Can Someone Explain how we can Impliment Socialism and Still Enjoy the Benefits of Capitalism?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh yes. Absolutely.

I will be happy to go and research the candidates and present you with their speeches and and hope that you will read them and believe what everyone else already knows.

You're acceptance and approval means everything to me!

I will be so quick with that that I recommend you hold your breath and I will be back to you before you pass out.

Ready? go!

I'm waiting.

 

[Winston]

Yes, rent-seeking will always be the bane of a mixed economy. As soon as government starts to influence economic activity, people will line up to pay to have the influence enrich them at the expense of others, not the other way around.

There is no fairness equality and justice in the real world, only economic winners and losers, selected either by market forces, government mandates, or some combination.

Those who puport to enforce or bring about economic equality at the point of a gun will always be suseptible to bribery by those who have created the wealth that those government officials seek to re-distribute.

Any fool can point a gun, but a successful capitalist has built the means of production while at the same time increasing their personal wealth, outperforming competitors along the way. No elected or administrative government official can match wits with them. For a government to implement the kind of economic equality you envision, the capitalist must be dispatched.

Countries which have done that have inevitibly turned into places of subsistance-level poverty for the many and opulent wealth for the few.

While using the government to create rent seeking opportunities is the most common example of rent seeking, the government is not required to be involved in order for rent seeking opportunities to present themselves. In fact, the government should have a purpose, to prevent and punish rent seeking.

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land,

Wealth of Nations — Bk 1 Chpt 06

It is that third component of price that few seem to understand. The common perception is that price is comprised of the cost of capital, that is compensation to the investor for front loading the cost of inputs, and the value of labor. But there is also the land rent component. That is the component that drives inequity. That is the "fascist insect" that sucks the marrow from the bones of the people.

Thing is, we know the solution. Adam Smith knew the solution. He proposed a tax on land, and Henry George took it to the point to say that was the only way for the federal government to raise revenue, a single tax, on land. We live in a big ass country. And just to be blunt, land use is FUBARED. First, the federal government owns a ton of land, especially in the West. That means WE, you and I, own a ton of land, especially in the West.

And the federal government leases out some of that land. For oil drilling, fracking, lumber. But if you want a free stress test, well check out the public data on oil pumped off of public land, like price per barrel the oil companies pay in royalty. Now not the states, like Alaska, but the federal government, some of it on Native American land.

The problem is that the wealthy and the powerful, they have got in your head. I mean it is more than obvious, you just have to have been paying attention the last half century. They have tilted the rules in their favor, virtually castrated any federal enforcement of everything from tax law to anti-trust enforcement, not to mention health and now environmental standards. They are amassing huge fortunes and now, well the task is not to amass this fortune, but to protect it, put it on auto-pilot. So yes, now the rent seeking begins, now the laziness begins, take more, give nothing, that is pretty much it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm waiting.

Okay.Yes, sorry, just a little bit longer.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's because few care about their health. Way too many sick people with too little money for care. The medical industry, which encourages illness, has become a victim of its own success.

You have some strange concepts. Are you sure you are not a liberal at heart?

 

[Winston]

Economically Winton is closer to the fascist model than Marxist Socialism

Instead of socialist ownership of wealth he allows private ownership but government control over how the wealth is spent

Private owners of wealth have responsibility. Or, at least they used to. I don't see that anymore. I mean rule number one, you don't pass it on to your kids. They got to earn it. For most people, real wealth, generational wealth, it is a responsibility they are not prepared for.

As to controlling how the money is spent? Well no, not at first. But here is the deal, if someone works, I don't know, at least 32 hours a week, and you don't pay them enough that they don't qualify for government benefits, then yeah, we, the government, are looking to come collect. And if they got half a dozen kids, doesn't flippin matter. Your company is reimbursing the government for every single dime of benefits provided.

It is just hard for me to wrap myself around this whole socialism is evil, immoral thing. Come on. Again, it is land. Do you have any idea what a con game the whole land grant thing was? Like door frames traveling by horse carriage kind of thing. Potatoes, beef, I mean why you think the buffalo were almost wiped out. MEAT, until it got just ugly, then it was land.

