For those that may prefer a Socialist country

[Kruska]

Coercion or "violent enforcement" is always present in every single government, regardless of who's in charge. It's the very nature of government, to enforce its laws through the fear or possible use of violence. Violence in and of itself isn't wrong, irrespective of whoever is applying it. So your blanket dismissal of violence and those who use it as "extremists" or terrorists is short-sighted. I can't accuse you of being cynical, because I still don't know where you really stand on the issues.

I don't believe that you and me discussing this issue will bring any "benefit" to either side.

Either one believes in democracy and respects it's existing laws and act's accordingly - or one does not believe in democracy - since IMO it obviously doesn't work. (aside from Switzerland) Western democracy has been used and manipulated by lefties&Libs since 45 years to enforce minority opinions and believes onto a majority, via violent actions (basically blackmail) and manipulation of it's society, especially via the construct of political coalitions.

 

[Kruska]

You just keep doubling down on the stupidity.

Why do you have this urge to always talk to yourself?

 

[tahuyaman]

Why do you have this urge to always talk to yourself?

Your attempts to be clever are falling flat. Try harder.

 

[surada]

yes - what about them? - you still would be in need for a profit oriented management (greedy and smart people) and a lean rationalizing organization, in order to guarantee the respective payouts.
So instead of e.g. 1 greedy owner - you will have to satisfy e.g. 250 greedy employees.

I worked for an ESOP. It was terrific. Great management.

 

[Kruska]

Your attempts to be clever are falling flat. Try harder.

Sooner or later silly boys wander off into ignore - you are most welcomed.

 

[Rigby5]

To quote one of my favorite authors...

"When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators".

-- P.J. O'Rourke

The ability of a government official to regulate, tax, or in any way control commerce is the root and cause of corruption.

Without any influence to peddle, there is no influence peddling.

I see your point, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the alternatives to having government regulation of commerce is even worse.
For without government regulation, those with a monopoly on capital would prevent people from being able to earn a living unless they accepted feudalism.
An unregulated society that was purely profit motivated, would quickly degenerate into feudalism or slavery, depending on if the wealthy elite merely relied on economic extortion, or if they went further and invested in direct means of violent extortion.

And of course the solution to influence peddling is for the majority to counter it with their vote.
The only problem there is the ignorance of the majority, and the way parties have prevented direct and open elections.

 

[Rigby5]

Or to the haves from the have nots?

Trump's Road to Socialism | Mises Institute

Today the Trump administration is announcing a $12 billion bailout plan for farmers impacted by the response from the Trump administration’s tariffs. As

mises.org

Getting rid of dealing in dollars will get rid of the black markets.

First of all, there have always been black markets and always will be, even before dollars existed.
But second is that we always want black markets, since it is wrong for the government to ever dictate and tell us what we should or should not be doing.

 

[Red Front]

Once you cite e.g. Marx & Engels you are no more citing socialism -

Absurd.

....but an already enhanced version towards Communism - e,g, Marx Communist manifesto from 1848.
Socialism does not inherently focus onto a work class that rules everything - that is Communism.

Socialism is the socialization and democratization of production. Productive forces (workers) control and own the means of production (facilities, machinery. etc) collectively. Do you want capitalist masters owning the means of production and lording themselves over everyone, for monetary gain (profits)? That always leads to exploitation, gross inequality and a government that serves private vested interests at the expense of the public.

Communism is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for a means of market exchange, like money. Socialism is the process that leads to that, and which can employ a state apparatus, markets, and money. Socioeconomic classes are the first to go in a developing socialist economy, evolving into high communism. Advanced technology inevitably leads socialism into high communism.


Socialism describes any political or economic theory that says the community, rather than individuals, should own and manage property and natural resources. And the community does not exist primarily only out of factory-workers - especially not nowadays.

Not necessarily. In socialism, there is a distinction between private and personal property. Property that is used for production and to exploit others is "private" . Personal property can be anything from your toothbrush to your private residence (your home). A socialist-run government can very easily, cancel all of the mortgage debt overnight and hand everyone the personal ownership of their house, condo..etc. That doesn't violate socialism. In a socialist society, you have a human right to housing and are less likely to lose your house than under a capitalist-run government that will strip you of everything if you fail to pay taxes. Don't pay your property taxes and you'll find out who actually owns your home, under capitalism.


Marx & Engels focused their thoughts onto an existing pure Capitalism - run on the backs of exploited workers due to the then industrial revolution. That all these non-laborious people also profited from pure capitalism - known as the Bourgeoisie - made them an additional enemy or target for Communist ideals.

The big-money capitalist masters i.e. bourgeoisie, are just as destructive today as they were back then, if not more. We're on the brink of fighting WW3 with Russia and China, due to the pursuit of profits and power. The war profiteers love war, due to how lucrative it is for them. These capitalists are sucking the world dry like vampires and you complain about demonstrations? Equating mere civil disobedience to terrorism (the OKC bombing). Odd to say the least.

