Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate? How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"

A very good question actually. Two points. Let's see what he has to say.

The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite." The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.

So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why? I admit in current affairs and in our democratic facade joe has no chance. But supposing we have a genuinely democratic culture where the public gives two shits about the conditions of their lives and the policies that effect it and have access to true information (instead of propaganda) do you think that joe is still too absurd for words? If so, why does Democracy just not work in our opinion? "Too absurd for words" is not really a defense of such a claim.

 

[bripat9643]

We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.

1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;

2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).

3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.

I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?

We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate. I'd prefer to stick closer to the empirical side of things over the theoretical.

You failed to explain how the leaders of your ideal society would be selected and not be members of the "elite." Please elucidate.

 

[bripat9643]

A very good question actually. Two points. Let's see what he has to say.

The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite." The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.

So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why?

Tell us how he does it.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Socialism and Communism guarantee shared misery, elimination of a Middle Class, and the establishment of a truly 1 percent with little or no mobility (opportunity) to enter into. This is all administered by a ruling elite.

Keep trashing Capitalism..... It's the best system in the world. How many masses of individuals are lining up to enter Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China or Great Britain? All of these Countries have moved away from Capitalism. Only fools and idiots would want to move America in the direction of those countries.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.

1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;

2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).

3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.

I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?

We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate.

America has definitely never been a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy. The entire idea of America was individual freedom. A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely, as a -genuine- democracy enforces the will of the majority, PERIOD.

I forget who said it, but I seen this quote on the board that says it perfectly. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm a little perplexed about when the payout occurs?
Am I correct is assuming each couple deposits $350 every month of their adult lives without ever spending any of the trust?

That's the problem isn;t it? You're worried about your payout.

By the time the original couple has grandchildren there will be enough to pay for any college in the world.

After 3 generations there will probably be enough to pay out individual trust funds for future progeny.

But the process has to start somewhere.

Even if you weren't interested in generational wealth that same 350 a month would give the original couple over 1.5 million when they were 70.

If all you care about is yourself that would make a nice retirement nest egg wouldn't it?

If would indeed for those earning twice as much as I did during my working career.
In my circumstances, $350 a month would have qualified as a rent payment, not a car payment. Since I never acquired a college degree, I never earned close to the median $50,000 a year income; however, I never had the debt burden today's graduates face either. FWIW, your numbers make sense for a select few with the income and will power necessary to fund their own retirements. What percentage of the US labor force do you think possess both qualities?

A select few?

Really?

It has nothing to do with income. if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.

And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.

 

[georgephillip]

Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."

I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf

Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.

Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:

"For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

 

[Andylusion]

We have 3 options. The first two involve maintaining hierarchy.

1. We sit back and let the Oligarchy continue and watch it turn into full-blown "Dear Leader" Totalitarianism;

2. We aspire to create a genuine Democracy (NB: America has never ever been a Democracy). But this is nothing short of a miracle since it would require the self-awareness of basically all citizens to be an informed populous. This would require massive overhaul of the media, education k-16, and general attitudes instilled, social values and norms. Half-assing a Democracy is what America is (no democracy at all).

3. We aspire to create a non-hierarchical commons or commune.

I am not claiming any of these are better. I am trying to facilitate discussion and currently do not wish to contribute personal opinions. I know what I think but I'm far more interested in walking through your beliefs and how you think about these issues. I've heard you disagree with Democracy. Was this a joke like your locking people up who disagree with you joke or do you think genuine Democracy is flawed? Or do you simply think the American population is too large for a functioning Democracy?

We need to keep in mind that if we are serious about questioning the structure of government (which we obviously should be) we must also be willing to deeply question what is provides for us, what it does (mostly for the super-rich) and how changes in government affects global order, and even how likely a proposal is given current political climate.

So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why? I admit in current affairs and in our democratic facade joe has no chance. But supposing we have a genuinely democratic culture where the public gives two shits about the conditions of their lives and the policies that effect it and have access to true information (instead of propaganda) do you think that joe is still too absurd for words? If so, why does Democracy just not work in our opinion? "Too absurd for words" is not really a defense of such a claim.

