Zone1 Predatory Capitalism

[Hang on Sloopy]

lol.............reading through this.......those that know the most about business never ran one and only have a pot to pee in to show for it....lol

sorry just being truthful. just like those who know the most about finance have a 500 credit scores

 

[TruthNotBS]

If we do that progress will cease

Socialists live off the effort of innovators that came before them

They are not creators so much as distributors of wealth that others have created

If you look at all the great companies in America producing wealth they were created by capitalists

So go ahead snd start your coop

I dont mind

Sell your stuff at the the local farmers market or street fairs

But dont mooch off your fellow citizens in the process

If we do that progress will cease Socialists live off the effort of innovators that came before them

All "innovators" or inventors, stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. The capitalist industrialists used technology that relied heavily on mining technology to extract metals from mines, metallurgy, foundries that melt and process the metals, metalworking technology, the engineering technology that had been developed in earlier centuries, and the mathematics that allowed the engineers to build the steam engines and machinery, etc.

Moreover, much of the advanced technology that we use today wasn't invented or developed by capitalists or through the "free market", but by the government:

​

Not to speak of the fact that without socialism, there would be no capitalism, because on average every seven to twelve years there's an economic recession requiring the government to intervene and prevent the economy from collapsing and plunging the nation into ruin. Socialism (public funds) is constantly saving capitalism, allowing it to survive and "innovate".

​

They are not creators so much as distributors of wealth that others have created

As shown earlier, that statement couldn't be further from the truth. More, the workers build and produce everything, it's the capitalists who draw their incomes and wealth from the labor of workers. Your capitalist gods are parasitical bums.

If you look at all the great companies in America producing wealth they were created by capitalists....

The big corporations get plenty of help from the government or what right-wing Republitards call "socialism":

RANK	PARENT	SUBSIDY VALUE.	NUMBER OF AWARDS
1	Boeing	$15,136,286,466	946
2	Intel	$8,371,896,017	133
3	Ford Motor	$7,761,916,195	815
4	General Motors	$7,594,509,872	990
5	Micron Technology	$6,785,681,915	18
6	Alcoa	$5,798,600,778	160
7	X-Energy LLC	$5,661,511,202	17
8	General Atomics	$5,465,529,295	438
9	Cheniere Energy	$5,431,565,870	41
10	Amazon.com	$5,051,773,349	332
11	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,827,036,483	76
12	Sempra Energy	$3,835,098,001	53
13	Southern Company	$3,783,360,569	130
14	NRG Energy	$3,586,516,301	268
15	Venture Global LNG	$3,285,883,566	6
16	NextEra Energy	$3,003,823,754	117
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,836,366,619	116
18	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
19	Stellantis	$2,800,442,867	230
20	Volkswagen	$2,740,983,143	222
21	General Electric	$2,529,193,561	1,668
22	Nucor	$2,514,358,340	158
23	Walt Disney	$2,421,304,588	248
24	Brookfield Asset Management	$2,339,430,278	304
25	Iberdrola	$2,285,768,043	112
26	Summit Power	$2,240,568,236	8
27	Shell PLC	$2,184,517,527	141
28	Oracle	$2,167,890,528	88
29	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
30	Nike	$2,104,917,829	138
31	Hyundai Motor	$2,072,957,848	27
32	SCS Energy	$1,927,236,683	10
33	Archer Daniels Midland	$1,920,305,787	1,099
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,891,153,489	207
35	NuScale Power	$1,880,780,589	34
36	Toyota	$1,864,826,689	198
37	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,859,775,471	1,158
38	Nissan	$1,842,314,165	86
39	Alphabet Inc.	$1,832,565,977	116
40	Paramount Global	$1,751,801,882	317
41	Apple Inc.	$1,750,043,420	36
42	Comcast	$1,722,467,426	376
43	JPMorgan Chase	$1,663,890,873	1,129
44	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,654,401,303	137
45	Energy Transfer	$1,634,074,422	106
46	Samsung	$1,586,310,806	70
47	PG&E Corp.	$1,568,027,901	27
48	IBM Corp.	$1,562,738,626	387
49	SkyWest	$1,550,492,958	683
50	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$1,532,854,012	3
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	Panasonic	$1,385,969,341	61
53	Raytheon Technologies	$1,322,899,721	952
54	Duke Energy	$1,318,084,164	69
55	Lockheed Martin	$1,302,847,415	337
56	Corning Inc.	$1,272,628,059	395
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,266,804,354	266
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,243,857,336	32
61	Microsoft	$1,153,690,869	103
62	Jefferies Financial Group	$1,120,662,497	18
63	Meta Platforms Inc.	$1,105,098,844	53
64	Dow Inc.	$1,091,152,544	686
65	Abengoa	$1,082,660,583	63
66	LG	$1,055,690,737	103
67	Valero Energy	$1,054,520,860	199
68	Exelon	$1,040,601,369	98
69	AES Corp.	$1,010,194,632	132
70	CF Industries	$982,271,715	129
71	Pyramid Companies	$966,050,097	91
72	EDF-Electricite de France	$940,247,983	65
73	Texas Instruments	$940,071,436	60
74	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
75	Air Products & Chemicals	$897,651,105	248
76	Delta Air Lines	$876,412,623	14
77	Centene	$875,064,432	54
78	Bayer	$849,175,809	202
79	Honda	$846,026,154	91
80	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	83
81	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$826,062,285	104
82	SunEdison	$812,753,318	119
83	Apollo Global Management	$804,565,970	471
84	Goldman Sachs	$801,573,386	255
85	E.ON	$782,609,880	38
86	Wolfspeed Inc.	$773,681,732	88
87	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
88	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
89	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$725,632,525	206
90	Gotion	$715,000,000	1
91	American Electric Power	$699,673,821	92
92	Bank of America	$698,760,073	919
93	Johnson Controls	$691,180,720	144
94	Related Companies	$687,200,000	1
95	Caithness Energy	$670,379,738	28
96	Hyannis Air Service Inc.	$667,928,778	296
97	Koch Industries	$662,557,530	486
98	Sagamore Development	$660,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy

​

Thousands of Walmart employees like this young lady work full-time, even as much as 60 hours weekly, and still have to rely on food stamps and government cash assistance, to make ends meet. Walmart generates billions of dollars yearly in profits and yet refuses to pay its employees enough to meet their basic needs. That's one of the ways that your beloved capitalist "wealth creators" amass their wealth. They do it on the backs of their workers. You of course don't care, because you're a braindead drone.

So go ahead snd start your coop I dont mind Sell your stuff at the the local farmers market or street fairs But dont mooch off your fellow citizens in the process...

If the government is willing to help workers, free themselves from the tyranny of the capitalist workplace, and form their own labor cooperatives, where people can work in a democratic, worker-owned enterprise, then so be it, more power to the workers. Your beloved capitalist parasites have been "mooching" off of their workers and the government for decades. Now it's time for workers to free themselves from their capitalist masters and establish worker-owned co-ops.

 

[Mac-7]

Not to speak of the fact that without socialism, there would be no capitalism, because on average every seven to twelve years there's an economic recession requiring the government to intervene and prevent the economy from collapsing

The economy does not depend on government intervention to operate

Since the beginning of human existence and long before the invention of government overseers we had a functioning economy

Government is often the cause of economic chaos

The recent covid 19 shutdown by government is the most recent example

 

[TruthNotBS]

The economy does not depend on government intervention to operate

Since the beginning of human existence and long before the invention of government overseers we had a functioning economy

Government is often the cause of economic chaos

The recent covid 19 shutdown by government is the most recent example

Notice how Mac-7 is ignoring most of the points I made in my last post. He apparently doesn't care about facts or what the truth is.

The economy does not depend on government intervention to operate...

