Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

Yes I do we know of all the successful capitalist systems versus all the failed socialist ones. You can go all the way back to the Pilgrims to see the failure of socialism/communism. What did they do to turn it around and make it a success, go free market capitalism.

 

This is a nonsense definition. Any group can purchase and collectively own and utilise property now, just as they can a business ... nothing at all is stopping them. You just want it forced on everyone ... which makes any potential for good in such an idea, utterly worthless.

It's nothing BUT 'repressive bureaucracy' if it's forced on us. More importantly, just who gets to 'control' their neigbhourhood and school? The guy who moved in yesterday, and will be gone in six months? The local heroin addicts? The ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christians?

 

Ok when we talk of "socialism" and/or "communist society" we are usually referring to Marxian principles and ideas. At least I am. Yes there were numerous other experiments with systems that were called "socialism" in the past, but we now know that a socialist system cannot be successfully applied to a town or a region of a nation. It must be national. And that is what most of us (particularly me) are talking about: a national economic system that is predominantly based on worker ownership and their collective, democratic control of the MoP for the benefit of society as a whole.

To the great disappointment of the defenders of capitalism, we learn from historical mistakes and failings.

 

And NO ONE is forced to accept or stay in those jobs. Every single one of us is free to find a way to earn more, any time we like.

Unlike under your proposed system .. where that option would be removed. If you want choice and freedom in your work and income, you need capitalism.

 

what factual backing. I want winners to be able to win and not be held back by losers. You want a government that takes from the winners and gives to the losers. How can you prove your system is better when it is a value judgement

 

It's not even that they don't have ability (they do) .. it's that they don't want to have to do what it takes.

 

Never thought I'd run into a Jello lyric in this place

 

It does not exist because it cannot exist. Once everything is taken into the collective, a strongman will emerge, and the rights of everyone else will be taken.

Would it be possible for some us to live under the system we desire and for you live under the socialist system you want. Or, do you have to control the entire world? If you require world control, you are well on the way to becoming the strongman who controls everything.

 

Exactly this. It can only work in its organic form .. small scale voluntary groups.

 

How about a hundred people finagling themselves modest wealth?

 

Very good questions, and the answers are no and yes.

 

First, I hope you're willing to give all that up .. because there's no way everyone can have that.

Secondly, you said yourself that you CREATED that life. It wasn't handed to you. The only thing "wrong" is thinking everyone should have the same just for existing.

 

How do you define "winners" and "losers"?

STOP TELLING ME WHAT I WANT! You don't learn! Your problems seems to be that you are full of yourself and your opinions and don't know anything else including good manners! If you can't back that up with facts then shut up about it!

Give some facts and evidence showing that "my system" consists of value judgements. If you can't respond to this post with facts and evidence with links to supporting data, I'll be putting you on "ignore" in order to end wasting my time with you.

 

"I have created a life for myself and my family that is more than adequate. I retired before I was 62 because I could. I own a beautiful, new, 2,600 sf home in an upscale neighborhood free and clear of mortgage. And when I shop I never need to watch my spending or deprive myself of anything. Can you honestly say that for yourself? Unfortunately most people cannot, and that is wrong."

Actually I can say that for my wife and I. We are very comfortable, but it didn't happen by accident. We give up current consumption when we were younger. I started saving $100 month from my first job out of college when I was making $9,000 a year in the early 1970s. We saved and invested and took advantage of the 401ks and other retirement plans. I worked for 21 years in the private sector and for 13 years at my own business. My wife worked for 28 years for a major insurance company. She took an education degree and became a computer expert and executive within that company. In 2000 she was responsible for heading up the Year 2000 Project for the company. She worked as much as 70 hours a week. At one point I had to go back to school to get an MBA because I could see I would need it to get where I wanted to go. I took 23 credits a semester to graduate as quickly as possible.

So, no, it didn't come easy, and It's not wrong that we have it. We contribute to charities and my wife was the president of our local Fiends of the Library Chapter.

 

Wait. You agree socialism has not existed, BUT..... --you are sure you know how it will work even though you've shown you don't really know what it would be. LOL!!!!

I'm not even going to bother answering your BS accusations.

 

Well good for you. And no, it's not wrong. Did you think I said it was wrong?

 

It certainly sounds like it.. Here is your quote.

Unfortunately most people cannot, and that is wrong."

It was a very simple question, but for you it's BS because you're too uncomfortable to answer it.

The trouble with the existing communist governments is that they have to threaten their neighbors because they can't manage the resources they have efficiently. You keep talking about the socialist ideal and then admit that it has never existed. Could be that it’s not practical or possible? You have had well over a century to put it into practice and have never succeeded.

