Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

Easy: the state treats churches impartially, like any other organization. More to the point, how can that wall exist if the state is subsidizing churches by exempting them from paying for its services?

What happens when other corporations can? More to the point, what makes you think churches aren't exploiting their tax-free status to be politically active now?

 

Duress. You could look it up.

 

Figure of speech. No one is forced by law to accept jobs.

 

Duress from where and who? Police? The military? Satan?

 

Bullshit. There is a price for living in society, AS PART of that society. In order to buy, it is necessary to first sell. It is necessary to sell your labor for money so you can buy things you need. So your standard right wing bullshit about "no one is forced to accept jobs" is childishly silly and self-demeaning.

 

If people can't make ends meet on a minimum wage, then they have patently chosen a lifestyle which doesn't match their income. That is a freely made choice. The next guy, earning the same money, will make it not only pay for his participation in society, but actually advance him financially. It's never about what you earn, it's about what you spend. That's where choice comes in.

PS: nice work on calling me 'right wing', given I'm the token commie in this joint. well done.

 

So you propose eliminating all non profits? I’m not sure what your end game is.

What happens? Corporations get legislation and politicians that favor the highest bidder.

I suppose some are. I expect many non church non profits are. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just pointing out if you don’t like religious influences on politics and legislation now you really wouldn’t like the influence if tax free status was changed. A theocracy would become a real possibility.

 

Nor does Pakman, nor I, or democrats.

 

Did you read the first paragraph to which you responded?
To wit:

 

Please dispense with the third world strawman argument, no one is talking about that. Now then....

Establishing a livable wage can easily be achieved via studies, a commission dedicated to the task, and set a reasonable threshold, for example, it should be enough for basic necessities plus, i.e, rent for a single apartment, food, clothing, bills, say 10% for savings, maybe 10% for disposable income.


If America has set a threshold for poverty, and it has, it can just as easily set a threshold for a livable wage. It doesn't have to be perfect, just reasonable, this is not rocket science.

Your other points are irrelevant to the fact that we can establish a livable wage. It would be pay sufficient where an employee wouldn't need foodstamps to make enough to buy food, as was the case with lower rung employees of Walmart and Amazon
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/re...rs-on-list-of-top-food-stamp-users/830854650/

The cost to society is more than had Walmart and Amazon paid the employees enough so they wouldn't have to go on foodstamps, because now we have to have an agency to dispense the stamps. That cost is actually a kind of welfare for the corporations, as those foodstamp funds should be part of employee pay, so the foodstamps are relieving the corporation of that burden.

See, the right is against social programs for poor but they don't mind socialism for the rich.

Republicans have got it bass ackwards.

 

No one on the left is recommending Soviet Style authoritarianism socialism, which was one of the points in videos, especially the second video.

 

Would it change your mind?

I swear, i can present multiple paths of logic, evidence, links, authoritative sources, the works, and it won't move any needles on the right.

Why bother.

 

1) So you DO think you're entitled to a First World life, just because?

2) A minimum wage is enough for all of that, if the recipient doesn't attempt to live a lifestyle they can't afford. Remember what 'basic necessities' actually are. They are NOT iphones, fast food, beer, convenience foods, meat, new clothes, hair stylists, fake nails, big city rents, restaurants, car finance, etc etc.

3) I know people (quite a few, actually) who earn 'W@lmart' level salaries, and own their home outright. Paid off their mortgages, secured their kids' futures, and now live debt free. It's demonstrably false to claim people can't even afford food on such incomes. It's all about how you choose to spend your income. Obviously, if you waste money on all those things mentioned above, you are absolutely not trying to escape poverty, or get ahead. If you're also trying to live in some overpriced big coastal city, then you really really don't want to escape poverty.

4) Can't help you with Republicans. I'm not American, and I sure as heck don't vote Right.

 

Watch his second video, why he explains he's not a socialist.

Republicans call me 'socialist' all the time because I support government sponsored programs.

You don't have to shout at me what socialism is, direct your communication to republicans, because they don't know what it is, and the reason i know they don't know what it is, because they call me, Obama, democrats, in general, socialists. What is their evidence of this? We support social programs and universal health care.

