Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[Timmy]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

By definition it wasn't

do you know the definition of socialism?

I do . The real definition , not the bastardize version Cons use aka “anything the gov does that helps people”.

but nothing the government does ever helps people

That’s not true .

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Once again we probably have the musings of someone looking to replace their parents.
And the only parents they can find... is the government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.

How many Americans starved to death in 1929?

 

[Timmy]

So your argument is a picture of a book you never read which is probably Rockefeller or Carnegie propaganda
. Congratulations.

I've read both it and the sources cited in its end notes.

But you feel free to move the fuck to Cuba, tovarich.

Cuba is communist.

Everyone in Cuba has what they need?

No . They would be better off if we didn’t embargo them .

 

[progressive hunter]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

By definition it wasn't

do you know the definition of socialism?

I do . The real definition , not the bastardize version Cons use aka “anything the gov does that helps people”.

but nothing the government does ever helps people

That’s not true .

yes it is,,, because they have to use a gun to do it

 

[Cellblock2429]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

/—-/ The depression lasted because of Gubmint interference. And those people were still better off than those living in Venezuela’s socialist paradise today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

What happened, is that we allowed Socialism, and Centralization of Banking.

The IRS, and the Newly Created Federal Reserve took control of our Economy and intentionally caused The Great Depression so they could confiscate The Wealth of America and destroy Private Banks, so your bullshit post, actually illustrates the danger of Socialism and the danger of a Centralized Government and Centralized Control of an economy.

Overnight we went from a Cash Hard Asset Economy to a Debt Credit Economy with the Debt being owed to The Federal Reserve and their Thugs, The IRS.

But all Socialists are Idiots, and not really all that useful, so no surprise you got this wrong.

Take Stalin's Dirty underwear out of your mouth.

BTW, the reason JFK was assassinated was because he wanted to give control of our money supply back to a Constitutional Entity called The Treasury, and remove it from an Unconstitutional Organization called The Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve Notes are Private Bank Notes and Instruments of Debt. Every time you use one, you are taking out a loan from The Federal Reserve payable in Future Tax Dollars. The Federal Reserve charges The American People Interest for using their Bank Notes.

We should abolish The Federal Reserve.

Only Treasury Notes, Gold, and Silver are Constitutional Currency.

The Federal Reserve charges The American People Interest for using their Bank Notes.


I've been using them for decades and decades, still waiting for that interest charge...….

 

[Timmy]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

By definition it wasn't

do you know the definition of socialism?

I do . The real definition , not the bastardize version Cons use aka “anything the gov does that helps people”.

but nothing the government does ever helps people

That’s not true .

yes it is,,, because they have to use a gun to do it

Really ?

We are talking over the internet . Which was created and promoted by the government. Was that done wh a gun ?

 

[progressive hunter]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.

How many Americans starved to death in 1929?

from what I hear it was zero,,,


and the only reason it became the great depression was due to socialist programs implemented to stop it which ended up making it worse,,,a good example was the depression of 1920 where they choose a capitalist solution

 

[Timmy]

The early 1900s shows us that unregulated capitalism will destroy itself .

 

[The Irish Ram]

At it's worst, this country was strong enough to turn around and liberate the world, so...
Ask yourself what the world has gained from this capitalist country since it's inception. Life changing gains like light, skyscrapers, assembly lines, automobiles and all the rest.
Capitalism allows ideas to thrive. Socialism stifles achievement.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The early 1900s shows us that unregulated capitalism will destroy itself .

You do know that is really obtuse?

 

[basquebromance]

the war on drugs failed. Trump's war on socialism will also fail, my friends!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

At it's worst, this country was strong enough to turn around and liberate the world, so...
Ask yourself what the world has gained from this capitalist country since it's inception. Life changing gains like light, skyscrapers, assembly lines, automobiles and all the rest.
Capitalism allows ideas to thrive. Socialism stifles achievement.

Indeed.

 

[Timmy]

At it's worst, this country was strong enough to turn around and liberate the world, so...
Ask yourself what the world has gained from this capitalist country since it's inception. Life changing gains like light, skyscrapers, assembly lines, automobiles and all the rest.
Capitalism allows ideas to thrive. Socialism stifles achievement.

You mean regulated capitalism.

 

[miketx]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

By definition it wasn't

do you know the definition of socialism?

I do . The real definition , not the bastardize version Cons use aka “anything the gov does that helps people”.

but nothing the government does ever helps people

That’s not true .

Nothing you say is true. You are an America hating loser. So we had a depression, we came out of it. You monsters want to keep us there!

 

[JGalt]

 

[The Irish Ram]

the war on drugs failed. Trump's war on socialism will also fail, my friends!

You are correct. Deep State will murder him before they let him derail their socialist/UN plan for our country...

 

[bripat9643]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

You mean how was it doing shortly after the federal government started manipulating our currency?

 

[fncceo]

Socialism had bread-lines from 1917 until 1991...

Then Socialism finally failed and they got a different kind of bread-line.