Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[Rigby5]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs​

That really worked out for the Soviet Union, eh?

"In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce

But they never do produce that abundance.

Obviously Russia never implemented Marxism.
Stalin instead implemented a form of state capitalism, where essentially you only have 1 single capitalism company.
That is reverting back to a form of capitalist feudalism.
In Russia, the wealthy elite, like Stalin, did not produce or need all the wealth they took.

 

[Rigby5]

None of this address the post you are responding to. Was it meant for someone else?

Maybe I misunderstood, but what you wrote was:
{...
Can you answer the question, rather than seeking diversion? Why do you ignore the function of investment and profit in a free market? Are you really so simple minded that you see it all as "money-for-nothing"?
...}

And my point is that investment and profit do not have a function in a fair society or market.
Individuals trying to maximize their return is a very disorganized and counter productive means of running anything.
And the easiest way to maximize profits is to create deliberate scarcity instead of production.
And one should never use the phrase, "free market", because that implies absolutely no regulation at all, which means there is nothing to prevent crime, such as feudalism or slavery, based on "might makes right", or the "power of the sword".

 

[struth]

Requiring Good Cause to quit to collect unemployment compensation in an at-will employment State is a form of "wage-slavery" where capital is a requirement in a market economy.

How is that "wage-slavery" --- you think you have a right to have someone hire you and pay you? Why? You are comparing slavery to not getting insurance comphension for willingly leaving a job? wow....just wow....the entitlement of you leftist

 

[Rigby5]

No. It's not. Because there is a fundamental, overriding difference between the power held by private wealth and the power held by government. Until you actually acknowledge this and account for it, I can't take your position seriously at all.

The ONLY thing wrong with power held by government is that private corporations have used their massive wealth to manipulate media to the point they now have an inordinate influence over government.
So you want to make these evil and corrupt private corporations even more in control over our lives?

For example, who lied to us about WMD in Iraq?
We can't ever really know because they have too much power to allow any investigation, but clearly is was US oil companies, who illegal gained control over Iraqi oil, and increased world oil prices for their oil in places like TX.

The solution to evil and corrupt government is not to increase the ability of the wealthy elite to control government even more.
Instead we need more regulation, in order to reduce the influence of the corrupt wealthy elite.
For example, we have to over-turn Citizen's United.
That allowed foreign campaign contribution laundering.

 

[struth]

Special pleading is usually considered a fallacy. You need to explain which specific policies did that. Otherwise, we could claim the South was worse and it required a civil war to correct.

Specifically, it's the policy of SOCIALISM.

 

[struth]

Democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production can only happen under socialism. Capitalism concentrates money and political power in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation. The result is on full display today for all who are not blinded by their authoritarian ideology

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia.

"The history of democratic socialism can be traced back to 19th-century socialist thinkers across Europe and the Chartist movement in Britain, which somewhat differed in their goals but shared a common demand of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production, and viewed these as fundamental characteristics of the society they advocated for. In the late 19th to the early 20th century,"

Actually in a capitalist society, we have public ownership....anyone can by a share of any publicly traded company. Try again.

Socialism is the State ownership...under Socialism you have even MORE CONCENRATED money and political power, since only the State owns things.

 

[struth]

That's a definition of socialism that no one advocates.
You are blinded by your capitalist ideology to all the many types of socialism currently being considered.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

"Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit.

"We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society."

There is only one form of socialism...you can paint it up, and give it different adjectives in front of it to try and re-package it and sell it...but it is what it is

 

[Rigby5]

How is that "wage-slavery" --- you think you have a right to have someone hire you and pay you? Why? You are comparing slavery to not getting insurance comphension for willingly leaving a job? wow....just wow....the entitlement of you leftist

Wrong.
Unemployment insurance has nothing to do with willingly leaving a job.
It is only for when wrongly or arbitrarily terminated.
And without it, then you would force slavery, because there would be no recourse to death if you lost your job, so you would then be force to work for far less than you are worth.

 

[struth]

Wrong.
Socialism does not at all reduce or effect personal possessions in any way.
You can build and own all the factories you want under socialism.
The only thing socialism does is require collective regulation of industry so that it is not abusive, and it allows for collective investment in industry if the people want.

And obviously Adam Smith is wrong, because every unregulated capitalist society of the past has always reverted to slavery,
Even though it is inefficient, capitalists like slavery because they enjoy feeling superior to the slaves. Their goal is not just to make the maximum profits, but to deliberately reduce the profits of everyone else, compared to them.

of course it does...if an individual can't own the means of production, ie...their farm...their business...you are reducing their possessions.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually in a capitalist society, we have public ownership....anyone can by a share of any publicly traded company. Try again.

Socialism is the State ownership...under Socialism you have even MORE CONCENRATED money and political power, since only the State owns things.

Wrong.
Capitalism tries to prevent any public ownership.
In the US, the only things publicly owned are things that private companies refuse to do, like Amtrak or water utilities.