I mean come on. Throw your cattle on federal land, let them fend for themselves through the spring and summer. Dammit, you kept them warm in the winter. Then round em up, drive them if you are lucky, ship them if not, to the feed lots, time to sell. How ******* hard is that? I mean come on, I am old school dairy farmer, that ain't going to fly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Okay.Yes, sorry, just a little bit longer.

BTW Even if true, those who hate capitalism are just as stupid as those who rail against socialism . In both case , they are to short cited, narrow mined and rigid to understand that no system is all good or all bad, They are unable to see anything besides black and white. Grey areas disturb them because they need to see everything in neat and absolute terms and can't deal with nuances or ambiguity. All sure signs of a limited intellectual capacity. Purity is all that they can deal with The fact is that there are few if any pure economic system in the world and that in most cases you will find a hybrid of capitalism and socialism that compliment each other , I'm sure that you're better than that LOL

 

[Mac-7]

Potatoes, beef, I mean why you think the buffalo were almost wiped out. MEAT, until it got just ugly, then it was land.

My first reaction is this

You are ignorant of history

The buffalo were slaughtered for their hides not meat

More to come later

 

[Seymour Flops]

Private owners of wealth have responsibility. Or, at least they used to. I don't see that anymore. I mean rule number one, you don't pass it on to your kids. They got to earn it. For most people, real wealth, generational wealth, it is a responsibility they are not prepared for.

As to controlling how the money is spent? Well no, not at first. But here is the deal, if someone works, I don't know, at least 32 hours a week, and you don't pay them enough that they don't qualify for government benefits, then yeah, we, the government, are looking to come collect. And if they got half a dozen kids, doesn't flippin matter. Your company is reimbursing the government for every single dime of benefits provided.

It is just hard for me to wrap myself around this whole socialism is evil, immoral thing. Come on. Again, it is land. Do you have any idea what a con game the whole land grant thing was? Like door frames traveling by horse carriage kind of thing. Potatoes, beef, I mean why you think the buffalo were almost wiped out. MEAT, until it got just ugly, then it was land.

I mean come on. Throw your cattle on federal land, let them fend for themselves through the spring and summer. Dammit, you kept them warm in the winter. Then round em up, drive them if you are lucky, ship them if not, to the feed lots, time to sell. How ******* hard is that? I mean come on, I am old school dairy farmer, that ain't going to fly.

A lot to unpack there.

I will firmly agree with you that the government should not be subsidizing. cheap labor for employers by providng those laborers, supplemental cash, housing assistance, supplemental food benefits and free medical care.

But I disagree that the answer is to charge the employer for those benefits. simply take those benefits away, and people cannot afford to work for such low wages,that their family will starve, and they will have no housing.

Of course, that idea relies on cutting off cheap labor from foreign countries, which the Trump administration has already done and it's in the process of clearing.

I will also dispute your ideas is about what should be provided to the workers and how much work they should do to get that compensation.

Thirty two hours per week? where did you get that figure?

I would not expect any employer to provide a living wage for any less than forty hours per week. 40 hours per week plus 10 hours over time if it is an employee that did not bother to get the education or training to make themselves more valuable.

Also our welfare benefits are way too generous. the employer should not be expected to pay for as part of a living wage. A cell phone for each member of the family, for example, as people on welfare get.

 

[Mac-7]

I mean rule number one, you don't pass it on to your kids.

Thats typical lib selfishness

Just work for yourself and to hell with the children

But I gather libs plan to murder them in the womb anyway so they can vacation all over the world till they die

You dont understand that responsible people work so hard because they want to pass it along to their children

 

[Winston]

Thats typical lib selfishness

Just work for yourself and to hell with the children

But I gather libs plan to murder them in the womb anyway so they can vacation all over the world till they die

You dont understand that responsible people work so hard because they want to pass it along to their children

Well, I would proclaim that responsible people work so hard because their children won't need jack shit from them. I mean I am so proud.

