Democratic Socialism/Communism is the only solution to advanced automation & artificial intelligence.

[Captain Caveman]

The notion that national debt is primarily due to social programs is a common misconception. In reality, a significant portion of the U.S. national debt arises from military spending, which vastly outstrips social spending. Additionally, corporate subsidies and tax cuts for the wealthy have contributed substantially to the deficit.

Social programs, such as healthcare and education, are investments in human capital that promote economic stability and growth. These programs are not the primary drivers of national debt; rather, they enhance the productivity and well-being of the population, which in turn benefits the economy.

The national debt is not mainly due to social programs but rather to a combination of excessive military spending, corporate subsidies, and tax policies favoring the wealthy. Social investments, on the other hand, are crucial for a healthy and productive society.

Rather than toing and froing, this link only takes 3 mins it to read. It covers the pros and cons of socialism and you will see that it covers exactly what I've said. You will notice that not one country has ever implemented full socialism.

I agree with you as to what socialism promotes, how fantastic it is......but only on paper. It reality, it doesn't work. Socialism banks on everyone being equal, honest, and not lazy. As soon as you put those three facts into the socialism idea, it goes tits up. Someone who's brainy to design and build a Tesla wants rewarded, he/she doesn't want to pay for the guys rent who's lazy and just cuts grass on a weekend. And with socialism comes socialist programmes. The programmes all too often just add debt onto national debt.

We could go on forever and a day, I would love socialism, but I'm also a realist. The flaws in mankind does not allow socialism to work, so you see bits of it.

Have you been out and bought that purple and yellow paint, I did, I'll have the free cash. How's the government gonna pay for that? Just put it onto national debt.

 

[Captain Caveman]

TruthNotBS I'm in the trade, over a couple of decades, I've seen partnerships come and go. It's usually a bricklayer and joiner that forms a building company. They want to split costs and profit 50/50 and it's a fantastic idea. Write the idea, it's fantastic. But one thing they don't put into the equation is, "Human flaws". So as they set off working, as the years pass, one of them feels the workload, output, and profit is 60/40, or 75/25 etc.. They're equal aren't they? Fantastic business plan isn't it? So they fall out and split.

And socialists wants to implement that idea to millions. If it fails between two..........

But hey, run with the socialism and social welfare ideas, just keep me out of it because my vote is no. And capitalism is flawed, but the bonus thing I get from it is, I don't suffer others misery, I reap what I sow.

 

[Captain Caveman]

 

[TruthNotBS]

Rather than toing and froing, this link only takes 3 mins it to read. It covers the pros and cons of socialism and you will see that it covers exactly what I've said. You will notice that not one country has ever implemented full socialism.

I agree with you as to what socialism promotes, how fantastic it is......but only on paper. It reality, it doesn't work. Socialism banks on everyone being equal, honest, and not lazy. As soon as you put those three facts into the socialism idea, it goes tits up. Someone who's brainy to design and build a Tesla wants rewarded, he/she doesn't want to pay for the guys rent who's lazy and just cuts grass on a weekend. And with socialism comes socialist programmes. The programmes all too often just add debt onto national debt.

We could go on forever and a day, I would love socialism, but I'm also a realist. The flaws in mankind does not allow socialism to work, so you see bits of it.

Have you been out and bought that purple and yellow paint, I did, I'll have the free cash. How's the government gonna pay for that? Just put it onto national debt.

Rather than toing and froing, this link only takes 3 mins it to read.

Rather than you actually taking the trouble to make an actual argument and present well-reasoned objections to mine, you're just firing a link at me and saying "Read this". Telling me that I'm wrong and then throwing a link at me, doesn't amount to you refuting my arguments, it's just you being lazy.

It covers the pros and cons of socialism and you will see that it covers exactly what I've said.

You haven't said anything, other than "Ahhhh Socialism is a utopian philosophy, that works well on paper but not in practice". OK, now present your argument as to why that's the case. You need to present in writing here in your posts, a defense for what you're proposing and claiming. Links and videos should only supplement what you are clearly asserting in writing. You have to commit yourself to a position, presenting your points here, that way your opponent can respond to YOU, not someone else. I'm debating you, not the author of an article.

You will notice that not one country has ever implemented full socialism.

The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a developing socialist society (Who says that a new mode of production has to be adopted, fully, without a transitional stage or process, to be valid and effective? You say that?).

Socialism is the process of fully socializing production, placing it in the hands of the working class. According to Marx, socialism can have markets, at least at the beginning of the process leading to "full-socialism" i.e. communism (a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money). That said, your reasoning is flawed. Why? Because for tens of thousands of years, human beings were communists (primitive communists):

​

Since capitalism didn't exist until maybe 240 years ago, does that mean that capitalism was invalid and feudalism was better by default because it had been the primary mode of production for centuries, before capitalism? I'm just applying your fuzzy logic to capitalism.

What's your point in telling me that "full socialism" hasn't been implemented yet at a national scale? So what? It will only be adopted by a nation, when the conditions necessitate its implementation, as in for example, when advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace human wage labor. In other words, it will happen when the conditions are in place for it to happen. We're now thanks to advanced automation technology creating the perfect conditions for the implementation of full socialism.

I agree with you as to what socialism promotes, how fantastic it is......but only on paper. It reality, it doesn't work.

It is working, and has worked, as I already explained in previous posts. Moreover, without socialism, modern capitalism would collapse and never recover. Socialism rescues (bailsout) capitalism with public funds, every few years, preventing the collapse of national economies.

Socialism banks on everyone being equal, honest, and not lazy.

The claim that "Socialism banks on everyone being equal, honest, and not lazy" misrepresents the principles of socialism. Socialism aims to ensure equal opportunities and access to basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing, rather than assuming everyone has the same abilities or motivations. It builds systemic structures to promote fairness and accountability, not relying on individual honesty. Countries with strong social safety nets, such as those in Scandinavia, show that providing for basic needs actually fosters productivity and innovation, not laziness. These systems create conditions where everyone can contribute meaningfully to society, regardless of their starting point.