At a national scale, without the government, there's no medium of exchange:

​

Without government there are no legislative bodies to create laws and regulations (we don't allow child labor or slavery, or toxic waste to be dumped in a public park), there's no law enforcement to enforce our laws or military to protect our national territory, courts of law that resolve disputes, no zoning laws or building codes, no highways and bridges, no transit laws, no electric grids, water sanitation, city sewers, and the list just goes on and on and on and on. Without the US government, our country wouldn't have had the technology to industrialize:

The Spies Who Launched America’s Industrial Revolution | HISTORY

From water-powered textile mills, to mechanical looms, much of the machinery that powered America's early industrial success was "borrowed" from Europe.

www.history.com

​

Without the US government protecting American manufacturers in its early years, even into the 20th century, we wouldn't have become an industrialized, modern superpower. Read about Hamilton's "American Plan" or "American System":

" The third major area of Hamilton's economic plan aimed to make American manufacturers self-sufficient. The American economy had traditionally rested upon large-scale AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS to pay for the import of British MANUFACTURED GOODS. Hamilton rightly thought that this dependence on expensive foreign goods kept the American economy at a limited level, especially when compared to the rapid growth of early industrialization in Great Britain.

Rather than accept this condition, Hamilton wanted the United States to adopt a MERCANTILIST economic policy. This would protect American manufacturers through direct government SUBSIDIES (handouts to business) and TARIFFS (taxes on imported goods). This PROTECTIONIST policy would help fledgling American producers to compete with inexpensive European imports."

Source:

Hamilton's Financial Plan [ushistory.org]

​

Capitalism often suffers from boom and bust cycles ("business cycles"), requiring government intervention, to avoid the complete collapse of the economy:

​

Privatizing profits and socializing losses refers to the practice of treating firms'earnings as the rightful property of their shareholders, while treating losses as a responsibility that society as a whole must shoulder, for example through taxpayer-funded subsidies or bailouts.

RANK	PARENT	SUBSIDY VALUE.	NUMBER OF AWARDS
1	Boeing	$15,136,286,466	946
2	Intel	$8,371,896,017	133
3	Ford Motor	$7,761,916,195	815
4	General Motors	$7,594,509,872	990
5	Micron Technology	$6,785,681,915	18
6	Alcoa	$5,798,600,778	160
7	X-Energy LLC	$5,661,511,202	17
8	General Atomics	$5,465,529,295	438
9	Cheniere Energy	$5,431,565,870	41
10	Amazon.com	$5,051,773,349	332
11	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,827,036,483	76
12	Sempra Energy	$3,835,098,001	53
13	Southern Company	$3,783,360,569	130
14	NRG Energy	$3,586,516,301	268
15	Venture Global LNG	$3,285,883,566	6
16	NextEra Energy	$3,003,823,754	117
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,836,366,619	116
18	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
19	Stellantis	$2,800,442,867	230
20	Volkswagen	$2,740,983,143	222
21	General Electric	$2,529,193,561	1,668
22	Nucor	$2,514,358,340	158
23	Walt Disney	$2,421,304,588	248
24	Brookfield Asset Management	$2,339,430,278	304
25	Iberdrola	$2,285,768,043	112
26	Summit Power	$2,240,568,236	8
27	Shell PLC	$2,184,517,527	141
28	Oracle	$2,167,890,528	88
29	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
30	Nike	$2,104,917,829	138
31	Hyundai Motor	$2,072,957,848	27
32	SCS Energy	$1,927,236,683	10
33	Archer Daniels Midland	$1,920,305,787	1,099
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,891,153,489	207
35	NuScale Power	$1,880,780,589	34
36	Toyota	$1,864,826,689	198
37	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,859,775,471	1,158
38	Nissan	$1,842,314,165	86
39	Alphabet Inc.	$1,832,565,977	116
40	Paramount Global	$1,751,801,882	317
41	Apple Inc.	$1,750,043,420	36
42	Comcast	$1,722,467,426	376
43	JPMorgan Chase	$1,663,890,873	1,129
44	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,654,401,303	137
45	Energy Transfer	$1,634,074,422	106
46	Samsung	$1,586,310,806	70
47	PG&E Corp.	$1,568,027,901	27
48	IBM Corp.	$1,562,738,626	387
49	SkyWest	$1,550,492,958	683
50	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$1,532,854,012	3
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	Panasonic	$1,385,969,341	61
53	Raytheon Technologies	$1,322,899,721	952
54	Duke Energy	$1,318,084,164	69
55	Lockheed Martin	$1,302,847,415	337
56	Corning Inc.	$1,272,628,059	395
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,266,804,354	266
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,243,857,336	32
61	Microsoft	$1,153,690,869	103
62	Jefferies Financial Group	$1,120,662,497	18
63	Meta Platforms Inc.	$1,105,098,844	53
64	Dow Inc.	$1,091,152,544	686
65	Abengoa	$1,082,660,583	63
66	LG	$1,055,690,737	103
67	Valero Energy	$1,054,520,860	199
68	Exelon	$1,040,601,369	98
69	AES Corp.	$1,010,194,632	132
70	CF Industries	$982,271,715	129
71	Pyramid Companies	$966,050,097	91
72	EDF-Electricite de France	$940,247,983	65
73	Texas Instruments	$940,071,436	60
74	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
75	Air Products & Chemicals	$897,651,105	248
76	Delta Air Lines	$876,412,623	14
77	Centene	$875,064,432	54
78	Bayer	$849,175,809	202
79	Honda	$846,026,154	91
80	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	83
81	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$826,062,285	104
82	SunEdison	$812,753,318	119
83	Apollo Global Management	$804,565,970	471
84	Goldman Sachs	$801,573,386	255
85	E.ON	$782,609,880	38
86	Wolfspeed Inc.	$773,681,732	88
87	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
88	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
89	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$725,632,525	206
90	Gotion	$715,000,000	1
91	American Electric Power	$699,673,821	92
92	Bank of America	$698,760,073	919
93	Johnson Controls	$691,180,720	144
94	Related Companies	$687,200,000	1
95	Caithness Energy	$670,379,738	28
96	Hyannis Air Service Inc.	$667,928,778	296
97	Koch Industries	$662,557,530	486
98	Sagamore Development	$660,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy

​

Mac's level of asininity is so high, that if it wasn't for the fact that there are other people reading posts on this thread, I would just ignore him. He's that dumb. I invest my time and energy doing this for the sake of those who are actually sincerely interested in knowing the truth (genuine truth seekers).

Since the beginning of human existence and long before the invention of government overseers, we had a functioning economy.

We always had tribal authorities and rules, hence what can be identified as a primitive government. Both in the Paleolithic and Neolithic ages, before the advent of agriculture, when we were hunter-gatherers, we organized society and production in the same way as hunter-gatherers do today throughout the world:

Primitive Communism/Tribal Communism
​

Under primitive communism, the means of production, such as basic tools and the land from which food and resources were extracted, were communally owned. The labor force comprised all individuals capable of participating in the extraction and procurement of resources. It was a system not of private property, but of shared resources and common ownership. That doesn't imply that no one owned personal property (their personal clothing, spear, hut..etc), but rather that property isn't used to generate a profit. Production then wasn't for the purpose of selling goods and services in a marketplace, as it is today under capitalism, but rather simply for the consumption and use of the products produced.

Each person's work was not aimed at generating surplus or profit, but rather at producing goods of use-value that were often immediately consumed or used. Personal property was minimal and largely limited to personal items such as clothing, which did not contribute to the overall economic production of the tribe.

This communal way of life was not merely a philosophical choice, but a practical necessity for survival. With no division of labor, the work of hunting, gathering, and later simple farming, required collective efforts. This natural collaboration encouraged a communal way of living, where the goods produced by the group were shared equally among its members.