Thomas Moore in the 16th century was one of those that proposed in UTOPIA - that money has been abolished and people live and work communally.

We're not in the 16th century anymore, so comparing us to them, hundreds of years ago is irrelevant, as to whether we can establish a high-communist society today in the 21st century.

Early socialists like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier offered up their own models for social organization based on cooperation rather than competition. While Saint-Simon argued for a system where the state controls production and distribution for the benefit of all society’s members, both Fourier and Owen (in France and Britain, respectively) proposed systems based on small collective communities, not a centralized state.

Marx and Engels wrote about the "withering away" of the state apparatus, as production technology becomes more automated and personal. Nothing you said in that paragraph contradicts Marxian socialism. Where you and I differ is in the process that leads to that "withering away" of the state and decentralized collective. As we move away from for-profit production, into a non-profit socialist system, the state still functions and contributes to the planning production and development of productive forces. All of this is achieved through a democratic government under the control of the proletariat or working class.


Robert Owen, who had owned and operated textile mills in Scotland, headed to the United States in 1825 to launch an experimental community in New Harmony, Indiana. His planned commune was based on the principles of self-sufficiency, cooperation and public ownership of property. The experiment soon failed, and Owen lost much of his fortune. More than 40 small cooperative agricultural communities inspired by Fourier’s theories, were founded across the United States. One of these, based in Red Bank, New Jersey, lasted into the 1930s.

The Christian Bruderhof, is a good example of Christian socialists, successfully maintaining a community for over a century:

​

Therefore as to how socialism is supposed to be defined as a final version, was never accomplished.

There are core distinctive values that are universal to socialism. Without these traits, socialism loses its character. The exploitation of workers by privately owned, for-profit, non-democratic-run enterprises, is rejected by all secular socialists. Christian socialists are less concerned with democracy than secular socialists, but they nonetheless also have a rich tradition of democracy in their communities and not exploiting workers (their brothers and sisters/comrades in Christ). There are universal "distinctives" for socialism, so your assertion that the definition of socialism is completely amorphous and relative is incorrect.


Marx & Engels simply picked up on all these socialistic "ideas" ...

Everybody "picked up" ideas from others, and then decides whether such ideas make sense to them. Marx and Engels developed a materialist-dialectic which describes why we organize production as we do and what are the socioeconomic consequences of such modes of production. They made an important contribution to the development of socialism in the modern age, allowing us to identify the problems with capitalism and how to replace it with a socialized, democratized, non-profit system of production.


....then determining by themselves that it is the worker class that should own and run everything -

It's self-evident that the workers should be in control of their own labor and what it produces. Do you prefer capitalist exploitation and totalitarianism in the production of goods and services that we consume? A small wealthy elite of capitalist masters taking control of the government with their money, to serve their vested interests at everyone's expense? As I mentioned earlier, we're now on the brink of destroying everything on planet Earth in a world war, due to the private pursuit of profits. It's due to capitalism, that we're not investing heavily in cleaner power production, and continue depending on fossil fuels. Literally, millions of people are dying of starvation, lack of access to clean water, and from many treatable illnesses, because it's not commercially viable to help them. Isn't that violence?

That's worse violence than what you identified as violent in your last post. You consider mere demonstrations, civil disobedience, equal to the OKC bombing. How does that make sense?

including the usage of money - and thus developing Communism. Actually I am sure that you know all this.

Money is the means of exchange in a marketplace. You can't have markets without wage labor or paying consumers who earn a wage. Advance automation and artificial intelligence will eventually reduce waged-labor to a point that markets are unsustainable and superfluous. When that happens, there is no more need for money. We're now seeing the beginning of advanced automation:

​

We're living in a very unique time in history, witnessing the transition from one system of production to another one. That usually doesn't occur for thousands of years. It's happening now in front of our eyes.

 

[Rigby5]

In any political vacuum, Capitalism will exist in one form or another. Socialism, however, can only exist where political power is there to distribute property from haves to have nots.

I disagree socialism has anything at all to do with redistributing wealth.
It is just where individuals pool resources for necessary infrastructure investments they could not have otherwise done alone.

For example, public utilities can save everyone money because then the extra profit a private utility would have charged, is not there.

Public utilities could decide to give a free ride to the poor, but that is not necessary in order to be socialism.

 

[Rigby5]

I’ve never seen anyone confuse capitalism with socialism or communism.

European countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark are not socialist nations. They have free market economies.

nations like Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and China do not have a free market.

Wrong.
When government invests about 50% of the ownership of Volvo, that prevents competition, so Sweden is then NOT a "free market" at all.

Vietnam, Laos, and China have very little government influence over their markets, and tend to be more capitalist than Sweden.

