Flat false. Publicly provided education and healthcare are not free: you have to pay a landowner full market value just for PERMISSION to access them. That's why they are a subsidy to landowners: no one else actually gets any benefit from them.

I see. So, when one team owns the playing field, and the other team has to pay the first team just for PERMISSION to score a goal, that's a level playing field??

Obviously that is just baldly false. Landowners charge other people a lot for permission to access quality public (or private) schools, and most people can't afford to meet their extortion demands.

 

OMG

You been reading little red books, or somink?

 

Land and other natural resources have been stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use them.

GARBAGE. People's rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them and given to landowners as their private property.

I see. It is government that forcibly stripped people of their rights to liberty and gave them to landowners, but it's not government's place to interfere in people's "freely made choices" to have their rights to liberty stripped from them?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

Nonsense.

Sure it is, if you own land. You just ride up at your leisure on the escalator that is powered by the treadmill the productive are on.

 

No, I have read books, though. And devoted some thought to matters. You might want to try it some time. Then you might actually be able to muster an argument instead of just trotting out ad hominem fallacies.

 

Don't like not owning land? Buy some.

Don't like ordinary individual property ownership or can't afford it? Buy property jointly with a collective and work that property sufficient to feed the collective.

We're all free to do either of those things, in our First World democracies. Of course, you're also free to do nothing towards either goal - and simply complain, hoping someone else fixes things for you.

 

I've read all the books. I've lived on working communes, paid dues to the commies, and believe in collectivism. You can't win.

 

Nope. You haven't even read any of the relevant ones.

What on earth do you imagine that has to do with anything I've written??

 

"Don't like not owning slaves? Buy some."

You think the problem with owning slaves was that the abolitionists didn't own any, and were merely envious of those who did.

That is as far from being relevant to the problem of landowners owning everyone else's rights to liberty as telling the abolitionists to buy slaves in a collective would have been to the problem of slave owners owning their slaves' rights to liberty.

Being "free" to pay an extortionist for permission to exercise one's right to liberty is not freedom, sorry.

IOW, "Shut up and get back on the treadmill."

That about it?

 

I agree that the behaviors you identify in your post will ALWAYS be present to some degree in any economic system. I simply feel it's far too prominent in our current system, & I want to improve things. I also agree that fixes are limited in number, and all fixes involve some pain. I also concur that no fix will ever be 100% successful. But having said that, if our goal is improvement vs perfection, then we have reason for hope.

 

In any capitalist system or any mixed capitalist-socialist system some disparity will always exist. I agree with you on that. But the disparity in America has changed from having 20% of our wealthiest controlling 80% of our wealth, to having 2% of our wealthiest controlling 98% of our national wealth, all within four decades. That kind of increasing economic disparity is a tragedy, and an insult to the economic system that produced it. As Americans gradually become more aware of this disparity, I fear they will become much more vocal about it. Changing it might alleviate some of the stresses. The worst thing we can do is find excuses for continuing it the way it is.

 

Plenty. It means I've lived socialism. What percentage of people in the West who call themselves Socialists have actually experienced it?

 

What is so difficult to grasp in the thought that a super-wealthy minority class of 2% can be just as tyrannical in its controls of you, me or any of us "workers, as any government? It's that tyranny I'm concerned about. Why can't intelligent conservative capitalists see it too?

 

No. More like 'either do something about it, or complain'. They're your options. The first one will result in an actual change to your circumstances, the second .. not so much.

 

Don't know about those conservative capitalists you speak of (intelligent or otherwise), I can't speak for them. I can say that the only way for the PEOPLE to effect change for themselves is the PEOPLE effecting change for themselves. We live in first world democracies. We're still the richest and freest people on earth, and will probably remain so unless the damned Progressive Left go rogue and turn us into second or third world totalitarian theocracies - always a possibility. As long as that is the case, and we remain free First Worlders, we can become 2%ers, or communists, or middle class families, or run small businesses, or become overpaid academics, or enter politics, or go completely off grid and out of the system, or any one of a million options for altering the circumstances of our lives.