If AOC were smart she'd call herself a 'social capitalist' as Warren does. Republicans have been shouting "socialism" at dems since FDR.

GO SHOUT AT REPUBLICANS.

By the way, most republicans haven't read a stitch of Marx.

Another thing, as any dictionary will acknowledge, popular usage determines the meaning of words, and 'socialism' has both a 'classic definition' and a modern definition, which basically IS government sponsorship of enterprizes.
That is how the right have been using the term since FDR, so that is the modern meaning of it, whether you like it or not.

That is why I say

Capitalism for wants
Socialism for needs

But only as a guiding principle, there are shades of grey.

And the wiki entry on socialism is 73 pages long, yours is one sentence.
And that doesn't include the entry on democratic socialism. It's not as simple
as you pretend it is.

 

Stop Hate Speech for Profit

New forces involved in economics folks.. Al Gores Internet Highway has changed things dramatically. Facebook, Amazon, yadda yadda must maintain good standing in a global public setting. Or advertisers will boycott

I am not Bolsheviking you.. The 42% Making less than 15$ an hr already have ammassed across America for George Floyd.. The poor will get too poor and something will have to give.

 

I didn't say you knew you were. I said you were referring to a simplistic viewpoint reliant on perfect competition. That's the amusing aspect of the right wing and their pretense that economics supports their position. You realise that they haven't even understood the basics.

To argue that supply and demand ensures wages reflect productivity criteria, you have to assume that wages are determined at market level. Thats only delivered by perfect competition. Any labour elasticity at firm level guarantees monopsonistic power and therefore underpayment.

You haven't seen much have you? If a labour contract was based purely on exchange, which requires perfect competition, you would have a point. It isnt. Any market power will generate rent. Rent can only be maintained with coercion (e.g. you are forced to accept a wage below your worth because of unemployment benefit rules and need to feed the family). The orthodox economist used to think monopsony power was an exception, as illustrated by the phenomenon of the company town. We now know its the norm. Countries with fewer labour rights have greater low wage labour. More profit is engineered through rent seeking theft.

 

I've checked OED and under words it doesn't say "dependent on uneducated ramblings of Americans".

Government intervention is part of the economic spectrum, from laissez faire to command. Naff all to do with socialist political economy. Sounds like you're both moaning at being called a socialist and trying to justify it. Heck, FDR didnt even embrace Keynesianism until forced on him by world war. Such conservatism is historical fact and pidgeonisation of English won't change that.

 

That has been how republicans have been using the term, so take it up with them. And they been using that term for 70 years. 64% surveyed republicans say dems are socialist ( all dems )
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/25/are-democrats-socialists-poll

And Trump is calling democrats ( all democrats ) Socialist
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-slur-puts-democratic-contenders-on-defensive


When a democrat points to successful social program, like the fact that, in the 50 or so western developed nations that have some variant of universal health care, their per capita costs are roughly half of what they are in the United States, we dems point to that fact, THEN repubs jump and say "that's not socialism'

THAT's what I'm complaining about......so

They need to make up their minds.

But, until you can get the millions of republicans to quit calling democrats ( all democrats, not just AOC/Bernie, etc ) 'socialist' I'll accept your definition.
and don't tell me that they don't, I get it every day of the week just about (see above poll)

So, that IS how they are using it. Until you can get that 64% down to about 2%, I'll accept the the classic definition, but, by mass usage for years, there is now a modern definition given the popular usage, which is government sponsored enterprises and programs.

 

Yep, right wingers haven't quite escape the knuckle dragging of McCarthyism.

Don't both need to make up their minds. Dems and Republicans play consensus politics. They then use vocab to pretend difference. For example, Dems will wrongly use terms like progressive or social democrat. They aren't left wing enough to deserve such vocab.

Of course Trump's fascism has provided something real for them to fight over for a change!

Right wingers don't understand supply and demand. They don't get to reinvent what it means mind you. You put them right. You put them right again. And again. That's charity for you.