My wife will walk into the Salvation Army in a little more than a week. They have an Angel tree. Little Angels hanging, it has been a tradition for us for many years. She gets a girl, I get a boy. But the last several years, well that is the purpose of this visit. One hour before the Angel tree is closed. She will calmly place each and every one left in a cart. Spend the next three days shopping, and all funded by one of my sons.

But I got half a dozen and they pine nothing from me other than memories. That, I can give them. That is all that matters.

 

[Invisibleflash]

After more than one hundred and fifty years of capitalism, there is plenty of money available in the United States for Socialism to work - if money were the only reason it would not. But even if that were true, the money will have to run out and then socialism cannot work.

The False Appeal Of Socialism

Even in its new, fashionable, incarnation, socialism cannot fulfill people’s economic needs or their yearning for freedom.

www.hoover.org

Many Americans—particularly but not exclusively the young—remain intrigued by socialism. Indeed, a 2019 survey found that socialism is as popular as capitalism among young American adults. Well-known political figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez describe themselves as “democratic socialists” and advocate tens of trillions of dollars in new spending programs along with a massive expansion of state power over citizens’ lives. In academic circles, too, the debate surrounding the merits of socialism continues.

Yet, the clothes, the cars, the homes, the books (if any still read them), the devices and the services on those devices, and even their favorite social media influencers are the products of capitalism, brought to them by people in search of profit.

Imagine a version of Youtube in which government committees, rather than popularity driven monetization, paid producers to keep posting content. It would die on the vine or broadcast unwatched content into the ether, unless government decided to somehow mandate consumuing the videos.

"govtube.org" would probably manage to be even less popular than Air America was.

So when whatever socialist world you envision comes about, how will goods and services continue to be produced? Please be specific and step-by-step, not just "by the people's producers!" or some such nonsense.

How will production be motivated, and how will government determine what to produce?

Dunno...but...

Here is where a smidgen of socialism could work for the USA. Instead of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on Ukraine and trillions of dollars on wasted garbage, our useless politicians could have given us a cheap, socialized healthcare plan; alongside with the standard healthcare we have in America. (The rich don't want socialized healthcare and the average person can't afford the system we have...so we need 2 systems.) People that can't afford America's unaffordable healthcare could get their appendix out before it bursts.

If they need a heart transplant, then go work 3 jobs and save up for 6 years to pay for it. The socialized plan would be for basics to keep it viable. But the American healthcare system is so greedy they don't want to lose a penny and would never accept a 2nd option. Plus, our politicians are absolute nincompoops and could never run a socialized healthcare system anyway.

 

[GLASNOST]

Musk said that AI and robots will “eliminate poverty” and “make everyone richer than the current super-rich.”

What an idiot.

He's lying. Under capitalism, there's no incentive to eliminate poverty.

So true and so obvious. The fact isn't even hidden in the definition of Capitalism.

 

[Slyhunter]

A.I. Put everyone on the dole.

 

[Leo123]

See my thread in clean debates.

Social Security, Medicare, welfare, unemployment comp, SNAP, etc, etc, etc. We have many government programs, Federal and State that are "socialized," that is, they take from the many and give to the few.

Actual Socialism, where the government owns all property and the means of production (farms, factories, refineries, etc) ain't happening here, but we do have socialistic programs. If we didn't, there would be civil war.

Socialism is a boon to the wealthy bureaucrats. It gives them absolute power. They get to monitor the work force, control the money, etc. all through so called 'regulations' for the 'good of all.' It's a recipe for an ultimate dictatorship.

 

[Leo123]

Dunno...but...

Here is where a smidgen of socialism could work for the USA. Instead of squandering hundreds of billions of dollars on Ukraine and trillions of dollars on wasted garbage, our useless politicians could have given us a cheap, socialized healthcare plan; alongside with the standard healthcare we have in America. (The rich don't want socialized healthcare and the average person can't afford the system we have...so we need 2 systems.) People that can't afford America's unaffordable healthcare could get their appendix out before it bursts.

