Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Sackeshi, Nov 25, 2022.

?

Is Socialism and Democracy better than Capialism?

  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
    15.4%
  2. No

    33 vote(s)
    84.6%
  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No data. No facts. No argument. You have nothing, so no further comment. You're back on "ignore". Bye.
     
  2. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah well I wasn't asking the value or how to determine the value. I'm asking if I have a coin that I would have to pay $100 to buy, how can I sell it for $85 to $90?
     
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah right. (??)
     
  4. Lucky1knows

    Lucky1knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2022
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,820
    Likes Received:
    18,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need 'data' to know that Arts Grads often struggle to repay student loans?
     
  6. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    If Capitalism worked it wouldn't have needed to be saved by enacting socialist policies. FDR wasn't socialist but he damn sure put in place many socialist style things.
     
  7. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes! And at the end of his last term he also said "I saved capitalism".
     
  8. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,820
    Likes Received:
    18,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are zero 'socialist' things in America. Or anywhere else in the First World for that matter.

    Anything you might consider socialism, is almost certainly a benefit of capitalism. Only capitalism generates the kind of profits necessary to provide things like public education, decent roads, welfare, etc.
     
  9. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Social Security (how it worked before Reagan ruined it) everyone pays 15% (half by employee half by employer) and you get a monthly check equal to the salary of your top 30 years average. Doesn't work like this anymore because they used social security funds to fund other parts of government.
     
  10. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Point of clarification please. When people speak of "social security funds were used to fund other parts of government" they are usually referring to a change in the disposition of the excess funds to invest them in special Treasury securities. And of course the proceeds of the purchase of those Treasuries go into the General Fund and are used along with all General Fund assets for the "other parts of government" to which you refer.

    QUESTION: Is that what you're referring to also? And if so, how were excess payments into S.S. handled before that?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2022
  11. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,820
    Likes Received:
    18,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that have to do with my post?
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    2,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not about the rich paying taxes. It's about how they get the money in the first place. The strep throat is the government spending 3% of GDP supporting the bottom 10%. The cancer is the government legally entitling the top 1% to take 30% of GDP.
    I don't know how you got so confused, but it's not 3% of the population vs 30%. It's the richest 1% of the population being legally entitled to take 30% of GDP in rents of privilege, the poorest 10% of the population getting 3% of GDP from the government in poverty relief programs, and the other 89% of the population thinking the big problem is the 10% getting 3% of GDP rather than the 1% taking 30%.

    Clear?
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    2,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're getting warmer. As Henry George proved over 140 years ago in "Progress and Poverty," capitalism, through the institution of private landowning, legally enables landowners to enslave the landless unless government intervenes massively to rescue them. Marxism/socialism consists in blaming the factory owner for what the landowner does to the worker. But that is easily proved to be idiocy: the factory owner has NO POWER to do anything to the workers but offer them access to economic opportunity they would not otherwise have -- how does his ownership of the factory he caused to exist make them any worse off than if its owner had never existed? By contrast, the landowner's only function is to deprive the workers of access to economic opportunity they would otherwise have, which indisputably makes them worse off than if he had never existed. All your socialist nonsense, in this thread and everywhere else, is a contrivance to prevent people from knowing those clear, self-evident, and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.
     
  14. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    46,754
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't prove me objectively subjectively moralistically or any other way wrong. You just misunderstood your own topic.
     
  15. HockeyDad

    HockeyDad Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2019
    Messages:
    4,639
    Likes Received:
    6,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LoL.... that 1% CREATE THE PIE that everybody is feeding off. In the past, the poorest 10% of the population died off, removing their genes from the gene pool. Now they are the group most likely to pass on their genes. It is civilizational suicide when the dumbest and laziest are the ones most likely to have children.


    upload_2022-12-4_7-3-29.png

    China realized the power of capitalism and pulled itself out of the dark ages in a generation by enacting it. Take away the incentive for the top 1% to make wealth, and we are back to the bottom 10% starving to death again. We have the data. This is beyond debate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2022
    roorooroo likes this.
  16. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    24,927
    Likes Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Very simply, people are not going to get educated, wake up everyday, go to work and bust their ass creating value when Dylan in the next cubicle over jacks around all day and they both get the same benefit. It's really pretty simple.

    You desire a world where everybody receives equal benefits from production while ignoring that some produce more than others. That simply isn't reality.

    Socialism is essentially a bicycle with 100 seats, and so long as everybody applies the same effort, it's great for everybody to move the cycle forward. When a person decides they are going to stop peddling because they still arrive at the destination the same, the other 99 have to work a little harder to accomplish that. When 5 more people notice that they don't actually have to work, or work hard to get to the same goal, they stop peddling too. Pretty soon, 5 people are left peddling towards the destination carrying 95 people along who aren't doing anything. Why would they keep peddling?

    In capitalism, everybody is peddling their own bicycle. If they stop peddling, they no longer are moving towards their destination. This format rewards those people that continue to produce.

    Are you capable of arguing against that concept or it's applicability to socialism?
     
    roorooroo and crank like this.
  17. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Capital doesn't exist without workers thus under socialism the workers get equal shares of the business. To get fired under socialism a majority must agree vs 1 person who wants to lay you off to make more money

    People will work harder when they have an equal share in the business because the better the business does the more money they make vs capitalism where you work harder someone else gets richer.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2022
  18. Sackeshi

    Sackeshi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Capitalism- Work hard and prove yourself to your employer to show that you are deserving of a better or living wage, if you don't work hard and dedicate yourself to making your employer as rich as possible then you deserve to get paid a low or unlivable wage.