Concentration of money and political power is not more under socialism, but much less.
Since socialism is universal ownership, you cannot possibly have any less concentration than with socialism.

And no, socialism is NOT where the state owns everything or even anything.
Socialism is where the state has laws to regulate everything, in order to prevent abuses, like monopolies, slavery, child labor, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

There is only one form of socialism...you can paint it up, and give it different adjectives in front of it to try and re-package it and sell it...but it is what it is

Except that socialism is NOT at all what YOU think it is is.
You have it totally and completely wrong.
Socialism is not even centralized, but has to be the single most decentralized possible

 

[task0778]

Wrong.
Unemployment insurance has nothing to do with willingly leaving a job.
It is only for when wrongly or arbitrarily terminated.
And without it, then you would force slavery, because there would be no recourse to death if you lost your job, so you would then be force to work for far less than you are worth.

Total horseshit. Even if someone is wrongfully or arbitrarily terminated, slavery is not forced because you can get another job, with or without UE. Plus you may have cause to sue the bastard that fired you without justification. You are never forced to work for less than you are worth unless you yourself decide to accept it. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says work for peanuts or die.

 

[dblack]

Maybe I misunderstood, but what you wrote was:
{...
Can you answer the question, rather than seeking diversion? Why do you ignore the function of investment and profit in a free market? Are you really so simple minded that you see it all as "money-for-nothing"?
...}

And my point is that investment and profit do not have a function in a fair society or market.

Fair is a loaded term. Freedom is less subjective.

Individuals trying to maximize their return is a very disorganized and counter productive means of running anything.

The disorganization is a feature not a bug. The decentralized nature prevents authoritarian control

And one should never use the phrase, "free market", because that implies absolutely no regulation at all, which means there is nothing to prevent crime, such as feudalism or slavery, based on "might makes right", or the "power of the sword".

One should never use the term "fair society or market" because it's a complete subjective assessment. Your idea of "fair" almost certainly doesn't jibe with mine, for example. Freedom isn't anarchy, and "free market" doesn't imply absolutely no regulation at all; that's just a strawman. Freedom does not equal anarchy. Might makes right is the core ethos of majority rule. Freedom requires constitutional limits on the democratic will of the majority.

 

[Rigby5]

of course it does...if an individual can't own the means of production, ie...their farm...their business...you are reducing their possessions.

WRONG!

In no way does or ever did socialism imply any lack of private personal possession of anything.
Anyone can invest in any means of production any time they want under socialism.
It is just that they are regulated against illegal and abusive actions.
And even if they do nothing illegal or abusive, if they do not satisfy the needs of the community, then the community may produce their own means of production for the same goods or services, and undercut the prices of anyone who is abusive.

 

[Rigby5]

Total horseshit. Even if someone is wrongfully or arbitrarily terminated, slavery is not forced because you can get another job, with or without UE. Plus you may have cause to sue the bastard that fired you without justification. You are never forced to work for less than you are worth unless you yourself decide to accept it. Nobody puts a gun to your head and says work for peanuts or die.

The ability to get another job, to be able to sue, etc., are all socialist regulations that prevent slavery.
Without socialist regulations, they can and do put a gun to your head.

 

[dblack]

The ONLY thing wrong with power held by government is that ...

You're ignoring, will always ignore it would seem, the fundamental difference between political power and economic power: The power to employ force against those who won't do what you want them to do. Governments have this power, private wealth does not. If you get fed up with Facebook, you can tell them get fucked and ignore them. Try that with government and you'll end up in jail or dead.

 

[Rigby5]

Fair is a loaded term. Freedom is less subjective.

The disorganization is a feature not a bug. The decentralized nature prevents authoritarian control

One should never use the term "fair society or market" because it's a complete subjective assessment. Your idea of "fair" almost certainly doesn't jibe with mine, for example. Freedom isn't anarchy, and "free market" doesn't imply absolutely no regulation at all; that's just a strawman. Freedom does not equal anarchy. Might makes right is the core ethos of majority rule. Freedom requires constitutional limits on the democratic will of the majority.

Wrong.

First of all, a free market is by far the single most authoritarian, because then the largest application of force rules all, and that would be multi national conglomerates.

Second is that if you look at history, every "free market" has always resulted in tyranny.
When profits are the only unregulated motive, then the cheapest investment with the greatest return is just to hire armed mercenaries to enforce your wll.
All the emperors, kings, barons, popes, pharaohs, sultans, etc. of history were all the result of unbridled capitalism, and always will be.
If you look at recent history, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc obviously were all pure capitalists.
Capitalism is always evil greed, and socialism is always what any sane community does to prevent that from becoming abusive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Depends on the percentage of daily labor you personally perform.

My workers don't get to vote on my ownership.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How did it work out for Hitler?

When we compare East Germany to West Germany, even a moron like you can see what works best.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Profit motive is awful.
It has no stabilizing factors,

Really?
Consumer demand isn't a stabilizing factor?