First off, you are assuming it is even theoretically possible to get people vote. Voter turn out has only been 50% to 60% since the start of the 1900s.

What that means is, right now the government we have today, and for the last 100 years, has been the will of a mere 26% of the population.

So what? Well two things. One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority. It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.

Two: This is why the more we move towards a democracy, the more money has influence on the government. Because the primary way you stir up the people to vote, is with media and getting your name and your cause out.

Second, while I would generally agree with your statements about reforming education, and attitudes, I'm sure we would come to completely opposite views on how and in what way to do that.

I don't think we need to reform media, because I don't think you can without influencing media, thus making them nothing more than a pawn of government (defeating the purpose), and also because I don't think it would actually help.

But the main problem with all of this, is that you are assuming that you can get people to act in a responsible manor. That's simply not true.

Many people simply don't care, and won't care and nothing you do, no amount of reforms, is ever going to change that. We'll just reform attitudes? How?

I had a relative who liked to drink. He didn't really get drunk. He had a stable job, and worked hard, but he drank all the time. He had problems in his family from his drinking. The family fell apart. He started having health issues. Finally, he went to the doctor, and the doctor told him in no uncertain terms, if you don't stop drinking, you'll die. He kept drinking.... he's dead.

He lost everything, and then lost his life. Everyone had told him for decades, put down the beer. He didn't want to.

You think you are going to just magically convince everyone to learn about all the political issues and economic issues, and foreign policy issues of the day, and then vote intelligently in every election, so that a pure democracy can work?

I think you are nutz. Even if the public wanted to.... they don't have time! People don't have time to research every aspect of Abortion, or of the Minimum wage, or of international trade, or of Geo-politics in Iran.

And so once again, you end up with a system where whichever side whips up the most people with a media campaign (money money money), is the side which controls the government under Democracy.

And trying to reform education and attitudes about these issues, is exactly why our education system is performing so badly. If you spend months talking about Panda's and Ozone, instead of Chemistry, Math, and reading and writing..... well DUR.... you end up with poor test scores on core abilities.

So to answer your question you ended with, yes, I am completely against Democracy. We're not supposed to be a Democracy, for this very reason.

The founding fathers of this country, knew that no matter how much media there was, no matter how much education they put in place, no matter what the attitudes were, the average citizen is never going to be a position to adequately determine national policy. And even if he was, he would still be influenced by others with an agenda.

Instead we're supposed to be a Representative Republic. Not a Democracy.

 

[georgephillip]

Alrighty..... and how does that fit in with the "oligarchy where the rich few trample the rights" line of thinking?

Well, shucks...I guess I jumped to the conclusion you were asking about "the irony of SCOTUS."

I think the US Senate is a good example of where oligarchy is on full display:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf

So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?

Depends on how you define "representative", doesn't it?

This author claims his analysis of US Senators' responsiveness to the preferences of wealthy, middle class, and poor constituents concluded Senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle class constituents, "while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators' roll call votes."

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/economic.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.

Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:

"For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

Or we could shrink government so much that it doesn't attract power grubbers.

 

[gnarlylove]

The reality is, that no matter what the system, the leaders of the system are going to be part of the "elite." The idea that some schlep off the street is going to become a leader of the government is too absurd for words.

So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why?

Tell us how he does it.

I don't think it's fruitful to jump in so abruptly. In your previous post you asked me to describe my ideal society. I don't find such requests helpful when we both know that you fundamentally disagree. Our disagreement does not lie in the differences in ideal society, rather, these differences arise from a much more foundational belief about humans.

I don't claim to know what you specifically believe about humans that lead you to think Democracy is impossible or utterly undesirable. Your understanding of Democracy appears to be overwhelming tainted by our alleged Democracy. You should know Democracy doesn't look anything like what America has. So do you think real Democracy doesn't work either?

