AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

Agreed. Let's take the smallest collective, a married couple. I agree that this collective must have full autonomy over the use of the private property they collectively own. Same principle would apply to larger collectives.

 

Helen and Scott Nearing? I love those people.

 

The very same. I've never yet come across an 'economics guru' I like better.

 

I was very enamored of them as a young man. They were one of my gardening inspirations.

But it's hard to grow a cable-modem or a Macbook pro.

 

It's crucial to the success of any collective. Whether a family of two, or 100 cabbage farmers. If external 'rules' or pressures prevent you from exercising your sustainability (whatever form that takes - cabbages, or maintaining the family home), you can't proceed.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "exercising your sustainability".

 

I've tried growing them. Doesn't work unless you fertilise them with $2.8k. I know, because I had to buy .. I mean grow one last week for one of the members of my collective. He's going to be picking a lot of cabbages.

But yeah, when you're young and carefree, Nearing seems like a god. Later, you realise you're never going to live on a maple farm in New England, in a house you built yourself from field stone. Still, the kernel of sense and reasonableness in his approach remains relevant.

 

Whatever your collective does to sustain the collective. Whether that's paying for and upkeeping the family home, or growing cabbages to trade for other essentials.

 

I liked his method for building stone walls. Damn, memory is ****. Googling... Slipform construction. I always thought that was very clever.

 

Oh, making money. Got it. Everyone wants to make money.

 

It was most impressive, I agree.

 

Not making money necessarily. Could be them cabbages, or repairing the roof.

 

35 years ago I had adzes and broadaxes and two-man saws. Was ready to go build me and my wife a homestead in the wilderness.

Then I realized that self-sufficiency was the pathway to poverty. Do you have any idea how long it would take me to fashion a single nail with a hammer and anvil. And I can buy 500 10d nails for like $5 at Lowes.

 

And where does one get the money to purchase the cabbage seed. (They are very difficult to seed-save). Where does one get the money to purchase the shingles.

All this stuff costs money, and a family has to make a profit in order to be able to fund these operations.

 

Sure. There's a small surplus, for essentials and care of non-participants (children, the elderly, the sick). But it's not 'profit' in the usual sense.

 

What is the usual sense?

 

There are many forms of socialism. I'm not advocating or supporting the authoritarian ones. I'm perfectly happy to alter the capitalist system in place here now, to become more responsive to the workers of America & their needs than they are at present. But I'm very concerned about the tendency of American capitalism to work for the benefit of owners & CEOs only, and intentionally forgetting to benefit the workers of America who really make success possible.

 

You see these things as European failures. I see them as part of a successfully functioning democracy. Very different points of view. By the way. . .Europe has been the source of many great inventions thru history--many of which we use. I don't know where you get your info.

 

I read your link. Interesting. Bernie may not be entirely accurate in his claims, but it's true that the vast majority of Americans haven't experienced the benefits of America's increas in wealth over the past three decades. Yes, they're making more money, but the costs have risen faster than incomes, reducing the standard of living &/or making living itself a greater challenge. That's my concern.

 

You may have posted your belief that China eliminated poverty by using capitalism 37 times, but your saying it doesn't make it true. I highly doubt China has eliminated poverty at all. I DO believe you that capitalism has created many new millionaires in China, but there, like here, the overall percentage of wealthy compared to average in China is very small.

I know you've consistently repeated your belief that social programs to help those who need it in America would only worsen the problem, but I see no evidence to back up those claims. You have a highly negative view toward liberals like me, and often express your hostility toward anything "liberal". But from my point of view, liberals follow the expressed teachings of Jesus to help the poor & needy around us. Conservatives seem to get angry whenever liberals try to use government to do the helping. Yet, conservatives under our current President are trying to use government to force their views over everyone else by passing unpopular laws & using the courts with conservative judges to rule in their favor. It's unclear to me why liberals are regarded as such "devils" for attempting to do exactly what conservatives are highly proficient at doing thru government. I've concluded conservatives don't function on values. They focus on getting their way, with no concern or compassion for anyone else. With the current trend of conservatives drifting farther & farther to the right, conservatives are becoming more & more extreme in their views, and further from the old stable center. Conservatives before the Tea Party of 2010, were open & willing to compromise with liberals to help America. That is no longer true. Conservatives today are rigid & inflexible in their views & demeaning of anyone who disagrees with them, and are completely unwilling to even consider compromise with anyone about anything. Compromise is what has made America a success story in history. Lack of it can & will do great harm to us as a nation & a people. It already is.

 

I don't dispute that capitalism is a great wealth builder & jobs creator. My concerns with capitalism is its selfishness--its inability to share the wealth it creates with anyone other than owners & CEOs. I don't advocate abandoning capitalism. I advocate altering it to be more responsive to the workers who make all successful businesses successful.

 

I have no idea what your're talking about here.

 

I believe welfare accounts for less than half of one percent of our GDP, so it's not much to complain about, unless you're simply against government ever lending a helping hand. But what about all the unnecessary handouts to farmers every year? Those have been supported by conservatives for decades.

 

Eliminating poverty in America would be a wonderful achievement, & one I'd personally support. But that's not my main concern. My concern is that capitalism in America is not responsive to the needs of the average American. While our wealthiest families have enjoyed HUGE income increases over the past three decades, average Americans have remained income stagnant. If that's what you regard as successful capitalism, good for you. I don't. And, I suspect an ever increasing number of Americans will gradually come to my point of view. Then we'll see change.

 

OK, the definition makes sense.