Even the most durable goods, those that did survive for any length of time, like simple tools or shelters, were more often than not, collectively owned and used by all of the members of the tribe.

Hunter-gatherer societies stand as early examples of communal living, demonstrating that primitive-tribal communism, was the original state of human society. We have proof of this archeologically and also in how hunter-gatherer tribes live and organize their labor today (we have living examples of such neolithic, hunter-gatherer societies today).

Sources:

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers

Hunting and gathering is humanity's first and most successful adaptation. Until 12,000 years ago, all humanity lived this way. Surprisingly, in an increasingly urbanized and technological world dozens of hunting and gathering societies have persisted and thrive worldwide, resilient in the face...

www.google.com

Government is often the cause of economic chaos...

It's often the case that economic interests cause wars and chaos. The big-money capitalist's insatiable pursuit of profits is often at the expense of people's health and lives.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Military Industrial Complex $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

War Is A Racket : Major General Smedley Butler : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Famous booklet by the ex high ranking Marine

archive.org

​

They'll keep us addicted to fossil fuels and their dirty electric coal plants forever, rather than allowing us to generate our electricity with modern, safe and clean nuclear plants. It's nuclear energy that will allow us to switch from petrol-burning vehicles to electric.

The recent covid 19 shutdown by government is the most recent example...

The only problem with the shutdowns was that the US government under the pressure of capitalists, didn't provide the American populace with a monthly stipend, as other modern, industrialized nations did, thereby making the shutdowns much more austere, and damaging to our economy. If we would've followed the advice of people like Mac-7, tens of millions of Americans would've died, due to mass infection and the inability of hospitals to treat those with serious infections. The mortality rate would've increased beyond Italy's which was a whopping 10%. We literally, would've suffered a covid-19 holocaust of tens of millions of Americans dying from the disease, if we would've followed the advice of people like Mac and the GOP.

The chaos and suffering are mostly caused by improperly regulated capitalism, as we have now in America. The chaos of the so-called "free market", is highly destructive, if not properly and adequately regulated by the government.

 

[Mac-7]

Privatizing profits and socializing losses refers to the practice of treating firms'earnings as the rightful property of their shareholders, while treating losses as a responsibility that society as a whole must shoulder, for example through taxpayer-funded subsidies or bailouts.

I dont disagree with that

But just because that has happened dont blame it on me simply because I dont want to extend the handouts to you

Not bailing out badly run companies may be painful in the short run but as healthy as cauterizing a wound

 

[TruthNotBS]

I dont disagree with that

But just because that has happened dont blame it on me simply because I dont want to extend the handouts to you

Not bailing out badly run companies may be painful in the short run but as healthy as cauterizing a wound

You ignored 90% of the points I made, but you know what Mac? Others won't. Talking to you is like talking to a turnip.

​

 

[Mac-7]

You ignored 90% of the points I made, but you know what Mac? Others won't. Talking to you is like talking to a turnip.

View attachment 794803​

You cited examples of government acting in the public interest

Not government selecting individuals it prefers and giving them cash

When government builds a bridge anyone should be use it

But you want to give some people special access and others no access at all

 

[Grumblenuts]

Each person's work was not aimed at generating surplus or profit, but rather at producing goods of use-value that were often immediately consumed or used. Personal property was minimal and largely limited to personal items such as clothing, which did not contribute to the overall economic production of the tribe.

This communal way of life was not merely a philosophical choice, but a practical necessity for survival. With no division of labor, the work of hunting, gathering, and later simple farming, required collective efforts. This natural collaboration encouraged a communal way of living, where the goods produced by the group were shared equally among its members.

Even the most durable goods, those that did survive for any length of time, like simple tools or shelters, were more often than not, collectively owned and used by all of the members of the tribe.

Hunter-gatherer societies stand as early examples of communal living, demonstrating that primitive-tribal communism, was the original state of human society. We have proof of this archeologically and also in how hunter-gatherer tribes live and organize their labor today (we have living examples of such neolithic, hunter-gatherer societies today).

Wisdom evolves from such analyses. We risk self-extinction now having strayed so arrogantly from nature's course and guidance. Money has always been a useful tool communally, but remains of no practical use by itself. It often substitutes nicely for barter, but not always.

When one needs jaws-of-life to extract their loved ones from a burning vehicle, throwing money at it would likely only make the situation worse. It would be nice to have a community firehouse with ambulances nearby in such a case. First responders get paid, but no pay compensates for regularly risking ones life to help others in desperate need. We all want to be of use to others. None are more appreciated. In contrast, billionaires never seem able to get enough because they're foolishly hell bent upon being independent. Nope, can't take it with you.

Thinking wealth makes one independent is like believing light energy travels through space without needing a medium. We are social animals. We'd be a lot happier (more secure) if we could all get used to that fact and start acting accordingly. {Picture squirrel gesticulating every which way at once }.

 

[Richard-H]

Mandatory Profit Sharing!

 

[LibertyKid]

And I don't think that any logical person will argue that we can do education and healthcare better in our country.

However, I do not accept the idea, that a gov't will always have the best interest for me and my family. The gov't exists to protect the public in various ways; militarily, socially, and economically ( like Crony capitalism). However, giving the gov't reign to take from one to give to another, even if this approach is through a theocracy, leads to a crony government, who controls the production, surplus and feeds itself.

We already have cronyism, so I don't understand your complaint. You're telling me that the government isn't "absolutely perfect", of course not. But at least we can cast a vote and elect our leadership. Can we do that under our present form of capitalism, in the workplace? Nope. How much control do private corporations and their wealthy owners have over our lives? MUCH. We spend most of our waking hours in the workplace, a place that is run like a totalitarian state. No vote, no elections, we obey or get kicked out to the street. Especially if we're not unionized.

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, identified capitalists as "masters", in his book "The Wealth Of Nations". Why does he call capitalists, "masters" and often calls workers "servants"? Because that's the relationship between a capitalist employer and his or her employees.

Cronyism will always exist in capitalism, but it can be skewed to serve the public if production is mostly done by worker-owned, democratically run cooperatives. Eventually, due to advanced 21st-century automation and artificial intelligence, we're going to have to discard capitalism by necessity and adopt a non-profit, publicly owned, centrally planned, and cooperative system of production. Producing all of the goods and services that we use to meet all of our needs, including what we define as "wants" (entertainment, recreation, etc). An easier way of describing this system is simply saying "socialism". Democratic, marketless, centrally planned, high-tech socialism:

​

Thanks to technology, we're now entering the socialist age.


The idea that man himself if responsible for himself lends to ingenuity, research, entrepreneurialism, and various means by which a single person can find success in this country.


We need to begin thinking of ourselves as a community, rather than just individuals. We progress more and quicker, when we work as a team, a body, rather than a single, isolated cell selfishly pursuing its own individual interests (a.k.a. cancer). Most of the innovation and technology in this country comes from the community working together, with plenty of assistance and interventionism from the government. Our government is nothing more than a social apparatus, organized by the American people to manage their large projects and socioeconomic, civil affairs. Our government isn't inherently good, nor is it evil, it's simply whatever we want it to be.

​

The problem however is the narrative. Does Jeff Bezzos "Need" the money he's made? No. Does Jeff Bezzo deserve the money he's made is the question? Some would so no? I would ask, Why not?

Because one person with hundreds of billions of dollars is too much power concentrated in one individual's hands. You acknowledged earlier that we have a problem in this country with cronyism. The best way to ensure we have cronyism is to concentrate power in the hands of a small, privileged capitalist (profit-pursuing) elite, who naturally will have financial interests that don't necessarily serve the public good. They undermine our democracy.