And keep in mind our view of anarchism does not mean there is no system. In order to have society there must be an organizational structure. Democracy is the only structure that purports to enable the population to participate in decisions that affect them. This doesn't mean American 2 year election cycle. You really need to divorce Democracy from the idea of America and we can have a better discussion. We can impose all sorts of limits like no incumbency etc. in order to create a free society through representative and direct participation.

I want to reiterate though I am not defending Democracy. I am merely offering it as one of the few methods of arranging society and wondering why it does or does not work, according to you.

 

[georgephillip]

So "oligarchy" is just another name for representative government?

Oligarchy is thee premier form of representative government, although it is by definition not thee populous form of government since our representation in America does not correlate to the bottom 60%. Oligarchy is rule by the elite and all policy studies from the beginning of this country will reveal this. In the last few decades however, political influence has become a frenzy for investors to invest money into candidates that will enact or pass favorable policy. Hence, the investment theory of politics.

So the question becomes, do you think the elites are doing a good job or do you think the people, the 60% should also have a voice, including yourself?

So how would a government that isn't "ruled by the elite" operate? How would leaders be chosen that weren't part of the "elite?"

In the US one possible government could be created by voters who refuse to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat when voting for their congressional representatives. For voters with ballots that already contain candidates from established third parties, it's as simple as choosing a Green or Libertarian or American Independent candidate (who isn't already a millionaire) instead of a Democrat or Republican who already depends on the richest 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements.

FLUSH the DC Toilet next November, and sent the rich a message they haven't heard since Tom Paine died.

 

[gnarlylove]

One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority. It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.

This is how actually existing systems we call "Democracy" exist. You put it very succinctly. We claim to have a democratic culture but we have anything but. Culture is mostly created through funding. Who funds? Those who have money. Therefore those with money set the tone of society through cultural dissemination and deciding what passes for acceptable criticism and what doesn't.

So the question becomes what culture exists? One that says vote very 2-4 years and besides that, forget Democracy. In the average life of a person they wake up, brush their teeth, and go to work. They do what they are told and live with the decisions made by others. They depend on this totalitarian arrangement day in and day out. But what if you made it so that the people made decisions? Do you think people are uninterested in the condition of their lives? Of course not! That would be plainly stupid. Each person on some level wishes their circumstances could be mitigated. This is precisely what Democracy purports, so people can influence the condition and policies that effect their life. It's clear why most people don't vote and are not stirred: it doesn't matter which way they vote, so why get stirred up in the first place?

So instead of allowing the culture to be funded through those with money, what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives. Do you think this is an impossibility or do you agree with me that if people were given a chance to influence the policies that effect their life in legitimate ways they would become deeply interested?

 

[gnarlylove]

America has definitely never been a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy. The entire idea of America was individual freedom. A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely, as a -genuine- democracy enforces the will of the majority, PERIOD.

I forget who said it, but I seen this quote on the board that says it perfectly. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations."

But let's examine your criticism: "A genuine democracy makes individual freedom highly unlikely..."

While I'm not trying to defend Democracy, I am trying to define our terms and understand them with accuracy and clarity. You may be right and I am therefore inclined to agree. But let's not be so hasty.

When you shun Democracy, you are saying I want a different organization of politics. We already have an oligarchy and I think we can agree it produces terrible results and limits freedoms of certain groups of people outrageously (minorities, those born into poverty etc). So if our goal is freedom for maximum number of folks, Oligarchy is not the way to go. But neither was Monarchy. Do you have another suggestion to meet the goal of freedom for all?

It turns out that the majority of people in America (58%) will face poverty for at least 1 year. So the majority of people exist in conditions without economic freedom. If they want to survive, they need to work. And while living should and does require work, it's clear why many people are opposed to our current system of work: they have continued to produce more for their employer while their real wages have remained stagnant for 5 decades. Thus, the current organization of the lives of most people are such that their bosses incur tons of profit while stringing them along for mere survival. This is not a genuine sense of freedom. Do you agree? It sounds a bit like wage slavery to me and anyone under slavery should want to end those conditions, surely, since it entails their lack of freedom.