Furthermore, socialism incorporates mechanisms to address dishonesty and lack of motivation through democratic governance, community oversight, and public accountability. Historical and practical examples, like the success of Scandinavian social democracies and worker cooperatives, demonstrate that socialism can lead to high levels of productivity, economic stability, and social well-being. This contradicts the oversimplified notion that socialism depends on unrealistic assumptions about human behavior.

As soon as you put those three facts into the socialism idea, it goes tits up. Someone who's brainy to design and build a Tesla wants rewarded, he/she doesn't want to pay for the guys rent who's lazy and just cuts grass on a weekend. And with socialism comes socialist programmes. The programmes all too often just add debt onto national debt.

We could go on forever and a day, I would love socialism, but I'm also a realist. The flaws in mankind does not allow socialism to work, so you see bits of it.

Have you been out and bought that purple and yellow paint, I did, I'll have the free cash. How's the government gonna pay for that? Just put it onto national debt.

First, socialism doesn’t eliminate rewards for innovation or hard work. Instead, it aims to distribute resources and opportunities more equitably, ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met. The idea that someone who designs a Tesla wouldn’t be rewarded under socialism is a misrepresentation. Socialism supports fair compensation for all work, valuing contributions based on their societal benefits rather than market-driven profits alone.

Regarding your point about national debt, socialist programs do not inherently lead to unsustainable debt. Many countries with strong social welfare systems, such as those in Scandinavia, maintain robust economies and manage their finances responsibly. The real issue with national debt often lies in military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy, not social programs. Additionally, it should be noted, that a government that issues its own currency, like the United States, can manage debt in ways that don't equate to household debt, allowing for investment in public welfare without crippling financial burdens.

Your analogy about buying purple and yellow paint misses the broader point of how economies function. Government spending on social programs is an investment in human capital, increasing productivity and stability in the long run. The idea that people will exploit such systems is greatly exaggerated and fails to recognize the overall benefits of ensuring everyone has access to basic resources. Socialism addresses flaws in human systems by creating structures that promote fairness and opportunity for all, rather than perpetuating inequality and exploitation.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Rather than you actually taking the trouble to make an actual argument and present well-reasoned objections to mine, you're just firing a link at me and saying "Read this". Telling me that I'm wrong and then throwing a link at me, doesn't amount to you refuting my arguments, it's just you being lazy.




You haven't said anything, other than "Ahhhh Socialism is a utopian philosophy, that works well on paper but not in practice". OK, now present your argument as to why that's the case. You need to present in writing here in your posts, a defense for what you're proposing and claiming. Links and videos should only supplement what you are clearly asserting in writing. You have to commit yourself to a position, presenting your points here, that way your opponent can respond to YOU, not someone else. I'm debating you, not the author of an article.



The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a developing socialist society (Who says that a new mode of production has to be adopted, fully, without a transitional stage or process, to be valid and effective? You say that?).

Socialism is the process of fully socializing production, placing it in the hands of the working class. According to Marx, socialism can have markets, at least at the beginning of the process leading to "full-socialism" i.e. communism (a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money). That said, your reasoning is flawed. Why? Because for tens of thousands of years, human beings were communists (primitive communists):

View attachment 978348


View attachment 978366

View attachment 978367

​

Since capitalism didn't exist until maybe 240 years ago, does that mean that capitalism was invalid and feudalism was better by default because it had been the primary mode of production for centuries, before capitalism? I'm just applying your fuzzy logic to capitalism.

What's your point in telling me that "full socialism" hasn't been implemented yet at a national scale? So what? It will only be adopted by a nation, when the conditions necessitate its implementation, as in for example, when advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace human wage labor. In other words, it will happen when the conditions are in place for it to happen. We're now thanks to advanced automation technology creating the perfect conditions for the implementation of full socialism.




It is working, and has worked, as I already explained in previous posts. Moreover, without socialism, modern capitalism would collapse and never recover. Socialism rescues (bailsout) capitalism with public funds, every few years, preventing the collapse of national economies.


The claim that "Socialism banks on everyone being equal, honest, and not lazy" misrepresents the principles of socialism. Socialism aims to ensure equal opportunities and access to basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing, rather than assuming everyone has the same abilities or motivations. It builds systemic structures to promote fairness and accountability, not relying on individual honesty. Countries with strong social safety nets, such as those in Scandinavia, show that providing for basic needs actually fosters productivity and innovation, not laziness. These systems create conditions where everyone can contribute meaningfully to society, regardless of their starting point.

Furthermore, socialism incorporates mechanisms to address dishonesty and lack of motivation through democratic governance, community oversight, and public accountability. Historical and practical examples, like the success of Scandinavian social democracies and worker cooperatives, demonstrate that socialism can lead to high levels of productivity, economic stability, and social well-being. This contradicts the oversimplified notion that socialism depends on unrealistic assumptions about human behavior.



First, socialism doesn’t eliminate rewards for innovation or hard work. Instead, it aims to distribute resources and opportunities more equitably, ensuring that everyone’s basic needs are met. The idea that someone who designs a Tesla wouldn’t be rewarded under socialism is a misrepresentation. Socialism supports fair compensation for all work, valuing contributions based on their societal benefits rather than market-driven profits alone.

Regarding your point about national debt, socialist programs do not inherently lead to unsustainable debt. Many countries with strong social welfare systems, such as those in Scandinavia, maintain robust economies and manage their finances responsibly. The real issue with national debt often lies in military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy, not social programs. Additionally, it should be noted, that a government that issues its own currency, like the United States, can manage debt in ways that don't equate to household debt, allowing for investment in public welfare without crippling financial burdens.

Your analogy about buying purple and yellow paint misses the broader point of how economies function. Government spending on social programs is an investment in human capital, increasing productivity and stability in the long run. The idea that people will exploit such systems is greatly exaggerated and fails to recognize the overall benefits of ensuring everyone has access to basic resources. Socialism addresses flaws in human systems by creating structures that promote fairness and opportunity for all, rather than perpetuating inequality and exploitation.

Try again, that was just a butchered up multi-quote, been over this with you, are you retarded on purpose? Are you a sock account of Crick , that retard mirror images you.