 

[Rigby5]

I worked for an ESOP. It was terrific. Great management.

Employee owned companies always do the best and are the best places to work.
The problem with privately owned companies is they don't care about employees or customers, and when railroads are not the most profitable business, they all invested in other things and let the railroads rust apart.
And of course the problem with that is we need railroads, regardless of how profitable they may be.

 

[Rigby5]

Humans are inherently socialist by nature, and socialism automatically reduces the cost of doing anything, because there does not have to be any extra profit tacked onto the costs.
Socialism also tends to provide better services, since it allows for wider input into decision making.

For example, mass transit is cheaper and more efficient, but since cars are more profitable, we have very expensive cars and almost no mass transit in the US.

 

[Red Front]

I don't believe that you and me discussing this issue will bring any "benefit" to either side.

Either one believes in democracy and respects it's existing laws and act's accordingly - or one does not believe in democracy - since IMO it obviously doesn't work. (aside from Switzerland) Western democracy has been used and manipulated by lefties&Libs since 45 years to enforce minority opinions and believes onto a majority, via violent actions (basically blackmail) and manipulation of it's society, especially via the construct of political coalitions.

If the majority as you say don't act in their own interests, then they deserve to be ruled by a small minority of capitalists or whoever dares to take action ("Who Dares Wins" motto of the British SAS).

That's the nature of reality. Existence itself compels us to act to accomplish our objectives, hence to fail to act, is to grant others control over our lives and to submit ourselves to someone else's "program". I doubt the working class has ever made an informed decision in favor of capitalist ownership of the means of production or their government being controlled by wealthy elites. When socialism is properly conveyed to the working class, the majority inevitably realize its benefits and become socialists. It's only through ignorance and plenty of brainwashing that working-class people defend their capitalist masters.

 

[fncceo]

A socialist-run government can very easily, cancel all of the mortgage debt overnight and hand everyone the personal ownership of their house, condo..etc

Fine, except for the people who don't already have a mortgage. Who in their right mind would extend a mortgage to a new home buyer knowing full well they will never recoup that investment once the socialist government cancels that debt.

Of course, there are all those middle class people and pensioners who are invested in bank and mortgage equities who now see their investments become worthless.

And everyone involved in the building trades who are now out of work because no one will be building new homes if they can't be financed.

Socialism is literally robbing Peter to pay no one.

 

[Red Front]

Fine, except for the people who don't already have a mortgage. Who in their right mind would extend a mortgage to a new home buyer knowing full well they will never recoup that investment once the socialist government cancels that debt.

Of course, there are all those middle class people and pensioners who are invested in bank and mortgage equities who now see their investments become worthless.

And everyone involved in the building trades who are now out of work because no one will be building new homes if they can't be financed.

Socialism is literally robbing Peter to pay no one.

Fine, except for the people who don't already have a mortgage.

Fine, we will cancel everyone's mortgage debt...oh wait....EXCEPT, what are we going to do with all of the people who don't have a mortgage?!?!? OH MY GOAWD!!!! There is no solution for this conjured-up objection and non-issue, huh genius?

Who in their right mind would extend a mortgage to a new home buyer knowing full well they will never recoup that investment once the socialist government cancels that debt.

Amazing. It's taxing. The socialist state under the authority of the public, would take control of the banks. Another way of saying it is "nationalizing the banks/finance". The banks are publicly owned and run by the government. It's in the interest of the public and hence the government, whose interest is the public good, to make sure everyone is housed. You would just keep your current house and no one would ever take it away from you. You're more unlikely to lose your house in a socialist society that recognizes your right to personal property, including a home, than in a capitalist-run society, that makes you pay a mortgage and property taxes. Don't pay your property taxes under capitalism and see what happens.


Of course, there are all those middle-class people and pensioners who are invested in bank and mortgage equities who now see their investments become worthless.

No one's standard of living would be reduced in a modern, high-tech socialist society. So whatever you had under capitalism, as a high-paid worker, will still be yours and even more so, because it will be yours by right. Now under capitalism, it's yours provided you pay a mortgage or pay your taxes. Those assets are yours provided you're renting yourself to a capitalist and subjecting yourself to exploitation (producing more than what you're being paid), and laboring in a totalitarian workplace (zero democracy at the job).

And everyone involved in the building trades who are now out of work because no one will be building new homes if they can't be financed.

They would be working for the state.

Socialism is literally robbing Peter to pay no one.

Capitalism privatizes the profits and makes the public pay for its losses:

​

 

[tahuyaman]

…Vietnam, Laos, and China have very little government influence over their markets, and tend to be more capitalist than Sweden.

You lost all credibility after that one. Ther markets are strictly controlled by government. In fact they are basically owned by government.