​

More, everything in this world is produced by human labor, not capitalists, who amass capital by exploiting the work of others. Capitalism is designed to enrich those who have capital, not workers who sell their lives daily to capitalists (renting out their labor power = renting your time, life, and effort to someone else, who by default must pay you less than what you're producing and are worth, in order to "profit").

MASS PRODUCTION IS A SOCIAL ENDEAVOUR, NOT A PRIVATE ONE.
Mass production should be democratized and owned collectively, not privatized in the hands of an elitist class of capitalist masters. ​

In a better world, workers would own all of the products that they produce and collectively own and operate the facilities and machinery that produces those products, rather than having one privileged capitalist parasite, owning everything, including their lives. Under capitalism, workers are commodified and reduced to a product in a "labor market" for the primary benefit of an elitist class of capitalist owners.

In our modern, high-tech age, there's a better way of organizing production, to meet all of our needs. It's not capitalism.

A couple of things, learn to use the quote and reply functionality instead of putting quotes into bold font. If you need to break up a quote, all you have to do is put the cursor at the end of the sentence and hit "Enter". The UI will automatically separate one single quote that you are replying too, into now 2 quotes. Reply to the first thought, then, take your cursor and move it to the newly created quote below and reply to that thought. This makes it easier and cleaner to read.

Second, the entirety of your premise rests solely on a gov't free from corruption. Period. We should never trust the gov't. Your premise if fully reliant on Votes that give the people power to control the gov't. That clearly isn't working today. How do we solve this issue?

Third, your entire premise is on complete acceptance of the people. How would you get the people to accept this new socialistic reality?

People need to work, regardless if it is socialism or capitalism. What is your suggestion to end those who have the capability to work, yet remain on habitual social welfare?

Another issue that I have with your wording and narratives is that you paint with a very broad brush this idea that Capitalism and the idea that an employer is a master, and that the employees are some slave. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. You're making a huge assumption that every business owner or corporate board of directors don't care about their employees. That is not a fair assessment. I happen to work for private company who takes care of their employers quite well. It was his idea, his risk, his capital that built his business. His employees he treats well. No one looks at him as a "Master" nor do we feel we are slaves. I have no right to anything else that his business has awarded him. And if I so choose, I too can create a service or product that is needed and start my own business. I'm not forced to work for him.

The narrative that you espouse creates a narrative that no one has a choice. You're either a slave or a master. I would purpose that in your perfect world, the gradual outcome, is the same. Instead of the master being the business owner or the board of directors, your slave is the gov't. I'm not sure that is the direction I want to head down.

 

[TruthNotBS]

A couple of things, learn to use the quote and reply functionality instead of putting quotes into bold font. If you need to break up a quote, all you have to do is put the cursor at the end of the sentence and hit "Enter". The UI will automatically separate one single quote that you are replying too, into now 2 quotes. Reply to the first thought, then, take your cursor and move it to the newly created quote below and reply to that thought. This makes it easier and cleaner to read.

Second, the entirety of your premise rests solely on a gov't free from corruption. Period. We should never trust the gov't. Your premise if fully reliant on Votes that give the people power to control the gov't. That clearly isn't working today. How do we solve this issue?

Third, your entire premise is on complete acceptance of the people. How would you get the people to accept this new socialistic reality?

People need to work, regardless if it is socialism or capitalism. What is your suggestion to end those who have the capability to work, yet remain on habitual social welfare?

Another issue that I have with your wording and narratives is that you paint with a very broad brush this idea that Capitalism and the idea that an employer is a master, and that the employees are some slave. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. You're making a huge assumption that every business owner or corporate board of directors don't care about their employees. That is not a fair assessment. I happen to work for private company who takes care of their employers quite well. It was his idea, his risk, his capital that built his business. His employees he treats well. No one looks at him as a "Master" nor do we feel we are slaves. I have no right to anything else that his business has awarded him. And if I so choose, I too can create a service or product that is needed and start my own business. I'm not forced to work for him.

The narrative that you espouse creates a narrative that no one has a choice. You're either a slave or a master. I would purpose that in your perfect world, the gradual outcome, is the same. Instead of the master being the business owner or the board of directors, your slave is the gov't. I'm not sure that is the direction I want to head down.

A couple of things, learn to use the quote and reply functionality instead of putting quotes into bold font. If you need to break up a quote, all you have to do is put the cursor at the end of the sentence and hit "Enter". The UI will automatically separate one single quote that you are replying too, into now 2 quotes. Reply to the first thought, then, take your cursor and move it to the newly created quote below and reply to that thought. This makes it easier and cleaner to read.

​

Second, the entirety of your premise rests solely on a gov't free from corruption. Period. We should never trust the gov't.

No that's not my premise, that's a straw man argument. The government doesn't have to be 100% perfect, for it to be good enough and functional. I prefer a good, democratic government to be in charge, operating for the sake of the public good than a totalitarian-run, privately owned, for-profit business enterprise being in charge or delivering a service. At least a democratic government holds elections and we can elect our government leaders, whereas in these privately owned dictatorships, there are no elections and they exist solely to make money, not to serve or protect the public good.

I believe a government like ours which is functioning economically within capitalism and its markets, should encourage and whenever possible, loan money from its central bank or even directly subsidize worker-owned, democratically-run worker cooperatives.

This is a peaceful way that the production and delivery of consumer goods and services can be placed in the hands of the working class (the people who produce and deliver everything to the marketplace), greatly reducing the exploitation and abuse of workers, democratizing the workplace, increasing national production and self-sufficiency, and facilitating and simplifying the inevitable transition to a non-profit mode of production i.e. socialism. A bloody revolution is unnecessary.

Due to advanced automation and AI, socialism is inevitable, hence we should prepare for the so-called "tech-apocalypse" by empowering workers to automate production and assist them in the task of transitioning their capitalist for-profit cooperative into a socialist, democratically-run, worker-owned and operated cooperative working in collaboration with the US Government's Central Logistics Department - CLD.

Your premise is fully reliant on Votes that give the people the power to control the gov't. That clearly isn't working today. How do we solve this issue?

You're in the ring, with one of your hands tied behind your back, fighting your opponent, and the judge sitting next to me says "That kid will never win, he's a horrible boxer, look at him" , and I remind him, "yeah he's not fighting as well as he could, because he has one of his hands tied behind his back, but hey, even with that impediment, he's lasted 7 rounds. Imagine how he would perform with both of his fists, rather than just one."

You can point out the fact that the US government is corrupt, but have you ever lived in other countries? I have. They're much worse, even though some of them are supposed: "democracies" as well. Our problem is that capitalist elites are operating essentially unregulated with absolute impunity and complete control over our legislature and the media. Many of the laws and regulations that once kept the big-money elites in check and operating within limits have been lifted, hence we have less democracy, and essentially we're now living in a plutocratic dystopia. Rule of the rich and powerful at the expense of the public good.

It took the Great Depression in the 1930s, and extreme pressure from below (a national grassroots, worker-organized movement consisting of powerful labor unions), which included the specter of a second civil war (bloodshed), which led FDR to force the New Deal upon the big-money capitalist bosses of the time. We got our Social Security, labor union protections, and a host of other benefits and needed regulation, not to speak of a 90% tax rate for the wealthiest members of our society. All of that strengthened our democracy and later led to the golden age of our economy.

Thanks to WW2, plenty of government oversight and intervention (government-enforced price controls during the war), and the fact that the United States came out of the war unscathed, when compared to Europe and Japan, the United States became the world's economic and military superpower. The manufacturing hub of the world, with the wealthiest and happiest middle class.

1/3rd of the American workforce was unionized in the 1950s, up to around 1981, when Reagan entered the White House and screwed everything up.

