What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

Okay. Good. So what happens when a few of the cooperative members decide they want to do art/music/nothing, instead of work in the factory? Or decide they're 'disabled' because they're depressed and can't drag themselves out of bed.

 

And I think I said there is no blueprint for the development of socialism, and that growth will occur as it always has. There is no instant swap of businesses from capitalist to socialist. If that's what you want then it's just too bad that you can't understand this with your economics degree.

And you want what?.... a financial statement detailing the situation and reasons for decisions made? This is how most righties end a conversation they can't win and can't refute: they start asking for ridiculous specifics, and then demanding them, and them they declare the model and the socialist poster failed. Is that were this is going? Fagor/Mondragon made a business decision and grew. What more do you need?

Not valid. We have had a century of successful nation-wide capitalist advancement in the USA. We haven't seen ANY period of nation-wide socialist success yet, anywhere. Capitalism took from the 1500s to the 1800s to figure out how to be successful as a national economic model. Give socialism the same opportunity before denouncing it as a "failed system" as some have done.

We have them. But unfortunately they aren't doing it. I agree we don't have time to wait, so how about getting on them and demanding they step up to the plate?

 

While there is more than one way to skin a cat, you have to pick one of those ways. We don't have eons to let the system evolve.

Please, spare me the lecture about "righties." Their model is somewhat inflexible and at the same time has difficulty securing capital.

You're not dealing with the problem I identified. The Mondragon model doesn't work for businesses requiring large amounts of capital. i allowed Mondragon is okay for some types of businesses.

They're doing some if the things we need them to do. We can discuss why they're not doing the rest.

They're controlling us, unfortunstely. It highlights the problem with capitalism.

 

Then the alternative is violent revolution. We've seen how that ends up.

How do you know that?

 

Why is violent revolution the only path?

 

You said "We don't have eons to let the system evolve."

What other way can you think of that it can all be changed in a hurry? Or maybe you should clarify what you mean.

 

I think we can vote for change.

 

While voting in an attempt to improve conditions and solve problems is important, more is needed. WSDEs need to be created,multiplied, and grown. If we only rely on voting, we will probably end up like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. Do they represent a model that you like?

 

There are many good ideas in thise countries.

 

That depends on whether the project has market failure characteristics, like most infrastructure projects, basic research, etc., or can be more efficiently undertaken in a free market environment.

As long as you give them the money in proportion to their kids' demonstrated academic achievement, so the parents have an accurate incentive to invest that money effectively -- which in a lot of cases might mean homeschooling.

 

The longstanding abuses and corruption of capitalism in VZ destroyed the middle class, education and healthcare.. Chavez was an effort to clean that up.

 

It bought land when, as Rothschild recommended, there was "blood in the streets." Owning land means they can be profitable even if they are not productive.

 

But it was a bigger more abusive system than the "capitalism" every dreamed of being.

 

In VZ? Yes.. There was NO middle class. The oligarchs took ALL the oil money.. Batista Cubans bought ALL the farm land only to abandon it.

You should read some history of VZ instead of assuming you know what happened.

 

I don't care about the history of Venezuela. I'm not the one using it for my argument. Venezuela is socialist and their country is a nightmare just like Nazi Germany, stalinist Russia and various other places where this Marxist crap has failed.

 

LOL!!!!! And breathing means you can make up wild speculations and call them fact.

 

It may indeed mean home study. Or it may be for an amount that would allow the parent of a special needs student to get the help they require. As a teacher, I spent a lot of effort telling parents how to pressure the school system on behalf of their children. In three decades to doing to the school district what the bureaucrats didn't want me to do--tell parents the truth about where the money is--I never had any blowback for helping. It is a great lesson in how much parents care and why they're almost always the best people to look out for their kids. Help parents help their kids and you make a friend.

 

Nazi were fascists, not socialists. Fascism failed, too.

 

Well I wouldn't say there is much difference. One requires an authoritarian dictatorship based on Marxism and the other requires an authoritarian dictatorship based on, " not Marxism."

 

There's lots more to it than that, but of course you wouldn't know.

 

How well you do probably depends on who took over and where you stood when they did. You might have been okay if you owned a business and fascists took over, but it might have a problem if the commies got in.

 

Being that I'm a libertarian minarchist, both are pretty horrible to me.

 

Yeah, well, you won't find me hanging with collectivists or fascists. While we may not always care for the results we get with a liberal democracy, it's a hell of a lot better than fascism or socialism.

 

The only place I think fascism really exists today is in the middle East.

 

There are a few bad places in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe, but you have a point about the Middle East.