So yes, the rule of the majority would likely attempt to undo the maniacal levels of profit and low taxation (corporations pay 25 cents for every dollar an individual pays when in the 50s it was a buck 50). But why would you want the rule of a minority as opposed to majority? Do you trust the minority to make decisions in your interest? Or would you rather participate in those decisions yourself? Perhaps you are part of the minority (employers) and it would clearly explain why you don't want human beings taking autonomy over their own lives since your profits would drop, although your sustenance would in no way be threatened.

 

[TheIceMan]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

So does every other form of government that actually exists. In theory, all are perfect.

 

[bripat9643]

So you think electing average joe schlep in a genuine Democracy is too absurd for words? Why?

Tell us how he does it.

I don't think it's fruitful to jump in so abruptly. In your previous post you asked me to describe my ideal society. I don't find such requests helpful when we both know that you fundamentally disagree. Our disagreement does not lie in the differences in ideal society, rather, these differences arise from a much more foundational belief about humans.

I'm sure you don't think it's helpful when you can't explain how it would work. You can't expect anyone to accept your schemes to remodel society when all you can say when they ask about the details is a wave of your magic wand.

The bottom line is that your schemes are impossible. a government run by non "elitists" is as unthinkable as a triangle with four sides or an honest Congressman.

I don't claim to know what you specifically believe about humans that lead you to think Democracy is impossible or utterly undesirable. Your understanding of Democracy appears to be overwhelming tainted by our alleged Democracy. You should know Democracy doesn't look anything like what America has. So do you think real Democracy doesn't work either?

Yet, you can't explain how your alternative version would work. Why should anyone believe it's possible when you can't even explain it? If you have some understanding of how it would work, then post it. Otherwise we'll know that you've never even thought about it.

And keep in mind our view of anarchism does not mean there is no system. In order to have society there must be an organizational structure. Democracy is the only structure that purports to enable the population to participate in decisions that affect them. This doesn't mean American 2 year election cycle. You really need to divorce Democracy from the idea of America and we can have a better discussion. We can impose all sorts of limits like no incumbency etc. in order to create a free society through representative and direct participation.

And what happens when someone refuses to go along with decisions made by this ideal democracy of yours? How does it enforce its decisions with using force? It appears your ideals are a lot of eyewash with no thought being done on how things would actually work.

I want to reiterate though I am not defending Democracy. I am merely offering it as one of the few methods of arranging society and wondering why it does or does not work, according to you.

I've been explaining why democracy is a bad system ever since I've been a member of this forum.

 

[georgephillip]

Socialism and Communism guarantee shared misery, elimination of a Middle Class, and the establishment of a truly 1 percent with little or no mobility (opportunity) to enter into. This is all administered by a ruling elite.

Keep trashing Capitalism..... It's the best system in the world. How many masses of individuals are lining up to enter Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China or Great Britain? All of these Countries have moved away from Capitalism. Only fools and idiots would want to move America in the direction of those countries.

Capital is blind.
It doesn't matter where its returns come from, whether killing millions of innocent civilians in Korea or Japanese car factories in Kentucky, "once those returns exceed real growth of wages and output, then inevitably the stock of capital will rise disproportionately faster within the overall pattern of output.

Wealth inequality rise exponentially."

In a political system like the US where speech = money, rising wealth inequality leads directly to oligarchy just as you see in Russia or Ukraine today.

Of course, it's helpful to know the difference between communism and socialism to begin with.

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

 

[Andylusion]

Good luck getting Androw to click that link haha, I hope he does...Oligarchic Legislature:

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.

Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:

"For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

First off, in respect to the conversation, simply having money, doesn't magically make you an oligarch.

But let's move past that, to the fundamentals of the discussion.

You are basically promoting the idea that we shouldn't vote for people who have money.

I have some problems with that basic premise.

First, you seem to be implying that automatically people who are wealthy are bad, and/or that people who are not wealthy are good.

Why? On what basis? And where is this magic line? How much wealth can they have?