Interview Debate:

​

Between 1947 and the early 80s, the highest-paid CEOs made no more than 30 times the salary of the lowest-paid workers in their company. Workers had good wages, with benefits and the cost of living was much lower than it is today. Now in 2023, Fortune 500 CEOs make 300, 700 times the amount of the average worker. The big-money capitalist elites, with their armies of lobbyists, bribing our elected officials in the halls of government ("Citizens United", super-PACs, think tanks/stink tanks), undermine our democracy, turning it into an oligarchal dystopia.

There are tens of thousands of workers like this young lady, who labor 60 hours weekly for Walmart, a company that generates billions of dollars yearly in profits after taxes, and yet many of its employees need government food stamps to eat and cash assistance to have a roof over their heads. Where is the righteous indignation from the Republicans ("Christian Republicans") for workers like her?

Our government isn't the problem, it's money in politics, its the level of temptation that politicians deal with, it's a self-perpetuating plutocratic system without the proper stops and controls to prevent it, its the brainwashing of the American public through poorly regulated, capitalist-controlled, mainstream media, it's laws that undermine voter participation, it's an outdated electoral college, its lack of election finance reform, it's lack of education of the citizenry in how to get involved in the political process. etc. There are measures that we can take to make our government much less corrupt and more democratic. We will never have a perfect government, because human beings are flawed by nature, but we can have a much better government than the one we have now.

TAKE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS​

Third, your entire premise is on complete acceptance of the people. How would you get the people to accept this new socialistic reality?

People are beginning to accept it now. Much of what I already said in this post, is accepted by most Americans, especially our youth (our future).


People need to work, regardless if it is socialism or capitalism.

Yes indeed. Life is work, not just R&R. Life is movement, action, production, exploration, innovation, growth, maturation..etc.

What is your suggestion to end those who have the capability to work, yet remain on habitual social welfare?

There are several policies and programs that can be enacted and applied that could lead to full employment, under the capitalist system that we are currently under. Every American should be protected by an economic bill of rights. That's the foundation upon which to build an economy, that ensures everyone has at least the basic necessities of life, including employment (the government should grant everyone the right to employment in the public sector).

We have a crumbling national infrastructure that needs to be modernized, rebuilt and maintained. Millions of unemployed Americans could be put back to work ASAP, through a government-run public works program. The US federal government would fund projects through state and local governments, employing millions of Americans. There would also be a federal-run public works department that people could work for. Let's employ everyone that can't find employment in the private sector. Maybe you haven't been working for several years and you have a big ugly empty hole in your work history, that for whatever reason, undermines your ability to secure a job in the private sector. No problem, go to work with the government for a few years.

The aforementioned predicament of tens of thousands of Walmart employees needing food stamps and cash assistance is unacceptable. If you have a business, you have to pay your employees a living wage, of at least $15.00 hourly, or else you're not worthy to be in business, employing human labor. You should just operate alone and do it all yourself. If people can't live off of the wages that you're paying them, they'll go work for the government, in public works. There are plenty of bridges that need to be maintained, plenty of highways and roads to be paved, plenty of veterans that need counseling or physical rehabilitation, millions of single mothers that need good daycare for their kids. etc.

The higher wages will increase the purchasing power of consumers, hence stimulating the economy. If you live in a society where workers are paid a living wage and own a restaurant. You'll have more customers eating at your restaurant. Before everyone who worked full-time, had a living wage, they had to make sandwiches at home and go to work with a lunch box. Now they eat lunch at your restaurant with their co-workers. Families eat out more, with the kids. That's more money in your pocket as a business owner. Increase the purchasing power of the American consumer, and your business grows and you make more money in the long term, even if you're paying your workers more. Be a smart capitalist. This is what occurred in Seattle when it raised its minimum wage.

There are many things we can do to raise the standard of living of all Americans and ensure people have jobs.

Another issue that I have with your wording and narratives is that you paint with a very broad brush this idea that Capitalism and the idea that an employer is a master, and that the employees are some slave. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

No, I'm actually keeping the capitalist baby and throwing out as much poopoo water as possible. I'm a pragmatic communist. Socialism can't be adopted in America without a soft transition, which may take decades. It will eventually out of necessity, choose democratic socialism, and maybe in 150, 200 years, become a full-fledged high-tech democratic communist society. Socialism is the process that leads to high communism, and that process might take centuries. Even Karl Marx admitted that. Communism is defined by Marx as:

A Stateless Society, Without Socioeconomic Classes or The Need For Money.​

Technology would have to be at the level of Star Trek. When individuals and families have the "replicator", producing everything that they consume at home or in a local community production and distribution center. Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines i.e. APMMs, produce everything that everyone consumes. A stateless society with a tiny government (the state and government are to different things), is impossible now and for the foreseeable future. Only democratic socialism is possible and that's what we will eventually, out of necessity, within the next fifty years (I'm being extremely conservative), will have to accept, making production 100% non-profit. Advanced automation and AI make socialism inevitable. It is the natural successor of capitalism, as capitalism was the successor of feudalism and chattel slavery.

You're making a huge assumption that every business owner or corporate board of directors don't care about their employees. That is not a fair assessment.

I never said that, that's a straw man argument.

There are business owners (especially small business owners), that are essentially working-class people, who are hard-working, decent folks, who care about their employees. There were good, decent, Godfearing slave masters when we had slavery. The so-called "Aunt Jemima" or "House Ngr" was sometimes integrated into the family of their White masters. Some Black slave women even breastfed their master's White babies. Some Blacks refused to leave their masters after being legally freed from slavery. That's all they knew and they sincerely loved their masters. Does that justify the institution of slavery? Human beings owning other human beings? No. The institution is "evil", and destructive, not necessarily the people who are forced to function within it.

Is there anything good in capitalism? Yes, even Marx admitted there was plenty of good in capitalism. The capitalists were the Republicans that defeated the monarchs and royal aristocracy of Europe. They greatly improved everyone's standard of living, and sparked, with some help from both monarchal and republican governments, the industrial age. Marx admitted this in his writings.

Capitalist employers (exploiters) don't have the same degree of power and control over their employees (exploitees) as slave masters or feudal lords have over their slaves and serfs. Nonetheless, capitalism is an authoritarian system of production, that exploits and commodifies human beings, and hence its evils, need to be mitigated with labor unions and good government regulation. Capitalism concentrates wealth at the top, and if not properly checked and regulated, results in gross inequality, social unrest, abject poverty, and plutocratic tyranny. An oligarchal dystopia.

Capitalism has proven unable to function without the government bailing it out every few years with public funds. Without that bailout, the whole economy crumbles. leading to mass social unrest and war.

​

Advanced technology forces, by necessity, the transition from capitalism (privately owned, non-democratic, for-profit production and markets), to socialism (publicly owned, democratic, non-profit production without markets).

How the Worldâs First Autonomous Pizza Robot Works

‘Pazzi’ means ‘crazy’ in Italian – the perfect name for the world’s first autonomous pizza robot. It does everything on its own, and can make several pizzas ...

www.youtube.com

Elon Musk Warns The Government "Robots Will Take All Our Jobs" (2017)

Elon Musk Merchandise: https://amzn.to/3jFRA3D (Amazon Link)Elon Musk Biography: https://amzn.to/40uiBHX (Amazon Link)SpaceX Merchandise: https://amzn.to/3RA...

www.youtube.com

I happen to work for private company who takes care of their employers quite well.

That's great, good for you. I say that sincerely with goodwill. I'm a CNC machinist (both operator and programmer), and I work through my union with two private companies that treat their workers well. No complaints.


It was his idea, his risk, his capital that built his business.

Oh no, the "risk" canard. The master has taken risks. Yes, indeed he has. His workers also take many risks. Production is risky. Life is risky. Does that justify the dictatorial nature of the present capitalist workplace? No.

His employees he treats well.