As a socialist, I'll accept the correct definition. Right wing thoughtlessness provides no justification for word reinvention. Government is the key economic agent in capitalism. Without government it dies. To then say that government intervention is socialist makes no sense. Capitalism and socialism are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

 

I support most of the ideals supported by progressive democrats, livable wages for low skilled workers, fair and healthy worker conditions, leave with pay every year, and for women with newborn children, universal health care, and publicly funded education for real world in demand vocations (which we do have in California under "ROP" such as radiology, computer technicians, nursing and health fields, automechanics, The operative word, is 'real world demand' for example, I would not support free education for a fine arts film major, as there are very few jobs for directors ( which is the objective of most film majors ). I used to drive a cab, a long time ago, I picked up a fellow from college, and asked him what his 'major' was, he said he already had a masters in film/fine arts, and I asked him why he was on campus, and he told me he worked there, and I asked him, was he a teacher/professor? No, he said, he worked in the cafeteria. My point is, if someone wants to risk entering a field with few job prospects, we shouldn't ask the taxpayers to pay for that kind of education, it's not fair to the taxpayer.

So, how am I 'not a leftist' as you put it?

Well, I know you are clinging to the classic definition, but the meanings of words are expanded as their common usage evolves, over time, and that's just a fact of life. Life is as it is, not as you wish it to be. The meaning of 'socialism' has been expanded such that it requires a 73 page entry in wikipedia, and another 76 pages for 'democratic socialism' which is about 150 pages just to explain the breadth and depth of Socialism and the many shades of grey that accompany the meaning. Now, you can reject wikipedia, but it wouldn't be that much different, in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, not to mention a number of entire books devoted to the subject, written in the annals of history. In short, your definition is only part of the story, and a rather small one, at that.

That being said, assuming your definition, that socialism must include worker owned enterprises.........

If you are a socialist, and you support worker ownership of businesses, I, as a progressive democrat, sympathize with your point of view, but there are real world problems with your point of view, (and my point of view arises from my having owned businesses in the past ) and it goes something like this:

Say I have an innovative idea for a better widget, a revolutionary design that I, and my funding partner, sincerely believe is a winning idea, and I, because of my connections and credit rating I've built up over the years, having an established record of running successful businesses, manage to acquire funding with a partner who, for 25% of the net, will fund my business. (Now, I would never go into a venture capital agreement without a sunset escape clause, say, after five years, I'm allowed to buy out my partner at a predetermined price, say, 5x his net based on projected averages ).

By what avenue of fairness should workers 'own' a business that would not exist but for my innovative idea, about which I am risking venture capital?

Explain that one to me? Now, if "I" and my "partner" wanted to, we could set up a private corporation and allow employees to buy shares, or 'award' shares to employees who have worked for me a long time in the past whom I believe have 'earned' it, but that's up to me, as the risk taker, innovator but I would have no incentive to sell more than 49% of the business, and my reasoning is as follows: Successful businesses must be able to adapt and respond to fast moving markets, where adjustments to products, production methods, are done on the fly, and if a company were run by 'employees' which is, essentially running a company via committees, in my view, that would not work as well. Organizations run by committees work better in the 'nonprofit' sector, the charities, organizations dedicated to some altruistic purpose, but in the fast moving world of markets, I don't see it as a successful business model.

I, as owner, do not make money unless the company is profitable, so I am being supported by the investment capital until the company is profitable, at which point My earnings are only taken from the profits, and, as such, my earnings are not guaranteed, ever, as the investor risk taker. If 'employees' want to 'own' part of the business, are they willing to work in that same arrangement, where they are only paid out of profits and a corresponding share according to their level of investment? How do we pay them, by what measure of fairness?

In my view, someone has to be in charge. yes, in my situation, which, more or less, is the status quo, the fate of worker's pay is in my hands, but, if I've been successful in the past, the market place will reward me for my risk taking and innovation, and workers will believe in what I'm doing, and will follow me. I, as a fair manager, allow worker feedback, but, I, as owner, reserve the right to accept or reject suggestions. In my view, this idea of a 'worker paradise' as suggested by Richard Wolff and Noam Chomsky is not viable business model in the marketplace which is driven by innovation. Now, where the progressive side of me kicks in is in worker compensation, as I believe in, for lower skilled workers ( work that does not require an education beyond high school ) I believe in on the job training, and a livable wage ( enough that a worker does not have go on foodstamps and public assistance to make ends meet ). and Im' against the exporting of jobs to china, mexico, etc., I am against exploitation.