    Socialism- Work hard because everyone has an equal share of the businesses so when it does better you get more money, and if you refuse to pull your weight the majority can have you fired.
     
  19. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's true! So? That has nothing at all to do with socialism. That you think it does only reflects the poverty of your understanding of socialism.

    Why do you lie about me like that? Rather than ASK FRIGGIN QUESTIONS you chose to offend me by putting words in my mouth!

    Fantasy. See the above.

    I'm not going to spoon-feed you with efforts to reason through your nonsense.

    IT IS NOT APPLICABLE, AS I SAID ABOVE. You have a choice. 1) you can ask questions of socialist; 2) you can stop talking and worrying about socialism, knowing that your knowledge of it is really false and childish talking points; 3) you can study into it by reading actual socialist websites, and I can give you an extensive list of them.

    Now, if you continue to spout this kind of nonsense, pretending it's a real argument and refutation, I'm going to spare myself the bother by putting you on "ignore".
     
  20. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    24,927
    Likes Received:
    8,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And workers dont exist without capital, usually invested with risk by shareholders.

    Did they contribute the capital, either monetarily or by labor to get the business started and profitable? Successful businesses dont just grow out of the ground. Every business largebor small went through a period of tremendous risk for the shareholders who started it.

    The employees think they should just walk in the door with skills beneficial to the company, but with no risk or sacrifice and suddenly be part owners?

    Why would anybody start a business?

    also, do these same employees mortgage their homes when times get tough to keep the business running and get over the downturn? Are they willing to work under Salary terms and dedicate many unpaid hours?

    Or, are they just there for the paycheck, electing to ignore all the hardships that come from ownership which profits justify?

    Here we come with the platitudes. Nobody gets laid off because a company wants to make more money. That's silly. I'd the company has the work, keeping labor ON makes them more money.

    Companies lay off workers when the workers value and cost doesnt align with current market conditions... or, they are a bad employee that can be replaced with a more efficient employee.

    the idea that a company says "lets lay off some workers to make more profit" simply doesnt make sense.

    So, answer my initial questions. Do these new employees have to buy their portion of ownership of a profitable company, since they have not yet been responsible for the growth?

    Will these employees be financially responsible if the company goes into the red?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  21. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've returned after an extended absence from this forum specifically to post in this thread and try to correct fantasies and bs talking points. I have been here a week and posted several posts each day, and in spite of my efforts and constant prompting, I can't recall one poster who represents the political right attempting to provide any serious, mature, intelligent reply to any of my comments. All their replies have been talking points of false and nonsensical propaganda in the occasional instances when they bothered to reply at all.

    Conclusion: the right is afraid of the truth and much prefer to wallow in what they've offered up.

    Now the personal attacks on me will commence . . . . . . . .
     
  22. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    7,933
    Likes Received:
    7,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds to me like your mission is finished and you have no reason to stick around anymore. Unless you're a glutton for abuse. ;)
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  23. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    24,300
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't resist this...


    There are over 600 workers' co-ops in the US today and about 30,000 in the world. YES those workers contributed capital. They each bought one share of company stock to be a member. The remainder of your comments above are nonsense. Why do you spew this tripe rather than take some time to actually look into it and learn????? Is it laziness, or fear of truth, or some other bad excuse?

    You aren't familiar with the frequent RW bs questions about "ten people could vote to receive the pay of one other worker!!!!" ???

    YES!

    Just like the owners of any capitalist corporation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2022
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    2,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's just false and absurd garbage. The richest 1% mainly just own legal entitlements to steal from everyone else. Proof: the largest single asset class of the top 1% is land, and the 1% most indisputably DID NOT create it, and neither did anyone else. They are just legally entitled to charge everyone else full market value for PERMISSION to access the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at those locations.

    That fact alone proves you are objectively wrong. OBJECTIVELY.

    The richest 1% also own -- or own the corporations that own -- vast quantities of other natural resources -- oil and minerals, broadcast spectrum slots, etc. -- that they indisputably DID NOT create, but are nevertheless legally entitled to deprive everyone else of. Second largest is stocks, and their value is mostly in IP monopolies, which entitle their owners to steal from the community by legally STOPPING ANYONE ELSE from increasing the pie by competing with the monopoly. The obvious case of patented pharmaceuticals in the USA is another FACT that indisputably PROVES YOU WRONG.

    Another big one is bank loan principal, which is money that only the 1%'s banks are legally permitted to create, privileging them to charge everyone else interest on the money supply we all need to use to participate in the economy.
    Even though they were often better genes than those of the greedy, privileged, parasitic richest 1%.
    The best can't afford to have children because they are too busy paying the privileged 1% just for their PERMISSION to work, shop, access public services and infrastructure, etc. -- i.e., to live.
    GARBAGE. China doesn't have capitalism, and hasn't since 1949, because all land and natural resources are publicly owned. That's geoism, like Hong Kong has had for over 170 years, not capitalism. Russia has capitalism because Yeltsin privatized all the land and natural resources, instantly crushing its economy and turning it into a fascist oligarchy.
    They don't make it, that's ridiculous. They are merely legally entitled to steal it. That's how they got to be the richest 1%:

    "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac
    Problem is, everywhere that government does not intervene massively to prevent the privileged 1% from legally starving and enslaving the bottom 90%, that is exactly what we see happening.

    We have the data. This is beyond debate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2022
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    10,517
    Likes Received:
    2,471
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I proved you were objectively wrong. You made false claims. Your claims were objectively false, and I proved that they were false. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2022

Share This Page