If they need a heart transplant, then go work 3 jobs and save up for 6 years to pay for it. The socialized plan would be for basics to keep it viable. But the American healthcare system is so greedy they don't want to lose a penny and would never accept a 2nd option. Plus, our politicians are absolute nincompoops and could never run a socialized healthcare system anyway.

View attachment 1186666

Healthcare will continue to be a problem in the U.S. until the government (State and Federal) get out of it. They drive costs up and limit choice. In addition, big pharma needs to be more strictly regulated which is where the government could really help. I like the idea of letting everyone have a health care account. The idea being, doctors will have to start being competitive and maybe even care for the patients better. Government regulations today, also cause 'rubber stamp' diagnoses aimed at getting government fees.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Musk said that AI and robots will “eliminate poverty” and “make everyone richer than the current super-rich.”

He's lying. Under capitalism, there's no incentive to eliminate poverty.

This is only possible under socialism.

You have to be kidding.

Not about Capitalism having no incentive to eliminate poverty - and yet, left to work, it does.

Capitalism is like evolution by natural selection. There are no incentives for the species to improve, only incentives for each individual to survive and thrive.

But capitalism - which is only free market - need not be designed to do anything. Protect people's right to own what they produce, and capitalism naturally follows.

Socialism does have intent, unlike the free market. But the intent is egalitarianism, not wealth. So the result is inevitibly equal poverty. I suppose if poverty is a relative term, "poverty" is eliminated of everyone is poor. Theoretically.

In practice, there is always a ruling class in a socialist society, who are wealthy and powerful beyond any American capitalist. They assure the relatively impoverished countrymen that their privileges are necessary due to the burden of leadership and decision making they graciously volunteer to take on.

The development of productive forces inevitably leads humanity to the construction of the material basis of communism.

LoL!

Is that the PC way to admit that Socialism only thrives by feeding off of the production of the capitalism it destroys?

But reactionary, backward capitalist production relations stand as a barrier to progress, hindering the rise of civilization in every way.

Like in the early days of the Soviet Union when they resorted to the NEP as a "temporary expedient" when people were starving?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actual Socialism, where the government owns all property and the means of production (farms, factories, refineries, etc) ain't happening here, but we do have socialistic programs. If we didn't, there would be civil war.

Can you give some details on that last assertion? I see it often, but always as a bald assertion, unsupported by further explanation.

Do you mean that if we suddenly ended the socialistic programs, there would be a civil war, or that if we had never started them, there would have already been a civil war?

Who will be the sides in this civil war? Who will lead each side? Will the government and military support one side or the other in this civil war, or for some reason remain neutral waiting to serve the victor?

Which side would you expect to win?

Anyone may answer, if they also believe that ending socialistic programs would lead to civil war or that we would have already had the civil war if we had not started the socialistic programs.

 

[Ringo]

Any honest capitalist will tell you that capitalism is about profit and only profit. And what is the most profitable and quickest way to make a profit? Plunder. Through the exploitation of workers or through war.

That is why, no matter how far technological progress has advanced under capitalism, poverty, crime, and war cannot disappear, because they are part of making a profit, and moreover, the most important part. Plunder.

Most importantly, technological progress in military affairs has led to the possibility of destroying life on Earth. And this danger cannot disappear under capitalism. So, for this reason alone, the rotten structure called capitalism must be destroyed. Humanity deserves better than to remain at the level of savages.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The NHS in the UK is collapsing, Canadas system is a failure and every government healthcare plan fell apart in Americas. See a pattern yet

Look at the US.
The for profit healthcare system RWNJ's endorse is collapsing faster than any socialist healthcare.

How many countries in the world, are waiting in line to adopt the US healthcare system?

Our politicians and service members are all on, the socialist healthcare system.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I would say were socialism goes libs never learn the hard way

They just double down

Look how far we've progressed under RWNJ "capitalism".

$980 Billion debt in 1980 to $37.6 Trillion today.