 

Both Socialism and uncontrolled Capitalism are extremes and are bad.

The reality is that each and every person has a talent for something and having a talent for economic advances is a positive that helps everyone. As such, Capitalism does have its benefits as it stimulates economic benefits by those that have a talent and push for it. By the same token, Capitalism in the extreme (without any controls) does have a way of keeping others from reaching the top of what their talents are by preventing them from making enough money to survive and prosper.

On the other side of the coin, Socialism is good because it allows everyone to be able to reach the top of their talent abilities but that is not enough to help a nation be economically self sufficient.

As such, both put together with limits to both is the best way. There are nations that have done that, such as Sweden, Norway, Australia and a few others that have put Democratic Capitalism into play. These countries enjoy a high standard of life for all their citizens without preventing economic talent to be there for the benefit of the person as well as the benefit for the nation.

The middle road in everything is always the best. Extremes are all bad. The middle road requires everyone to give something up but also getting what is fair.

To give you a simple example of what I am saying

Money is important but it is not the only important thing in life. We all need talented teachers, politicians, poets, service people, etc.

Under the Capitalistic society that is on the extreme, the teachers, politicians, poets and service people etc,. will not be able to do their talents to their talented best if they are hungry and have to work other jobs to pay their bills. None of those jobs are ones that offer a lot of money so they cannot afford to do their talents because they first have to survive physically.

We need talent but we also need "some" limitations.

 

It's amazing to me that you could be so ......... uh . .......... that you could spin it like that! It's so hard to miss my actual meaning, yet you did, and it gave you the opportunity to conflict with me, like maybe that was what you wanted all along.

IN CONTEXT, what did I say? I said "I never need to watch my spending or deprive myself of anything. Can you honestly say that for yourself? Unfortunately most people cannot, and that is wrong."

Do I really need to explain it to you? WHAT is "wrong"? "THAT" is wrong. What does "THAT" refer to? It refers to "most people cannot...". Cannot WHAT? ....CANNOT SAY THEY DON'T NEED TO WATCH THEIR SPENDING.

Is that enough? Can you get it right from here all by yourself?

Did you really think I meant I don't need to watch my spending and that is wrong? .... I SHOULD need to watch it???

 

I continue to hold a low opinion of the intellectual capacity of the political right.

 

Why not? That idea needs a bit more detailing.

True. But it came about in those countries because of their history and condition at the time. Highly regulated capitalism is not possible in the USA because the leading capitalists have been allowed to go much too far with extreme growth and extreme wealth leading to extreme power. They will successfully stop any limitations being imposed on their privileges.

 

This is why taxing the rich at a higher rate works. In the 70's, the rich had to pay as much as 70% in taxes and the USA worked very well. Now the rich are paying max 37% and they are taking advantage of it.

 

I don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about and if you did you would know there's not a huge difference between communism and socialism they kind of operate hand in hand.

So because of this mistake you've made you can't really participate in this conversation in a meaningful way that's why you haven't been. Let's leave the discussion about that sort of thing to people who know a little more than you.

 

If people are greedy, shouldn't they have that right?

What you desire is to FORCE people to create value that doesn't benefit themselves. Where in from, that's called servitude or worse slavery.

You are free to go to work everyday, start a business, and give away all your earnings to benefit the collective if desired. You aren't free to force others to do the same.

As opposed to your fantasy land ideological perspective?

The idea that everybody takes steps in life, go to work, and at the end of the day doesn't reap the reward simply doesn't happen. It's not reality.

What you will create is very simple. A world were people do the absolute minimum voluntarily, while still being supported by the collective, until eventually force has to be applied to get them to work and that's called communism.

Socialism doesn't work because it assumes humans will work tirelessly for others, and share the benefits of their labor. That only works when everybody does it, and it's no secret people are lazy.

Until half the population stops working, working hard, getting educated, etc. Then what? It's fantasy land.

Yup. Good for them. They CREATED value, and if everybody creates value everybody is better off. If they elect to stay home and play COD all day, why should they benefit?

what's the reward for individual contribution?

Is it all about freebies with you? Starting to sound that way.

Let's get more specific.

how do YOU add value to the collective? What's your level of education? Your years work experience? Have you invested in the market, or have you invested in a business start up?

Its easy to carry the ideological perspectives you hold when you stand to gain, but haven't contributed. So I'm curious.

I adopted it, because adopted two daughters out of DCFS care and witnessed and experienced first hand how much of a failure this programs are.

Have you ever been dependent on Medicare or Medicaid?

 

How does ownership of the means of production happen without somebody to administer that ownership?

Everybody is just supposed to figure it out?

Of course government is instrumental to socialism.

Can you explain how that shared ownership would look?