 

[TruthNotBS]

TruthNotBS I'm in the trade, over a couple of decades, I've seen partnerships come and go. It's usually a bricklayer and joiner that forms a building company. They want to split costs and profit 50/50 and it's a fantastic idea. Write the idea, it's fantastic. But one thing they don't put into the equation is, "Human flaws". So as they set off working, as the years pass, one of them feels the workload, output, and profit is 60/40, or 75/25 etc.. They're equal aren't they? Fantastic business plan isn't it? So they fall out and split.

And socialists wants to implement that idea to millions. If it fails between two..........

But hey, run with the socialism and social welfare ideas, just keep me out of it because my vote is no. And capitalism is flawed, but the bonus thing I get from it is, I don't suffer others misery, I reap what I sow.

Captain Caveman, your analogy about business partnerships falling apart due to human flaws misunderstands the principles of socialism. Socialism does not naively assume that all individuals will contribute equally in all contexts. Instead, it recognizes the diverse abilities and contributions of individuals and seeks to ensure that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life, such as healthcare, education, and housing. This system promotes a fair distribution of resources, aiming to reduce the vast inequalities perpetuated by capitalism.

Regarding your claim that socialism cannot work on a larger scale because it fails between two people, this is a flawed comparison. Socialism incorporates mechanisms to address and manage human flaws, such as democratic governance, collective decision-making, and community oversight. These systems are designed to promote accountability and fairness, ensuring that no one person or group disproportionately benefits at the expense of others. Historical and contemporary examples, such as the successful implementation of social welfare systems in Scandinavian countries, demonstrate that socialism can lead to high levels of social well-being and economic stability.

Finally, while you assert that capitalism allows you to "reap what you sow," this overlooks the systemic inequalities and exploitation inherent in capitalist systems. Many people suffer under capitalism due to circumstances beyond their control, such as economic recessions, job losses, and inadequate access to resources. Socialism seeks to create a more just society by addressing these systemic issues and ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Dismissing socialism based on a simplistic analogy ignores the complex and nuanced ways in which socialist principles can be effectively implemented on a larger scale.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Captain Caveman, your analogy about business partnerships falling apart due to human flaws misunderstands the principles of socialism. Socialism does not naively assume that all individuals will contribute equally in all contexts. Instead, it recognizes the diverse abilities and contributions of individuals and seeks to ensure that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life, such as healthcare, education, and housing. This system promotes a fair distribution of resources, aiming to reduce the vast inequalities perpetuated by capitalism.

Regarding your claim that socialism cannot work on a larger scale because it fails between two people, this is a flawed comparison. Socialism incorporates mechanisms to address and manage human flaws, such as democratic governance, collective decision-making, and community oversight. These systems are designed to promote accountability and fairness, ensuring that no one person or group disproportionately benefits at the expense of others. Historical and contemporary examples, such as the successful implementation of social welfare systems in Scandinavian countries, demonstrate that socialism can lead to high levels of social well-being and economic stability.

Finally, while you assert that capitalism allows you to "reap what you sow," this overlooks the systemic inequalities and exploitation inherent in capitalist systems. Many people suffer under capitalism due to circumstances beyond their control, such as economic recessions, job losses, and inadequate access to resources. Socialism seeks to create a more just society by addressing these systemic issues and ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Dismissing socialism based on a simplistic analogy ignores the complex and nuanced ways in which socialist principles can be effectively implemented on a larger scale.

No it isn't. It's showing you that Utopianism doesn't work, my link told you that. Toing and froing is of no use.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Try again, that was just a butchered up multi-quote, been over this with you, are you retarded on purpose? Are you a sock account of Crick , that retard mirror images you.

Triggered much? Hehehe..Learn to think and debate.

 

[TruthNotBS]

No it isn't. It's showing you that Utopianism doesn't work, my link told you that. Toing and froing is of no use.

Captain Caveman, your assertion that socialism equates to utopianism is a misrepresentation. Socialism is not about creating a perfect society free from all human flaws. Instead, it aims to address systemic inequalities and provide a more equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met. This is not utopian; it is a pragmatic approach to building a fairer society.

Your argument implies that human flaws make socialism unworkable. However, socialism recognizes these flaws and incorporates mechanisms to manage them. Democratic governance, collective decision-making, and community oversight are designed to promote accountability and fairness. Successful examples in Scandinavian countries show that social welfare systems can lead to high levels of social well-being and economic stability, demonstrating that socialism can work effectively on a large scale.

Capitalism, on the other hand, often exacerbates inequality and social strife. The notion that you "reap what you sow" ignores the systemic barriers many people face, such as economic recessions, job losses, and lack of access to resources. Socialism seeks to mitigate these issues by providing a safety net and ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to succeed, rather than leaving them at the mercy of market forces. This approach is not utopian; it is a realistic response to the inherent flaws and inequities of capitalist systems.

 

[TruthNotBS]

As you can see, truth seekers, these capitalist apologists have nothing to offer but misconceptions about socialism and capitalism. They think capitalism is eternal and won't be succeeded or replaced, by another system of production. Material conditions determine what system of production is best suited to meet our needs.

Capitalism relies upon wage labor, because without that employer-employee relationship (i.e. exploiter-exploitee dynamic), there's no customer base or market. The paying consumer purchases the goods and services that the employers (i.e. capitalists) are selling, with their wages (the money that they've earned at their jobs). If production technology advances to the point that it is autonomous and more efficient and cost-effective than a human worker who is being paid a wage, then capitalists are forced due to the nature of capitalist competition and the need to reduce overhead (the cost of production) and liability, to adopt the most efficient, cheapest, reliable and effective method of production.

​

The big-money capitalists (the biggest fish of the capitalist class) know that technology will eventually force by necessity society's adoption of a non-profit, marketless, more democratic, and publicly owned system of production, eliminating the consumer's need for capitalists and their goods and services. That's the end of the capitalist class's control (private ownership) of the means (facilities, resources) of production (mines, factories, autonomous machines and artificial intelligence, the logistical infrastructure and assets of production).