 

[tahuyaman]

Sooner or later silly boys wander off into ignore - you are most welcomed.

Idiot.

 

[Kruska]

If the majority as you say don't act in their own interests, then they deserve to be ruled by a small minority of capitalists or whoever dares to take action ("Who Dares Wins" motto of the British SAS).

That's the nature of reality. Existence itself compels us to act to accomplish our objectives, hence to fail to act, is to grant others control over our lives and to submit ourselves to someone else's "program". I doubt the working class has ever made an informed decision in favor of capitalist ownership of the means of production or their government being controlled by wealthy elites. When socialism is properly conveyed to the working class, the majority inevitably realize its benefits and become socialists. It's only through ignorance and plenty of brainwashing that working-class people defend their capitalist masters.

The nature of reality, aka us human beings is that we are not all equal - there are physically strong and weak people, there are smart and dumb people, there are lazy and energetic people and so on. This socialist UTOPIA therefore requires an universal and simplified human being - aka a robot. respectively egalitarianism.

The latter is what Lefties&Libs have been trying to institute in the past 45 years - e.g. dropping the standard of school curriculum's to make everyone more equal towards knowing less. Or gender-ism, or LGBTq rights, etc. etc. and respectively trying to enforce again school curriculum's to enforce everyones belief - humans are all equal and the same.

Even knowing that you won't acquit to that - human beings luckily have a common sense - which in the past and presently in majority rejects such ideals or this propagated human equality aka egalitarianism. Common sense dictated in 1980 that nuclear energy is avoidable to support humanities rising energy demand. Lefties&libs used all kinds of violent means to place an end towards nuclear energy - now the same fanatics and extremists complain about CO2 levels.

Engels wasn't some dumb worker or person but the educated son of an industrialist - so for this guy to come up with the utopia that workers can run a factory is already a joke in itself, especially in regards to 1840. Society has instituted already hundreds of years ago an education system that defines or prepares someone to be suitable for later job tasks - no one claims that this education-pass aka Diploma or Degree is a 100% foolproof system. There are any many with a low education-standard (on paper) - due to all kind of reasons - who however posses the ability to later set up and run their own companies and enterprises. And there are also people with a diploma or Degree - that proof to be totally inadequate for their later tasks and jobs.

So if people are supposedly all equal - then how is it that in a democratic country - there are still employees? - shouldn't they all run their own companies and ventures? If the latter would be the case, then a car wouldn't cost US$ 20,000 - but US$ 100,000 since everyone should know that only quantity allows for a lower manufacturing price.

The fact off life is that people are not inherently socializing people thriving for a community of equals - but gathered as a group of primitive individuals in order to survive in the given environment - but are categorically divided into lazy people and energetic people. And the latter one, are the ones who know how to grab their chances in life. This causes evolution and civilization of human beings - those who missed out on that evolution are now living in the Amazon or in Africa as tribal communities in 2023.

So packed into a simple sentence;
In order to get an Utopia working (aka socialism), one (lefties&Libs) needs to implement/enforce a society made up of controlled, classless and uniformly thinking people. Maybe some UFO society in the very left corner of the very left universe is just like that - but for me I will utterly reject such an artificial manipulation towards humanity and myself.

In order to handle our human errors, differences or imperfections - we (the people) have instituted governments to implement laws - that regulate our lives in order to avoid total chaos. Therefore if one should rightfully complain about governments simply deciding without our (the peoples) consent - then form a respective party and feel free to vote accordingly to establish a Switzerland like democracy. It is foremost the lazy and disinterested people (the majority) that enable governments to act in an undemocratic manner. But according to you all people are the same.

Or demonstrate - throw Molotov's, use terrorist means, restrict societies movements and burn down other peoples property until a Switzerland like democracy is adopted. Lefties&Libs have been doing just that since 45 years to get things done in their idealistic interest, and those MAGA's are doing and calling for just that, now as well.

So in your opinion and mindset. in regards to violence as a means to stop e.g. Capitalism or a governments action - you will leave the final outcome to the most ardent and violent group - well ain't that just great.

And I am not going to add to this topic anymore - in regards to Lefties&Libs trying to create an Utopia socialist society.

 

[fncceo]

So if people are supposedly all equal - then how is it that in a democratic country - there are still employees? - shouldn't they all run their own companies and ventures?

Every employed person is, in the strictest sense, running a venture.

They are trading their capital, skills and time, for compensation .

They make a choice where, when, and how to invest that capital.

 

[Failzero]

No

NO - because the Nazi's never controlled the economy and set the market prices. They ran an economy according to free-market principles. Which is totally contrary to the ideal/dogma of socialism or being a socialist country. And therefore Hitler wasn't a Fascist - but a fucking Nazi.

no they micro managed every aspect of Society , Entertainment , Media , Sports , The Military , science , Production , Medicine ... sounds familiar enough