 

Have you considered that over the course of the decades since the last 'hardship' was experienced in the First World (arguably the 1980s, with widespread recession and massive interest rates), it's we ... the PEOPLE ... who have failed? What do you think happens when animals have it too easy? Do they retain their lean-and-perpetually-starving manic focus? Or do they lie down and snooze the day away .. getting fat and arthritic? They, in fact, forget how to survive - and the idea of doing so becomes horrifying to them. They can't even get up and focus when the circumstances of their ease alters. They literally can't survive change.

 

Try thinking one more move ahead. That super wealthy minority class of 2% doesn't have the justice system to demand submission to them. Those super wealthy people have to actually pay us to do what they want. The state can violently force us to do what it wants, and nobody has to be paid.

 

That's asking a lot

 

Reading your post, it occurs to me that conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the individual, as if that perspective is the only valid one around, and society is of secondary or tertiary importance & looked down upon regardless of its strengths or weaknesses. Liberals tend to see the world from the perspective of societies, with individuals being important components, but not the object of prime focus.Liberals tend to think healthy societies will automatically result in healthy individuals as a natural byproduct, so they concentrate on solving issues that affect societies rather than concentrating on issues that impact individuals mostly. There's nothing inherently wrong with either approach. Both have their assets & weaknesses. Neither is perfect, or capable of resolving every issue of concern. It is highly probable that mixing the best from each into something new & different offers the greatest promise for long term success with almost any issue. Before that's possible, we have to remember we are all Americans & have much more in common than we have in differences. We must accept the reality that the ONLY real answer to any major issue must involve input from both sides. Otherwise, those not included will only make trouble for everyone else.

 

You're correct about that. When progressives talk about social problems, the solution almost always centers around plural pronouns like "us, we, and our", and conservatives use singular pronouns.

The problem is that if you look at left-leaning societies, that "it's us against the world" approach results in insane amounts of wealth disparity. Those homeless camped out in places like skid row or the tenderloin are not living like the people up in the hills. In more rural areas where conservative policies are in place, the wealth disparity is much smaller, very few homeless, and quality of life is much better across the board regardless of income.

Their solutions suck, yet they never look at abject failure and think "WE need to try something different". It's always just a question of not enough money was shoveled at the problem last time, so the solution is to buy a bigger shovel.

 

As a member of that "Progressive Left" you seem to have such strong negative feelings for, I must tell you I have no interest in turning the U.S. into a totalitarian regime of any kind. And, theocracies are one of my least favorite totalitarian regimes. I support the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, individual freedoms, human rights (all humans ), democracy, good government, & social programs to help those in need. I'm not so far away from you in terms of my values. I'm certainly not your enemy, or anyone else's, for that matter. And, I would encourage you to open your mind to see the good in me & other "Progressives." We're not all bad, and neither are all our "Progressive" ideas.

 

You pose an interesting theory. . .& one I have no doubt contains some truth. I think this forum is helping me recognize a trait we all seem to share, in oversimplifying the true causes of the issues that we feel serious about. I know I'm guilty of doing that myself, and I've witnessed it happening repeatedly by others here on this forum. But the truth is often more complex than any of our theories, and often involved aspects from all sides of our arguments. That means we're all right at times, and all equally wrong just as often. For me, this is an argument for working together, because we all have pieces of the puzzle, and none of us has the entire picture. Interesting. . .

 

There is some truth in what you say, but it's only PART of the truth. A powerful aristocracy can be as cruel & controlling as any government. I offer pre-revolutionary France as an example. To be sure, governments can be hellish in their treatment of anyone or anything regarded as in opposition to their chosen dogma. But the term government doesn't automatically infer nasty behaviors. Governments comprised of ethical, professional stewards can & sometimes do accomplish great things impossible for anyone else to accomplish--though I will admit, even while doing that, individuals with less impressive ethical standards can wreck havoc simultaneously from within that same government. Life is always a blending of negative & positive forces, and the balance changes constantly. It is rare to find any human organization either all good or all bad for any extended time.