This is why they're offering everyone a so-called "UBI" (Universal Basic Income) or a UI (Universal Income) paid by the government to every member of society. This would be the biggest government bailout in capitalism's history, to extend the life of capitalism a few more decades, or maybe a century or two. It's socialism for the rich and a form of feudalism (techno-feudalism) for the former working class, reduced to being an unproductive, worthless "consumer-serf class". The only purpose of the consumer is to purchase the products of the capitalists with the money they receive from the government, in the form of that "UBI" (The UBI will quickly become a UI or Universal Income - The only Income people have).

The capitalist ruling class will maintain private ownership of the means of production, wielding an immense amount of power and control over society (over your life). The unproductive, worthless consumer-serf, who was once a member of a valuable needed working class, will own nothing, becoming a perpetual renter-consumer, whose only purpose is to maintain the capitalist class in power and control over everything.

Most if not all of the goods and services people will rely on to live, will only be available if someone "logs in" to the product or service they've purchased. Nothing will remain under the control of the consumer, including one's money. Firearms will become illegal to own in this new capitalist-run feudalistic dystopia. Everything will become commodified, even the air that one breathes. In techno-feudalism, people will not have a legal human right to personal ownership of the basics of life, unlike in socialism, which recognizes people's human right to housing, food, healthcare, education..etc.

The only reason people will exist under this modern form of feudalism is to maintain the capitalist class in power and avoid a socialist revolution, where the people revolt and take collective, democratic ownership over the means of production.

The great irony of it all is that techno-feudalism, leads to the capitalist tech-lords, becoming communists. They will live in their high-tech gated communities, in complete control over all of the technology and facilities (resource assets), of production, and the unproductive, consumer-serf class, that was once the productive, valuable "working class", will be consigned to the compost heap. How will the tech lords "cull the herd"? Through poverty, street crime, substance abuse, incarceration, pandemics, war..etc.

​

The capitalist tech-lords, will eventually ironically, collectively own (as communists, in a marketless society of wealthy tech-lords) the means of production, in their communities. They will be the surviving class, the ones who will prove to be the fittest, and worthy of life while 94% of the population (the former working-class) goes the way of the dodo. They become extinct as a class and as a demographic, they're gradually culled, dispatched, and killed off. The threat of the working class will be neutralized, through that UBI/UI, making everyone dependent upon a capitalist-controlled government, that plans to eliminate them through a Malthusian, "Final Solution".

The alternative to all of the above is that 94% of the population, who are now members of the "working class", take collective control over the means of production and manage it democratically through their government. Eventually, due to further advancements in technology, the individual consumer will have complete, personal control over the means of production, no longer needing the state or a government to manage production. The individual consumer will own the technology to produce everything that they consume without anyone else's assistance or input.

Communism is defined as a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Socialism is the process that leads to communism (or one might define socialism, as an early stage of communism). Communism comes in two forms. Primitive communism:

And high-communism (high-tech communism):

High communism, will allow the consumer to produce everything they consume, using the latest technology, without the need for government infrastructure or anyone else's assistance or input. This will render all human relationships between adults 100% voluntary and without coercion. If you can personally produce everything that you consume (food, water, housing, transportation, electricity, all products and services), then you're truly free and in control of your life.

In the future people will become more mobile, living on their modes of transport. Yachts, RVs, spacecraft..etc. They will form colonies of other like-minded people, in different environments (at sea, space..etc.). The state will no longer exist, because each individual or family, will own (wield), the means of production. If the administration of a colony, becomes overbearing, and heavy-handed, you just pack up and go. The "king" (little tyrant) is left on the throne by himself, in an empty, silent, uninhabited, dead colony. Personal control over the means of production is the objective of socialism. That is:

HIGH-COMMUNISM = PERSONAL FREEDOM & SOVEREIGNTY.​

 

[Captain Caveman]

Captain Caveman, your assertion that socialism equates to utopianism is a misrepresentation. Socialism is not about creating a perfect society free from all human flaws. Instead, it aims to address systemic inequalities and provide a more equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that everyone's basic needs are met. This is not utopian; it is a pragmatic approach to building a fairer society.

Your argument implies that human flaws make socialism unworkable. However, socialism recognizes these flaws and incorporates mechanisms to manage them. Democratic governance, collective decision-making, and community oversight are designed to promote accountability and fairness. Successful examples in Scandinavian countries show that social welfare systems can lead to high levels of social well-being and economic stability, demonstrating that socialism can work effectively on a large scale.

Capitalism, on the other hand, often exacerbates inequality and social strife. The notion that you "reap what you sow" ignores the systemic barriers many people face, such as economic recessions, job losses, and lack of access to resources. Socialism seeks to mitigate these issues by providing a safety net and ensuring that all individuals have the opportunity to succeed, rather than leaving them at the mercy of market forces. This approach is not utopian; it is a realistic response to the inherent flaws and inequities of capitalist systems.

Obviously you didn't read the 3 minute link.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Triggered much? Hehehe..Learn to think and debate.

Learn to converse in a normal manner.

 

[Captain Caveman]

TruthNotBS I will express construction in a Capitalist and Socialist way

Capitalist - I set up in business, self employed, as a general builder. I start sowing, so I invest my money into my skills (training, construction courses), tools, a vehicle, and premises. I then pay to advertise, I work long days 24/7, and i then also rely on word of mouth. If a job goes well or badly, I reap the profit and suffer the losses. On a larger job, I sub contract some of the work. At the end of the job, I reap the profit or suffer the loss which my sub-contractors avoid because I pay them weekly. If the job makes a loss, just me suffers the misery.

Socialist 1 - Bill (bricklayer) and Ben (joiner) go into Socialist partnership. They think in a Utopian way that by joining forces, they can equally share the jobs and equally reward themselves. They have this misbelief in equality. As time passes, Ben is doing more joinery work for the business, bricklaying side of things is not happening as much. As Ben sees the unfairness, human nature kicks in, "Why am I bringing more money in but I'm losing some to someone who is not working as hard". If there's a problem on either side that incurs a loss, both share the misery, human nature remembers the bad times, not so much the good times. So their system collapses, all too often with ill feeling between them.