Good. He should, they're not just dogs or cats, they're human laborers, who have rented their lives ("labor power") to him for several hours daily. They deserve to be treated well.

No one looks at him as a "Master" nor do we feel we are slaves.

That's great. That's the hallmark of a good master. He treats his slaves so well, that they love him.

I have no right to anything else that his business has awarded him.

You being "his business" (an example of a worker who commodifies and objectifies himself as being another man's business), have indeed "awarded" him with your life (labor power), which he exploits by paying you less than what you produce. He's "awarded" the surplus value of your hard work. You gave him your life, time, risking your health and perhaps even your very existence. He still owns everything and you've been reduced and rented out to him as a commodified tool, comprising the machinery of production. You're part of the "means of production" (the machinery), which he needs to produce the goods and services he sells in the marketplace. Mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one.

Capitalism is for those who have capital. I don't know how he got his money, but that's really irrelevant to the point that the nature of the relationship between a capitalist owner and his or her employee is one of human exploitation, in pursuit of private profits. That capitalist had the capital and hence the privilege to buy human labor and live off of the work of others. That's a parasitical arrangement.

He can be at ClubMed in the Bahamas, while you and your co-workers enrich him, with your labor-power/life, your time, your health..etc. He's paying you less than what you produce, that's the only way he can profit off of your labor. He can fire you at any time, and replace you with another worker, especially if you're not a member of a labor union. He has an immense amount of power over your life, without much accountability. The leadership of the current capitalist workplace is unelected.

The capitalist workplace isn't chattel slavery or feudalism, but it's not that far from it, and that's why Adam Smith identified capitalists as masters and their employees as servants. That was the common parlance of the 18th century for the relationship between a master and his slave. Master-Servant. It's taken from the KJV bible. Slaves are identified as "servants".

As an employee (exploitee), under capitalism, you're like a slave (a wage slave). You like your master and his slavery. I come along and inform you of the dynamics and nature of your slavery, and you tell me I'm being pedantic and unnecessarily focused on "freedom" and that's that. I understand. That situation is what it is, so we must make the best of it. Why rock the boat?

Eventually, advanced automation and AI will rock the boat to the point that we need to adopt a new mode of production. So it behooves us now to begin the transition to socialism or worker-owned "non-profit production", by encouraging and assisting the American workforce, to start labor cooperatives. It will lessen the negative effects of the so-called "tech apocalypse", which we are going to experience within the next decade or so. This can lead to more freedom and abundance, or to a form of techno-feudalism, where everyone is impoverished due to depending on a government check and kept alive by the ruling elite until they find a way to eliminate the worthless, unemployed masses.



And if I so choose, I too can create a service or product that is needed and start my own business.

For most working-class people that's not an option, but yes if you have the capital, you can start your own business.

I'm not forced to work for him.

Under capitalism, most people are forced to work for a capitalist. The only other option is hunger and homelessness. That's not much of a choice.

The narrative that you espouse creates a narrative that no one has a choice.

The vast majority of people, don't have a choice. Having the capital or money to start a business is a rare privilege.


You're either a slave or a master.

Another straw man. I didn't make that strict dichotomy. A person can become self-employed, without being a capitalist exploiter of employees.

I would purpose that in your perfect world, the gradual outcome, is the same. Instead of the master being the business owner or the board of directors, your slave is the gov't.

Our government isn't the slave, nor the slave master. There's something called "democracy", which at least the US government tries to uphold, by holding elections, in which the public can participate in. When was the last time your beloved capitalist employer/owner, held an election for his employees to elect their managers? Has that ever happened?

Even without adopting socialism, we can significantly improve our government, increasing democracy and further empowering the working class.

I'm not sure that is the direction I want to head down.

You can continue as a wage slave, completely subject to the whims of your employer-master if you wish. I haven't met a non-union worker till this day that does the same job I do and earns more than me. I earn more, I have more benefits and protection than they do. They think they're "free", until they lose their jobs, for something that wouldn't have affected me at all. The employers in our industry know better, not to "mess" with union machinists. There's a balance of power between us and our wealthy employers.

 

[dblack]

The government shouldn't serve anyone's "interests".

View attachment 794617​

Breaks your brain, eh?

The government isn't there to force some people's preferences on others.

​

That's the very purpose of government. To serve the public good, which is the most basic interest. You're quite confused, if not LOCO.

Nope. I'm just thinking it through, whereas you aren't. Everyone has a different conception of the good life. And they should be free to pursue it as they see fit. You want government to decide what's good for the public and ram it down our throats. No thanks.

Right now, the move towards socialist economics is HUGE, especially among Americans between the ages of 18 and 44.

Can't argue with that. I've seen it too. Historically, freedom rarely lasts long. Enjoy your chains.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Breaks your brain, eh?

The government isn't there to force some people's preferences on others.

Nope. I'm just thinking it through, whereas you aren't. Everyone has a different conception of the good life. And they should be free to pursue it as they see fit. You want government to decide what's good for the public and ram it down our throats. No thanks.

Can't argue with that. I've seen it too. Historically, freedom rarely lasts long. Enjoy your chains.

The government isn't there to force some people's preferences on others.

In a democracy, the majority of people rule. The fact that the majority rule doesn't imply that the minority doesn't have legally protected rights. Despite being in a minority, whatever that might be, whether ethnically or politically, in a free democracy, no one can legally violate your constitutional rights. If the government enacts laws that you don't like, you have the freedom to propagate or promote your opposing point of view and get others to join you in your effort to legally change the law. There's the "free market" of ideas. You have a right to express your ideas to the public and "convert" people to your worldview.

Nope. I'm just thinking it through, whereas you aren't. Everyone has a different conception of the good life. And they should be free to pursue it as they see fit.

As long as it's not to the detriment of others, go right ahead.

You want the government to decide what's good for the public and ram it down our throats. No thanks.

In a democratic republic, the public at large tells the government what laws it wants to be passed through its legislature and what policies to enforce. It's the majority of the public that gets to define the laws of the land, to the extent that those laws don't violate anyone's human rights or the nation's constitution.

Can't argue with that. I've seen it too. Historically, freedom rarely lasts long. Enjoy your chains.

You're apparently enjoying your chains now because we don't have true freedom in this country. We live in a plutocracy ( money rules at the expense of the public).

 

[Grumblenuts]

The NewsGuild - TNG-CWA

newsguild.org

 

[dblack]

The government isn't there to force some people's preferences on others.

In a democracy, the majority of people rule.

Right. Which is why our country was structured as a Constitutional republic. We employ democracy for elections and some other things - but the majority doesn't "rule".

If the government enacts laws that you don't like, you have the freedom to propagate or promote your opposing point of view and get others to join you in your effort to legally change the law.

That's not freedom. Freedom means your rights are protected from the demands of the majority.

Nope. I'm just thinking it through, whereas you aren't. Everyone has a different conception of the good life. And they should be free to pursue it as they see fit.

As long as it's not to the detriment of others, go right ahead.

"Detriment of others" - euphemism much?

You want the government to decide what's good for the public and ram it down our throats. No thanks.

In a democratic republic, the public at large tells the government what laws it wants to be passed through its legislature and what policies to enforce.

In a constitutional republic the laws that the public at large can pass are limited to specific purposes. Dictating employment and trade is not one of those purposes.

It's the majority of the public that gets to define the laws of the land, to the extent that those laws don't violate anyone's human rights or the nation's constitution.

Property and free trade are human rights.

Can't argue with that. I've seen it too. Historically, freedom rarely lasts long. Enjoy your chains.

You're apparently enjoying your chains now because we don't have true freedom in this country.

That's only because there are too many people like you trying to enslave us.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Right. Which is why our country was structured as a Constitutional republic. We employ democracy for elections and some other things - but the majority doesn't "rule".