My parents were both public school teachers. By saving and investing, and not buying bran new cars, and by purchasing real estate at good values, they have between their home, their rentals, and their 403B (401K for teachers), they have a net worth of over a million dollars. Are my parents now inherently bad? Are they now automatically oligarchs?

Moreover, why would owning a million dollars in assets make you a bad politician? For what reason?

See, one issue is that typically poor people don't aspire to political office. You can't force people to run for office. You have to elect who is available. When two rich guys are running for office, what do you plan to do? Go find a homeless beggar and have a write-in campaign?

And further, generally the public isn't going to vote for people who have not been at least somewhat successful in life. Take me for example. I have very little wealth. If I ran for office, no one would vote for me. I make $20,000 a year, and that typically doesn't inspire confidence.

And again, why would you assume that poor equals good? Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union, was a poor person. This is a guy who grow up herding sheep in a field. He never had much wealth, and when he retired, he lived in a small house out in a rural area.

But he was terrible leader. His policies didn't work. This is the guy that asked the US ambassador where his family lived, and then circled that city on a map of the US, and said if they fired nuclear missiles, he'd spare that city.

Not being wealthy does not automatically mean you are good, nor being wealthy makes you automatically bad.

Now if you want to push people to vote against wealthy politicians, that's fine. I intend to vote for who I think will do the best job, regardless of their net worth.

 

[bripat9643]

One: A democracy system is never actually the rule of the majority. It's the rule of whoever stirs up the most people to vote.

This is how actually existing systems we call "Democracy" exist. You put it very succinctly. We claim to have a democratic culture but we have anything but. Culture is mostly created through funding. Who funds? Those who have money. Therefore those with money set the tone of society through cultural dissemination and deciding what passes for acceptable criticism and what doesn't.

So the question becomes what culture exists? One that says vote very 2-4 years and besides that, forget Democracy. In the average life of a person they wake up, brush their teeth, and go to work. They do what they are told and live with the decisions made by others. They depend on this totalitarian arrangement day in and day out. But what if you made it so that the people made decisions? Do you think people are uninterested in the condition of their lives? Of course not! That would be plainly stupid. Each person on some level wishes their circumstances could be mitigated. This is precisely what Democracy purports, so people can influence the condition and policies that effect their life. It's clear why most people don't vote and are not stirred: it doesn't matter which way they vote, so why get stirred up in the first place?

So instead of allowing the culture to be funded through those with money, what if we created a culture where people were interested in the policies that governed their lives. Do you think this is an impossibility or do you agree with me that if people were given a chance to influence the policies that effect their life in legitimate ways they would become deeply interested?

Of course, you are entirely unable to explain how your goals would be achieved. They are pie-in-the-sky. They are pixie dust and unicorns. I've met 5-year-olds who have a more realistic conception of society than yours.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism and Communism guarantee shared misery, elimination of a Middle Class, and the establishment of a truly 1 percent with little or no mobility (opportunity) to enter into. This is all administered by a ruling elite.

Keep trashing Capitalism..... It's the best system in the world. How many masses of individuals are lining up to enter Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, China or Great Britain? All of these Countries have moved away from Capitalism. Only fools and idiots would want to move America in the direction of those countries.

Capital is blind.
It doesn't matter where its returns come from, whether killing millions of innocent civilians in Korea or Japanese car factories in Kentucky, "once those returns exceed real growth of wages and output, then inevitably the stock of capital will rise disproportionately faster within the overall pattern of output.

When did capital kill millions of innocent civilians in Korea? Apparently I'm ignorant of this historical event.

Wealth inequality rise exponentially."

And your proof of this is what, exactly?

In a political system like the US where speech = money, rising wealth inequality leads directly to oligarchy just as you see in Russia or Ukraine today.

As I have demonstrated previously the term "oligarchy" is nothing more than a synonym for representative government. You simply apply it as a pejorative to representative governments that don't make the decisions you would like them to make.

Of course, it's helpful to know the difference between communism and socialism to begin with.

Capitalism simply isn't working and here are the reasons why | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer

There is no difference other than the label and the fanaticism of their respective followers.