Socialist 2 - I operate in a capitalist way, I get a job but it's going to take two people. I risk buying the materials, I risk the customer paying or not paying me, and word of mouth that I (pardon the pun) built up over the years. I ask Kevin if I could sub-contract him and what's his day rate rate. I take the risk and guesstimate I need him for 4 days. Kevin wants to do it in a socialist way and split the profit 50/50. I told him he's off his Utopian fucking trolley, which idiot wants to do it that way?

Both socialist 1 and 2 are real life examples of the many I've witnessed over 20 years.

Socialist 1 on paper looks fantastic, best idea on paper. Now, you might find a business partner that's happy to go in on a 50/50 basis and might not mind doing 75% of the workload but just reap 50% back. Upscale that to a country with millions of people, just doesn't work.

So the social programme is, lets support the fragile soul that's struggling health wise. Somewhere on the forum I've already posted this. My unemployed friend went to her doctors and got signed off as ill, struggling mentally bla bla. So she's exempt from finding a job and they pay her £300 a month more in welfare. In effect, she went out and bought purple and yellow paint. Where does the money from because this exact problem is an epidemic? Unless tax goes up, we all suffer the misery, it goes onto national debt.

Same with inefficient nationalised utilities, who suffers the investment costs and losses? The tax payer and the national debt.

YOU personally live in the socialist Utopian world because I can guarantee it you would benefit and sponge from such a shit system at the cost of others. Do you have purple and yellow paint on your fingers? Are you on welfare?

 

[TruthNotBS]

TruthNotBS I will express construction in a Capitalist and Socialist way

Capitalist - I set up in business, self employed, as a general builder. I start sowing, so I invest my money into my skills (training, construction courses), tools, a vehicle, and premises. I then pay to advertise, I work long days 24/7, and i then also rely on word of mouth. If a job goes well or badly, I reap the profit and suffer the losses. On a larger job, I sub contract some of the work. At the end of the job, I reap the profit or suffer the loss which my sub-contractors avoid because I pay them weekly. If the job makes a loss, just me suffers the misery.

Socialist 1 - Bill (bricklayer) and Ben (joiner) go into Socialist partnership. They think in a Utopian way that by joining forces, they can equally share the jobs and equally reward themselves. They have this misbelief in equality. As time passes, Ben is doing more joinery work for the business, bricklaying side of things is not happening as much. As Ben sees the unfairness, human nature kicks in, "Why am I bringing more money in but I'm losing some to someone who is not working as hard". If there's a problem on either side that incurs a loss, both share the misery, human nature remembers the bad times, not so much the good times. So their system collapses, all too often with ill feeling between them.

Socialist 2 - I operate in a capitalist way, I get a job but it's going to take two people. I risk buying the materials, I risk the customer paying or not paying me, and word of mouth that I (pardon the pun) built up over the years. I ask Kevin if I could sub-contract him and what's his day rate rate. I take the risk and guesstimate I need him for 4 days. Kevin wants to do it in a socialist way and split the profit 50/50. I told him he's off his Utopian fucking trolley, which idiot wants to do it that way?

Both socialist 1 and 2 are real life examples of the many I've witnessed over 20 years.

Socialist 1 on paper looks fantastic, best idea on paper. Now, you might find a business partner that's happy to go in on a 50/50 basis and might not mind doing 75% of the workload but just reap 50% back. Upscale that to a country with millions of people, just doesn't work.

So the social programme is, lets support the fragile soul that's struggling health wise. Somewhere on the forum I've already posted this. My unemployed friend went to her doctors and got signed off as ill, struggling mentally bla bla. So she's exempt from finding a job and they pay her £300 a month more in welfare. In effect, she went out and bought purple and yellow paint. Where does the money from because this exact problem is an epidemic? Unless tax goes up, we all suffer the misery, it goes onto national debt.

Same with inefficient nationalised utilities, who suffers the investment costs and losses? The tax payer and the national debt.

YOU personally live in the socialist Utopian world because I can guarantee it you would benefit and sponge from such a shit system at the cost of others. Do you have purple and yellow paint on your fingers? Are you on welfare?

Captain Caveman, your arguments misrepresent both the principles of socialism and the reality of capitalism. Let's break it down.

The Reality of Capitalism​

Your example of a self-employed builder highlights the exploitative nature of capitalism. While you might work hard and take risks, capitalism inherently rewards the owners of capital—those who own the tools, vehicles, premises—not the workers. This system relies on exploiting labor for profit, where the value created by workers is appropriated by business owners. In your example, subcontractors avoid losses because they are paid weekly, but they also miss out on the profits, which you retain.

This highlights the imbalance and exploitation inherent in capitalist structures, where risks and rewards are unfairly distributed. Moreover, workers take significant risks too—risks to their health, safety, and lives. They submit to workplaces often run like totalitarian regimes or dictatorships, with little to no say in the conditions or terms of their labor.

Misconception of Socialism​

Your portrayal of "Socialist 1" and "Socialist 2" is a straw man argument. Socialism does not naively assume that everyone contributes equally at all times. Instead, it recognizes the diversity of abilities and contributions, ensuring fair compensation and support for all. In a socialist system, structures are in place to manage resources democratically and fairly. Successful examples include worker cooperatives and social democratic countries, where collective decision-making and shared ownership lead to higher productivity and social well-being. These systems have proven to be effective, debunking the myth that socialism cannot scale beyond small partnerships.

Social Welfare and National Debt​

Your anecdote about welfare is based on a misunderstanding of social support systems. Social welfare programs are designed to provide a safety net for those in need, promoting stability and economic participation. The idea that welfare recipients are simply exploiting the system ignores the complex social and economic factors at play. Additionally, the national debt argument is a red herring. Modern monetary theory explains that a government that issues its own currency can manage debt in ways that are not analogous to household finances. Investments in social programs are investments in human capital, leading to a more productive and stable society.