That's not freedom. Freedom means your rights are protected from the demands of the majority.

"Detriment of others" - euphemism much?

In a constitutional republic the laws that the public at large can pass are limited to very specific purposes. Dictating employment and trade is not one of those purposes.

Property and free trade are human rights.

That's only because there are too many people like you trying to enslave us.

Right. Which is why our country was structured as a Constitutional republic.
We employ democracy for elections and some other things - but the majority doesn't "rule".

..."and some other things"..yeah right.

Now you're just disingenuously playing semantics. A constitutional republic with representation can be identified as a "democratic republic". The representation part is "democracy", where the majority elect their candidates or pass their bills through Congress.

If you don't like the word "rule" and you want to use some other word, go right ahead. Democracy literally means "people's rule/power":

What was all of the commotion over Biden winning the election rather than Trump in 2020? Trump's supporters appealed to the majority vote. Conservatives want their policies enacted and enforced, not that of liberals. You get the majority vote, your rules apply, irrespective of how the libs might feel about it. Likewise, if the majority are libs and they get their candidate elected by having the majority of votes, then they get to rule and you can start presenting your fellow Americans with reasons why they should agree with you and not with the libs. Present your case, open people's minds and convince them to vote like you next time.


That's not freedom. Freedom means your rights are protected from the demands of the majority.

Your legitimate, legal, constitutional, human rights. as interpreted and established by our courts and Congress, can't be violated by the majority. Nonetheless, the majority have the right to get their legislation passed and enacted through Congress and have those laws enforced. If you feel those laws and policies, violate your legitimate, constitutional rights, you can go to court and challenge that legislation and policies enacted by the majority. You can file a lawsuit against the federal government.

Your other option is to invest your time, energy, and money, to promote your ideas to society, and hopefully in time, people will agree with you and vote for candidates that share and represent your values and political objectives. That's how it's done in a democracy. I'm sorry you don't like democracy, you want to have it your way or the highway.

"Detriment of others" - euphemism much?

That's not a euphemism, that's explicit, clear English. You can do whatever you want provided it's within the law and you're not violating other people's rights. If we live in an apartment complex and you're my neighbor, and I like playing my music loud, all night, you have a right to call the cops and have them force me to turn it down. How I feel about is irrelevant. You need to sleep and go to work tomorrow. I can't do whatever I want to do, because I don't live in a vacuum, I live in a society with other human beings. I can do whatever I want within the parameters of what is legal, and to the extent that I don't violate your rights, health, and life. This likewise applies to you.

In a constitutional republic the laws that the public at large can pass are limited to very specific purposes. Dictating employment and trade is not one of those purposes.

The U.S. Constitution provides explicit powers to Congress to regulate commerce. Article I, Section 8, states that:

"The Congress shall have power to... regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof "

The Constitution gives the federal government and all state and local governments under its jurisdiction the right to regulate commerce. So you apparently don't know what you're talking about.

Property and free trade are human rights.

Within the boundaries of the law.

That's only because there are too many people like you trying to enslave us.

You're the one who wants the rich to enslave the poor and working class. You love plutocracy (the rule of the wealthy at the expense of the public).

 

[dblack]

Right. Which is why our country was structured as a Constitutional republic.
We employ democracy for elections and some other things - but the majority doesn't "rule".

..."and some other things"..yeah right.

Now you're just disingenuously playing semantics. A constitutional republic with representation can be identified as a "democratic republic". The representation part is "democracy", where the majority elect their candidates or pass their bills through Congress.

The point is, the power of the majority is limited in reach and scope. By design. Because unlimited majority rule is unworkable. Without some kind of contract limiting state power, the minority has no incentive to consent to majority rule, and every reason not to.

The very reason the US is going into the shitter now, is that we've eroded limits on government. When that happens - when the minority is no longer protected from the whims of the majority they will revoke consent. The country becomes ungovernable.

If you don't like the word "rule" and you want to use some other word, go right ahead. Democracy literally means "people's rule/power":

I know. But the word "rule" is accurate - it describes what you're after. it's what I'm rejecting.

What was all of the commotion over Biden winning the election rather than Trump in 2020? Trump's supporters appealed to the majority vote. Conservatives want their policies enacted and enforced, not that of liberals. You get the majority vote, your rules apply, irrespective of how the libs might feel about it.

Me? You're confused. I'm not a Trumpster. But to your point - the kind of government you describe will destroy itself. If winning an election means that one side gets to do whatever the fuck it wants to the other side, democracy will fail. Is failing.

Likewise, if the majority are libs and they get their candidate elected by having the majority of votes, then they get to rule and you can start presenting your fellow Americans with reasons why they should agree with you and not with the libs. Present your case, open people's minds and convince them to vote like you next time.

No. Again, majority rule is shit. I'll never consent to the kind of totalitarian state you're after.

That's not freedom. Freedom means your rights are protected from the demands of the majority.

Your legitimate, legal, constitutional, human rights. as interpreted and established by our courts and Congress, can't be violated by the majority.

If the Constitution and the Court are function properly, that's true. But you seem to be holding the view that property and free trade aren't "legitimate, legal, constitutional, human rights". So, I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page with the basic definitions involved.

In a constitutional republic the laws that the public at large can pass are limited to very specific purposes. Dictating employment and trade is not one of those purposes
The U.S. Constitution provides explicit powers to Congress to regulate commerce.

LOL

That's only because there are too many people like you trying to enslave us.

You're the one who wants the rich to enslave the poor and working class. You love plutocracy (the rule of the wealthy at the expense of the public).

Here's a little "thought experiment" for you. When things finally devolve to full scale socialism, what do you think people with a strong lust for wealth and power will do? Will they see the futility of their avarice and learn to enjoy menial labor? Or will they find a different way to get the kind of wealth and power that they want?

When power isn't distributed by the market, and instead by the party, greedy people will navigate the political power structure rather than work the market. Eventually, the bastards who want it most will find their way to the top - pretty much like it ends up in a free market.

Except that, in a free market, Bill Gates can't have you thrown in jail if you don't do what he wants. If he's achieved his wealth and power via government, he can. And will. And, unlike in the free market, the state has doesn't have to worry about competitors (it kills them). It's literally the only game in town. But, oh yeah, every few years, you get to vote.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The point is, the power of the majority is limited in reach and scope.

The rule of the majority is limited by the law. You're not saying anything new or different to what I've been saying. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.


By design.

All powers function within a legal framework.


Because unlimited majority rule is unworkable.

Again, you're not saying anything. I never asserted that the rule of the majority is "unlimited".


Without some kind of contract limiting state power,

The powers of the state are defined by the Constitution and the law.


the minority has no incentive to consent to majority rule, and every reason not to.

The US government's powers are defined by the constitution and just because you don't like the fact you lost the election or laws were passed that you don't agree with, doesn't give you the right to disregard that government's authority and break its laws. If you do that, you might get fined or worse, go to jail.

​

The very reason the US is going into the shitter now, is that we've eroded limits on government.

What limits are those? Be specific.

People who say this, usually have no problem, replacing our constitutional, democratic government with the rule of privately owned, for-profit corporations that serve their own vested interests at the expense of the American public. They supposedly want less civil government and then replace it with a privately owned plutocratic government that doesn't give a hoot about the working class and only concerns itself with serving and defending big-business interests.

When that happens - when the minority is no longer protected from the whims of the majority they will revoke consent. The country becomes ungovernable.