What is your 'socialist' response? (and mention whether or not you have owned a business that had more then 2 employees ).

 

Government, obviously, as you know perfectly well. That's what makes it legal. Government forcibly strips you of your rights to liberty and gives them to rich, greedy, privileged parasites as their private property. So having been forcibly stripped of your options and thus your bargaining power, you have to sell your services to an employer on disadvantageous terms or end up homeless and starving. But even before you can work under the disadvantageous terms you have "voluntarily agreed to," you first have to pay the privileged full market value just for permission to work. Then filthy, evil liars will say, "It's a free country. Go and earn your living in the free market on the terms you voluntarily agreed to."

 

Eliminate their tax-free status, which is an open invitation to manipulation, deceit, and cheating. Whatever should be taxed should be taxed the same no matter who does it. If we want to encourage certain kinds of activities, it should be by direct support, not tax breaks, which always end up being exploited by people who aren't doing the activities we want to encourage.

Nonsense. It was theocracy -- the secular power of the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages -- that originally gave the churches their tax-free status.

 

Unfortunately, dictionaries typically list at least two senses of socialism: 1. collective or community ownership of the means of production (i.e., natural resources and producer goods, which classical economics called "land and capital"); and 2. a political philosophy that considers societal interests a higher priority than individual rights. Some dictionaries list a third sense: the hypothetical stage of Marxist historical development that begins with violent seizure of the means of production from capitalists by the proletariat and then evolves into communism as the state withers away. A less commonly listed fourth sense is workers' ownership and control of their own workplaces as cooperatives, like the Mondragon cooperative in Spain and the Israeli kibbutzim.

But not exhaustive. If we take capitalism to be private ownership of land and capital and socialism to be collective ownership of land and capital, then capitalism would require more than half of both land and capital to be privately owned, socialism would require more than half of both to be collectively owned, and any economy that had a split in ownership -- such as Hong Kong, where land is all publicly owned but most capital is privately owned -- would be neither socialist nor capitalist.

 

Of course. You can "voluntarily choose" to either pay a landowner full market value just for permission to work, shop, and exist, or be homeless and starving:

'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.' -- Anatole France

 

I didn't say you knew you were. I said you were referring to a simplistic viewpoint reliant on perfect competition. That's the amusing aspect of the right wing and their pretense that economics supports their position. You realise that they haven't even understood the basics.

Jeez! How tedious can you make a conversation? Why not just go by what I say; rather than some reinterpretation, twice removed?

"To argue that supply and demand ensures wages reflect productivity criteria..."

So? Why tell me?
Perhaps you reinterpreted something that I wrote? You sure won't find the quote.

"...you have to assume that wages are determined at market level."

What's your point? Wages are, in fact, determined by the market.

"Thats only delivered by perfect competition."

You still haven't shown a perfect system of valuing labor.

"Any labour elasticity at firm level guarantees monopsonistic power and therefore underpayment."

Umm... No. There is, after all, no such place. Workers are free to decline any job offer. In the USA, they have options. They can start their own business. They can improve their skillset. They can move to another location. Your hypothetical 'monopsony' would be, by market pressures, forced to increase compensation.

"You haven't seen much have you?"

Dodge, by way of personal insult. Can you compose a post without exhibiting poor behavior?

"If a labour contract was based purely on exchange, which requires perfect competition, you would have a point. It isnt."

More tedium.

Why is it that you demand absolure purity and perfection, from one system, yet totally refuse to acknowledge that no system can meet such a standard?

"Any market power will generate rent. Rent can only be maintained with coercion (e.g. you are forced to accept a wage below your worth because of unemployment benefit rules and need to feed the family). The orthodox economist used to think monopsony power was an exception, as illustrated by the phenomenon of the company town. We now know its the norm. Countries with fewer labour rights have greater low wage labour. More profit is engineered through rent seeking theft."

No system could ever eliminate the desire to gain something for nothing.