The Need for a Socialist Transition​

Today, with advanced automation and artificial intelligence, the capitalist mode of production is increasingly obsolete. Jobs are being lost to machines, and the benefits of productivity are concentrated in the hands of a few. A more democratic, non-profit, marketless system of production is necessary to ensure that technological advances benefit everyone. The dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class—the vast majority—rules, is essential for a just society. The state should serve the interests of the workers, not the capitalists. This transition is not utopian but a practical response to the failures and inequities of capitalism.

Your dismissal of socialism based on flawed examples and misunderstandings does not hold up to scrutiny. The exploitative nature of capitalism, the realistic and democratic principles of socialism, and the need for a system that benefits all rather than a privileged few are clear. Workers take significant risks too, and it’s absurd to emphasize only the monetary risks of capitalists. We need a system that prioritizes people over profit, and socialism offers a viable path forward.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Learn to converse in a normal manner.

I converse just fine, you're just triggered by the facts but unfortunately, the facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Obviously you didn't read the 3 minute link.

You read the article and summarize it here, presenting its views and committing yourself to its claims. and then I will read your source. Delineate what the article says here because we're debating each other, not each other's links. This isn't a link war, where you fire links at me and I return fire with other links. I'm not interested in engaging in that type of exchange.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Captain Caveman, your arguments misrepresent both the principles of socialism and the reality of capitalism. Let's break it down.

The Reality of Capitalism​

Your example of a self-employed builder highlights the exploitative nature of capitalism. While you might work hard and take risks, capitalism inherently rewards the owners of capital—those who own the tools, vehicles, premises—not the workers. This system relies on exploiting labor for profit, where the value created by workers is appropriated by business owners. In your example, subcontractors avoid losses because they are paid weekly, but they also miss out on the profits, which you retain.

This highlights the imbalance and exploitation inherent in capitalist structures, where risks and rewards are unfairly distributed. Moreover, workers take significant risks too—risks to their health, safety, and lives. They submit to workplaces often run like totalitarian regimes or dictatorships, with little to no say in the conditions or terms of their labor.

Misconception of Socialism​

Your portrayal of "Socialist 1" and "Socialist 2" is a straw man argument. Socialism does not naively assume that everyone contributes equally at all times. Instead, it recognizes the diversity of abilities and contributions, ensuring fair compensation and support for all. In a socialist system, structures are in place to manage resources democratically and fairly. Successful examples include worker cooperatives and social democratic countries, where collective decision-making and shared ownership lead to higher productivity and social well-being. These systems have proven to be effective, debunking the myth that socialism cannot scale beyond small partnerships.

Social Welfare and National Debt​

Your anecdote about welfare is based on a misunderstanding of social support systems. Social welfare programs are designed to provide a safety net for those in need, promoting stability and economic participation. The idea that welfare recipients are simply exploiting the system ignores the complex social and economic factors at play. Additionally, the national debt argument is a red herring. Modern monetary theory explains that a government that issues its own currency can manage debt in ways that are not analogous to household finances. Investments in social programs are investments in human capital, leading to a more productive and stable society.

The Need for a Socialist Transition​

Today, with advanced automation and artificial intelligence, the capitalist mode of production is increasingly obsolete. Jobs are being lost to machines, and the benefits of productivity are concentrated in the hands of a few. A more democratic, non-profit, marketless system of production is necessary to ensure that technological advances benefit everyone. The dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working class—the vast majority—rules, is essential for a just society. The state should serve the interests of the workers, not the capitalists. This transition is not utopian but a practical response to the failures and inequities of capitalism.

Your dismissal of socialism based on flawed examples and misunderstandings does not hold up to scrutiny. The exploitative nature of capitalism, the realistic and democratic principles of socialism, and the need for a system that benefits all rather than a privileged few are clear. Workers take significant risks too, and it’s absurd to emphasize only the monetary risks of capitalists. We need a system that prioritizes people over profit, and socialism offers a viable path forward.

First off, your text is appearing large, I have to scale my screen down to 90%.

I'll try again, as in, I will repeat myself as it needs to sink in with you. What you say is fantastic.......on paper...... but in reality it doesn't work and some of it is nonsense/ill informed/poor perception. Do you finally understand? In a sense, it's Utopian in thought. Do you understand?

I don't exploit anyone, I took all the risks. I ask you, "TruthNotBS, what's your charge out rate on joinery?". So it's up to you, you say, "I charge £250 per day Mr CaptainCaveman, that covers me, wear and tear on tools and my van, and any little consumable bits (screws, rubbish bags, glue etc..)". So I do my sums, I guess I need you 3 days, do my quote and say to the customer, "That job will cost, £2,750". They say fantastic. For argument sake, say I think the profit will be £417. So I pay you what you wanted, but say the profit was actually -£100, or £0, or £300, or £417, or £900. Employment law is there to reduce/eliminate exploitation. ie. minimum wage, holiday entitlement, sick pay etc..

So ask some questions -

1) You as a sub contractor, what did you risk, what did I risk as the contractor?

2) Why should you get some of the profit, in what ratio when you got the level of pay you asked for and I did the bulk of the work?

3) What do I do with the profit? Say my £200 impact drill burnt out? Wear and tear on my van and depreciation, who buys me a new one at it's end of life if I don't save some of the profit? If I made a loss, not looking good for me, is it? You got paid, you put some aside in a "New Van" account. I made a loss, how's my "New van" account looking? Did you pay towards my accountant and other company costs?

4) Was the effort between you and I the same (getting the job, working the quote out, buying the materials, level of risk etc..)?

5) I actually needed you for 4 days, will you accept 3 days pay please? I suggest you tell me to go do one.

6) The job made a £600 loss, can I deduct half of the loss off your money and for the 4 days, pay you for 3 with £300 taken off? So how does £450 sound when you were expecting £1,000? I suggest you tell me to go do one.

7) What value of the profits do you think my risk is worth, and what value do you place on your no risk?

So OK Tesla employees, Musk wants to do Socialism with you all. Just all put in $10million each and we're good to go. Then you get to share the profits or losses, even the slackers share too. Does that sound good to you?