What "minority" are you talking about? People that lost an election because the majority of the country doesn't agree with them, hence didn't vote for their candidate? Is that the type of "minority" you're referring to? You have your constitutional rights, among other rights that the majority can't violate. If laws are passed through Congress that violate your rights, you can file a lawsuit, including a class action suit. You also have your first amendments right to express yourself, and form organizations that advance your political ideology and agenda. Go right ahead, and exercise your rights.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Here's a little "thought experiment" for you. When things finally devolve to full scale socialism, what do you think people with a strong lust for wealth and power will do? Will they see the futility of their avarice and learn to enjoy menial labor? Or will they find a different way to get the kind of wealth and power that they want?

When power isn't distributed by the market, and instead by the party, greedy people will navigate the political power structure rather than work the market. Eventually, the bastards who want it most will find their way to the top - pretty much like it ends up in a free market.

Except that, in a free market, Bill Gates can't have you thrown in jail if you don't do what he wants. If he's achieved his wealth and power via government, he can. And will. And, unlike in the free market, the state has doesn't have to worry about competitors (it kills them). It's literally the only game in town. But, oh yeah, every few years, you get to vote.

Here's a little "thought experiment" for you. When things finally devolve to full scale socialism, what do you think people with a strong lust for wealth and power will do?


It won't "devolve", it will actually evolve from capitalism to a superior system of production, namely democratic socialism. The transition from capitalism to socialism is gradual and slow, determined by several factors, like advanced technology, an increase in worker-owned and run cooperatives, enacting new laws, and regulations that support social and public works programs that improve the lives of the American public at large.

The more advanced automation and artificial intelligence become, the more we will have a need to adopt a non-profit mode of production, namely socialism.


Will they see the futility of their avarice and learn to enjoy menial labor?

All labor won't be "menial" and understand that advanced automation and AI will be eliminating most menial tasks and doing most, if not all of the heavy lifting. In a modern, high-tech socialist society, you have many options as to what type of work you're going to do.

In a country where robots and artificial intelligence do most, if not all of the mining, construction, farming, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, delivery, warehousing, and distributing, 24/7, without resting, will eliminate scarcity and poverty. Everyone will have a very high standard of living, thanks to advanced technology and living in a society that is oriented toward satisfying human needs. Those needs include recreation, entertainment, athletics, art, hobbies..etc.

Or will they find a different way to get the kind of wealth and power that they want?

That type of "wealth and power" would require 94% of the population to subject itself to techno-feudalism. The current system of production, which relies on wage labor and paying consumers buying goods and services in a marketplace, is unsustainable due to advanced automation and AI.

NO WAGE LABOR (OR NOT ENOUGH OF IT) = NO PAYING CONSUMERS (OR NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS) = NO MARKETS (OR NOT LARGE ENOUGH MARKET WORTH INVESTING IN) = NO MORE CAPITALISM / NO FOR-PROFIT PRODUCTION = NON-PROFIT PRODUCTION / SOCIALISM.

Advanced technology forces society to re-organize its production from for-profit, capitalist production, to non-profit socialist production.

In the 1930s, we had the Great Depression, and the unemployment rate was at 23%. Advanced robotics and AI are projected to eliminate most menial jobs by 2050 and many white-collar jobs as well. That's why it's called the "tech apocalypse". The people that you're referring to, are similar to the people that once owned slaves and weren't happy with the new order, that freed all of their black slaves. In a socialist society, there are many ways to live a rewarding and rich life, without exploiting anyone else.

When power isn't distributed by the market, and instead by the party...


Power isn't "distributed by the party", but is rather earned and elected by the electorate.


...greedy people will navigate the political power structure rather than work the market.

Unlike in our current system, under socialism, the electorate can "recall" a government official if they're not doing their job correctly. All leadership is elected and accountable to those they serve.


Eventually, the bastards who want it most will find their way to the top - pretty much like it ends up in a free market.

There are no markets when technology becomes advanced enough to automate production.

Except that, in a free market, Bill Gates can't have you thrown in jail if you don't do what he wants.

In a democratic socialist state, no one can throw you in jail either, unless you commit a criminal offense worthy of being incarcerated.


If he's achieved his wealth and power via government, he can. And will. And, unlike in the free market, the state has doesn't have to worry about competitors (it kills them).

Not when it's a democratic, worker-run state, and all citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. There's no reason why we can't keep our second amendment rights, and our right to assemble.


It's literally the only game in town. But, oh yeah, every few years, you get to vote

Socialism will replace it sooner than you might think.

 

[The Duke]

Here's a little "thought experiment" for you. When things finally devolve to full scale socialism, what do you think people with a strong lust for wealth and power will do?


It won't "devolve", it will actually evolve from capitalism to a superior system of production, namely democratic socialism. The transition from capitalism to socialism is gradual and slow, determined by several factors, like advanced technology, an increase in worker-owned and run cooperatives, enacting new laws, and regulations that support social and public works programs that improve the lives of the American public at large.

The more advanced automation and artificial intelligence become, the more we will have a need to adopt a non-profit mode of production, namely socialism.


Will they see the futility of their avarice and learn to enjoy menial labor?

All labor won't be "menial" and understand that advanced automation and AI will be eliminating most menial tasks and doing most, if not all of the heavy lifting. In a modern, high-tech socialist society, you have many options as to what type of work you're going to do.

In a country where robots and artificial intelligence do most, if not all of the mining, construction, farming, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, delivery, warehousing, and distributing, 24/7, without resting, will eliminate scarcity and poverty. Everyone will have a very high standard of living, thanks to advanced technology and living in a society that is oriented toward satisfying human needs. Those needs include recreation, entertainment, athletics, art, hobbies..etc.

View attachment 795294

View attachment 795293


View attachment 795295

View attachment 795296


View attachment 795298

View attachment 795299

View attachment 795300

View attachment 795309


View attachment 795314​

Or will they find a different way to get the kind of wealth and power that they want?

That type of "wealth and power" would require 94% of the population to subject itself to techno-feudalism. The current system of production, which relies on wage labor and paying consumers buying goods and services in a marketplace, is unsustainable due to advanced automation and AI.

NO WAGE LABOR (OR NOT ENOUGH OF IT) = NO PAYING CONSUMERS (OR NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS) = NO MARKETS (OR NOT LARGE ENOUGH MARKET WORTH INVESTING IN) = NO MORE CAPITALISM / NO FOR-PROFIT PRODUCTION = NON-PROFIT PRODUCTION / SOCIALISM.

Advanced technology forces society to re-organize its production from for-profit, capitalist production, to non-profit socialist production.

In the 1930s, we had the Great Depression, and the unemployment rate was at 23%. Advanced robotics and AI are projected to eliminate most menial jobs by 2050 and many white-collar jobs as well. That's why it's called the "tech apocalypse". The people that you're referring to, are similar to the people that once owned slaves and weren't happy with the new order, that freed all of their black slaves. In a socialist society, there are many ways to live a rewarding and rich life, without exploiting anyone else.

When power isn't distributed by the market, and instead by the party...


Power isn't "distributed by the party", but is rather earned and elected by the electorate.


...greedy people will navigate the political power structure rather than work the market.

Unlike in our current system, under socialism, the electorate can "recall" a government official if they're not doing their job correctly. All leadership is elected and accountable to those they serve.


Eventually, the bastards who want it most will find their way to the top - pretty much like it ends up in a free market.

There are no markets when technology becomes advanced enough to automate production.

Except that, in a free market, Bill Gates can't have you thrown in jail if you don't do what he wants.

In a democratic socialist state, no one can throw you in jail either, unless you commit a criminal offense worthy of being incarcerated.


If he's achieved his wealth and power via government, he can. And will. And, unlike in the free market, the state has doesn't have to worry about competitors (it kills them).

Not when it's a democratic, worker-run state, and all citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. There's no reason why we can't keep our second amendment rights, and our right to assemble.


It's literally the only game in town. But, oh yeah, every few years, you get to vote

Socialism will replace it sooner than you might think.

TL; DR!