I explained to you how socialism actually works in real life, no strawman. As for co-ops, I'm surprised the Co-op in the UK hasn't gone bust, the banking side did and was sold off but it's clinking onto it's convenience store side.

I've explained welfare. You say for those in need. Yes, but the exploitation from that fallacy is that it costs the UK taxpayer billions in fraud, because people are not honest.

1) Quantify, "Those in need". My friend getting signed off is in need, isn't see? The welfare system she is. Welfare is quite naive isn't it !!

I did Open University to get enough credits for a degree, I was board and did various part time courses in various areas to get sufficient credits for a BSc. Now, rather than pay, I did the student loan programme so it paid for my courses. I pay this back if my income hits£xx per year. I'm self employed as the sole director of my Ltd company, so I declare a poor wage. So I don't need to repay it back and it will be written off in x number of years. The government has to show student loans as part of national debt. So no illusion on welfare and national debt with me. Are you American? Must be a different logic/system over there.

And with all the toing and froing, your system is still fantastic.......on paper. In reality, it's far from.

 

[TruthNotBS]

First off, your text is appearing large, I have to scale my screen down to 90%.

I'll try again, as in, I will repeat myself as it needs to sink in with you. What you say is fantastic.......on paper...... but in reality it doesn't work and some of it is nonsense/ill informed/poor perception. Do you finally understand? In a sense, it's Utopian in thought. Do you understand?

I don't exploit anyone, I took all the risks. I ask you, "TruthNotBS, what's your charge out rate on joinery?". So it's up to you, you say, "I charge £250 per day Mr CaptainCaveman, that covers me, wear and tear on tools and my van, and any little consumable bits (screws, rubbish bags, glue etc..)". So I do my sums, I guess I need you 3 days, do my quote and say to the customer, "That job will cost, £2,750". They say fantastic. For argument sake, say I think the profit will be £417. So I pay you what you wanted, but say the profit was actually -£100, or £0, or £300, or £417, or £900. Employment law is there to reduce/eliminate exploitation. ie. minimum wage, holiday entitlement, sick pay etc..

So ask some questions -

1) You as a sub contractor, what did you risk, what did I risk as the contractor?

2) Why should you get some of the profit, in what ratio when you got the level of pay you asked for and I did the bulk of the work?

3) What do I do with the profit? Say my £200 impact drill burnt out? Wear and tear on my van and depreciation, who buys me a new one at it's end of life if I don't save some of the profit? If I made a loss, not looking good for me, is it? You got paid, you put some aside in a "New Van" account. I made a loss, how's my "New van" account looking? Did you pay towards my accountant and other company costs?

4) Was the effort between you and I the same (getting the job, working the quote out, buying the materials, level of risk etc..)?

5) I actually needed you for 4 days, will you accept 3 days pay please? I suggest you tell me to go do one.

6) The job made a £600 loss, can I deduct half of the loss off your money and for the 4 days, pay you for 3 with £300 taken off? So how does £450 sound when you were expecting £1,000? I suggest you tell me to go do one.

7) What value of the profits do you think my risk is worth, and what value do you place on your no risk?

So OK Tesla employees, Musk wants to do Socialism with you all. Just all put in $10million each and we're good to go. Then you get to share the profits or losses, even the slackers share too. Does that sound good to you?

I explained to you how socialism actually works in real life, no strawman. As for co-ops, I'm surprised the Co-op in the UK hasn't gone bust, the banking side did and was sold off but it's clinking onto it's convenience store side.

I've explained welfare. You say for those in need. Yes, but the exploitation from that fallacy is that it costs the UK taxpayer billions in fraud, because people are not honest.

1) Quantify, "Those in need". My friend getting signed off is in need, isn't see? The welfare system she is. Welfare is quite naive isn't it !!

I did Open University to get enough credits for a degree, I was board and did various part time courses in various areas to get sufficient credits for a BSc. Now, rather than pay, I did the student loan programme so it paid for my courses. I pay this back if my income hits£xx per year. I'm self employed as the sole director of my Ltd company, so I declare a poor wage. So I don't need to repay it back and it will be written off in x number of years. The government has to show student loans as part of national debt. So no illusion on welfare and national debt with me. Are you American? Must be a different logic/system over there.

And with all the toing and froing, your system is still fantastic.......on paper. In reality, it's far from.

The Reality of Capitalism and Exploitation​

First, capitalism inherently involves exploitation. Workers, including subcontractors like joiners, take significant risks to their health, safety, and job security every day. They often work under conditions where they have little control over their labor environment, effectively functioning under a dictatorship in the workplace. This system rewards capital owners disproportionately, even though workers are the ones producing value. Your example assumes that the risk taken by a contractor is more significant than the cumulative risks taken by all workers involved. This is a flawed perspective. Workers' risks include injury, unemployment, and lack of benefits, which are just as substantial as monetary risks.

Misconception of Socialism​

Your examples of socialism are based on a misinterpretation of how it functions. Socialism does not naively assume perfect equality in contribution or reward. Instead, it ensures fair compensation and democratic control over the workplace. Successful examples of socialist principles in action include worker cooperatives and social democratic countries where collective decision-making leads to more equitable outcomes and higher productivity. These systems distribute both risks and rewards more fairly than the capitalist model, demonstrating that socialism can and does work effectively beyond theoretical constructs.

Social Welfare and National Debt​

Your anecdote about welfare fraud is a common but exaggerated critique. While no system is entirely free of abuse, the benefits of social welfare far outweigh the costs of fraud. Welfare programs provide crucial support for those genuinely in need, stabilizing the economy by ensuring basic living standards. The issue with national debt is often misunderstood. A government issuing its own currency can manage debt differently from households. Investments in social programs are not just expenses but investments in human capital that lead to long-term economic benefits.

Addressing Your Questions​

1. Worker Risks vs. Capitalist Risks: Workers take substantial risks, including health and safety risks, job insecurity, and lack of control over their work environment. These risks are often overlooked but are critical aspects of labor exploitation in capitalism.
2. Profit Distribution: In a fair system, profit distribution would account for the value added by all parties involved. Under socialism, this would mean more equitable sharing of profits based on contribution and need, rather than a rigid capital-first approach.
3. Use of Profit: Savings for future investments, like tools and vehicles, should be a shared responsibility in a cooperative model, ensuring that all contributors have a stake in the sustainability and success of the enterprise.
4. Effort and Risk: Efforts and risks should be evaluated comprehensively. Workers often bear hidden risks that are not accounted for in simplistic financial calculations.
5. Fair Compensation: If more work is required than initially estimated, fair compensation adjustments are necessary. Under socialism, such issues would be managed democratically, ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.
6. Loss Sharing: In a cooperative model, losses are shared based on agreed-upon principles, ensuring that no single party disproportionately bears the burden.
7. Value of Risk: The value of risks should be assessed fairly, considering both monetary and non-monetary risks taken by all parties.

Socialism in Practice​

The claim that socialism only works on paper is disproven by real-world examples. Countries with strong social safety nets, like those in Scandinavia, show that social welfare programs can lead to high standards of living and economic stability. These systems are not utopian fantasies but practical implementations of socialist principles that work.

Conclusion​

Your dismissal of socialism as utopian is based on a narrow and flawed understanding of both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism’s exploitative nature and the risks borne by workers are significant issues that socialism aims to address through more equitable and democratic means. The success of social democratic countries and worker cooperatives demonstrates that socialism is not just a theoretical ideal but a viable and effective system. We need a system that prioritizes people over profit, and socialism offers a clear path forward.

 

[dblack]

Ka-ching!

 

[GWV5903]

GWV5903, your arguments about Social Security (SS) and Medicare being the primary drivers of national debt are fundamentally flawed and based on misinterpretations of data and economic principles. Let's clarify these misconceptions.

National Debt and Social Programs​

You claim social programs are the main drivers of national debt, but this is a common misunderstanding of budget allocation. While HHS and SSA constitute significant portions of the federal budget, this doesn't mean they are inherently problematic or unsustainable.

1. Self-Funding Nature of Social Security:
   
   • Social Security is primarily funded through payroll taxes. Workers contribute a portion of their earnings throughout their careers, which funds the benefits they receive upon retirement. It’s a pay-as-you-go system ensuring current workers support retirees. This system is not a traditional source of national debt but a self-sustaining social insurance program. Alan Greenspan, a respected economist, pointed out that the Federal Government can create as much money as needed to fulfill Social Security obligations. The real issue is ensuring that the real assets and resources are available to retirees, not the solvency of Social Security itself.

​

1. Medicare Efficiency and Cost Control:
   
   • Medicare is funded through payroll taxes, premiums, and general revenue. Despite its significant cost, it’s more efficient than private insurance due to lower administrative costs and the government's ability to negotiate prices. Private healthcare systems are riddled with high administrative costs and profit margins.

Misunderstanding Budget Percentages​

While SS and Medicare represent significant portions of the budget, focusing solely on these percentages ignores other substantial expenditures:

• Military Spending: The U.S. spends more on defense than the next several countries combined, which is a major factor in national debt.
• Corporate Subsidies and Tax Cuts: Billions in subsidies go to already profitable corporations, and tax cuts for the wealthy reduce government revenue, increasing the deficit. These cuts benefit the rich disproportionately, exacerbating inequality.

The Role of Social Programs​

Social programs like Social Security and Medicare are crucial investments in human capital. Social Security ensures that people who have contributed to the economy can retire with dignity. It's a self-sustaining program, funded by workers' contributions, and it boosts economic productivity by ensuring retirees have purchasing power.

Healthcare and Government Involvement​

Your argument that healthcare should be left entirely to the private sector is misguided. The U.S. spends more on healthcare per capita than any other developed nation yet has worse outcomes. Private healthcare is more expensive and bureaucratic than public options.

Medicare for All Would:

• Reduce Costs: Studies, including one by Yale, show Medicare for All would save billions annually by reducing administrative costs and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. Public Citizen Study
• Universal Coverage: It would provide healthcare for all, ending medical bankruptcies and ensuring everyone has access to necessary services.

Contrary to your claims, privatized healthcare results in higher costs and less accessibility. In countries with universal healthcare, like those in Europe, people enjoy better health outcomes at a lower cost.

Economic Rights and the Future of Work​

Healthcare, education, housing, and job security are basic human rights. As automation and AI continue to evolve, displacing jobs, the need for a system that guarantees these rights becomes more urgent.

• Marketless, Non-Profit System: The future lies in a democratically controlled, centrally planned economy where the means of production, including advanced technology, are owned collectively. This is the only sustainable solution to prevent massive inequality and ensure that everyone benefits from technological advancements.

Understanding the Government Budget and Debt​

The government's budget is nothing like a household budget. Unlike households, the federal government issues its own currency and cannot run out of it. Deficit spending by the government is not equivalent to personal debt. When the government runs a deficit, it injects money into the economy, increasing the private sector's wealth.

​

• National Debt as Private Sector Wealth: The national debt is a record of all dollars spent into the economy but not yet taxed back. These dollars are held in the form of Treasury securities, which are safe assets people want in their portfolios. Reducing the national debt would mean removing these safe assets from the economy, which could have adverse effects on financial stability.

​

Conclusion

, the current capitalist system fails to address these issues. Your arguments for privatization and against social programs ignore empirical evidence and the realities of economic dynamics. This is the way it is: Social programs are essential to a functioning, equitable society. Ignoring this fact perpetuates myths that benefit only the wealthy elite at the expense of the majority. Socialism provides a more just, equitable, and sustainable framework for our society, and this is the path we must take.

By focusing on the real resources available and the productive capacity of the economy, we can afford to provide essential services like healthcare, education, and social security without falling into the trap of fearing national debt. This is how we ensure a prosperous and fair society for all.

Both are true and you can try all you want, but combined they are 48% of our annual spending, defense is 13%…

Economist also believed that the telephone business would create unemployment when the operators were not needed anymore.

Just admit it, you’re a communist, you’re lazy and anti social, the good thing you’re a fraction of the people who live in this fantasy world you keep trying to create