How to sell me on socialism.

[esthermoon]

abe Socialism could work if some real wise people ruled the world.

Theorically a country with zero class differences would be beautiful and all people could feel really equal before the law but theory is so different from reality...everytime somebody wants to build up a Socialist society the results aren't so good...

Do you agree there is a major difference between a socialist society and a capitalist society which is regulated by certain socialist policies?

Do you agree that adherence to certain socialist ideals makes one a committed socialist?

Well maybe if a capitalist society is regulated by some socialist policies is not "full" capitalist anymore I guess.
Because a real capitalist society can't be ruled by any not capitalist principle.
For what concerns your second question MikeK I agree; basically if you believe in some socialist ideals you're socialist (but there are many kind of socialism and some of them have only a few ideals in common )

 

[PredFan]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Socialism starts with a social contract. Equality and equal protection of the law, is what we are guaranteed in our social contracts.

Government is a "means of production"; sovereignty proves it. The law of the land, is employment at will. We merely need to have socialism bailout capitalism, through the equality of equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Solving simple poverty, increases our standard of living to that extent.

If it were that simple. Poverty cannot be solved. Not in any real sense.

 

[danielpalos]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Socialism starts with a social contract. Equality and equal protection of the law, is what we are guaranteed in our social contracts.

Government is a "means of production"; sovereignty proves it. The law of the land, is employment at will. We merely need to have socialism bailout capitalism, through the equality of equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Solving simple poverty, increases our standard of living to that extent.

If it were that simple. Poverty cannot be solved. Not in any real sense.

Yes, simple poverty in the US can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing usually confuses poor with poverty. Poor is relative, poverty is defined.

 

[PredFan]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Socialism starts with a social contract. Equality and equal protection of the law, is what we are guaranteed in our social contracts.

Government is a "means of production"; sovereignty proves it. The law of the land, is employment at will. We merely need to have socialism bailout capitalism, through the equality of equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Solving simple poverty, increases our standard of living to that extent.

If it were that simple. Poverty cannot be solved. Not in any real sense.

Yes, simple poverty in the US can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing usually confuses poor with poverty. Poor is relative, poverty is defined.

No it can't. not in any real sense. That is a pipe dream. We have had a war on poverty for decades and it has only gotten worse. You know what happens when you feed, clothe, and house the poor? They make more poor.

 

[danielpalos]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Socialism starts with a social contract. Equality and equal protection of the law, is what we are guaranteed in our social contracts.

Government is a "means of production"; sovereignty proves it. The law of the land, is employment at will. We merely need to have socialism bailout capitalism, through the equality of equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Solving simple poverty, increases our standard of living to that extent.

If it were that simple. Poverty cannot be solved. Not in any real sense.

Yes, simple poverty in the US can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing usually confuses poor with poverty. Poor is relative, poverty is defined.

No it can't. not in any real sense. That is a pipe dream. We have had a war on poverty for decades and it has only gotten worse. You know what happens when you feed, clothe, and house the poor? They make more poor.

Poor is relative. We have the richest poor in the world. The right wing even complains about, and wants to deny and disparage the poor, steak and lobster privileges on their EBT cards.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Where would the restriction on unbridled use of private power come from?
.

you clean forgot to say what your best example of unbridled private power is?? Do you have any idea??

How do you compete with Hitler Stalin and Mao killing 200 million or the modern liberal war on the American family and the black family in particular??

So, if 200 million is too many...what number is acceptable in your mind for your principle of freedom from state interference?

the state killed 200 million which is why our Founders tried to make the state largely illegal here. Simple enough for you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Socialism starts with a social contract. Equality and equal protection of the law, is what we are guaranteed in our social contracts.

Government is a "means of production"; sovereignty proves it. The law of the land, is employment at will. We merely need to have socialism bailout capitalism, through the equality of equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Solving simple poverty, increases our standard of living to that extent.

If it were that simple. Poverty cannot be solved. Not in any real sense.

Yes, simple poverty in the US can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing usually confuses poor with poverty. Poor is relative, poverty is defined.

No it can't. not in any real sense. That is a pipe dream. We have had a war on poverty for decades and it has only gotten worse. You know what happens when you feed, clothe, and house the poor? They make more poor.

yes, liberals are anti science. they believe in survival of the least fit. If the poor had to pay for food education health care
they would not reproduce so much

 

[idb]

Where would the restriction on unbridled use of private power come from?
.

you clean forgot to say what your best example of unbridled private power is?? Do you have any idea??

How do you compete with Hitler Stalin and Mao killing 200 million or the modern liberal war on the American family and the black family in particular??

So, if 200 million is too many...what number is acceptable in your mind for your principle of freedom from state interference?

the state killed 200 million which is why our Founders tried to make the state largely illegal here. Simple enough for you?

The Founders tried to make the state largely illegal?
That's a nice simple statement...obviously one that you can understand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Founders tried to make the state largely illegal?
.

yep thats the whole point of the Constitution. Did you think they were afraid that the Girl Scouts were going to make free speech illegal???

 

[PredFan]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Socialism starts with a social contract. Equality and equal protection of the law, is what we are guaranteed in our social contracts.

Government is a "means of production"; sovereignty proves it. The law of the land, is employment at will. We merely need to have socialism bailout capitalism, through the equality of equal protection of the law, for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Solving simple poverty, increases our standard of living to that extent.

If it were that simple. Poverty cannot be solved. Not in any real sense.

Yes, simple poverty in the US can be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

The right wing usually confuses poor with poverty. Poor is relative, poverty is defined.

No it can't. not in any real sense. That is a pipe dream. We have had a war on poverty for decades and it has only gotten worse. You know what happens when you feed, clothe, and house the poor? They make more poor.

yes, liberals are anti science. they believe in survival of the least fit. If the poor had to pay for food education health care
they would not reproduce so much

No dumbass, they'd get a job and stop having babies they can't afford.

 

[MikeK]

Well maybe if a capitalist society is regulated by some socialist policies is not "full" capitalist anymore I guess.

[...]

One good example of full-blown capitalism is the condition which existed in the West Virginia coal-mining region during the 1920s/early 30s and was well represented in the movie, The Molly McGuires.

During this era the region was economically ruled by capitalists who owned the coal mines and dominated all of the surrounding businesses. The primary occupation in that region was coal-mining. The miners worked twelve hour days and six-day weeks for pitiful wages, most of which were spent at the company stores -- which were owned by the mining companies. They lived in rented shacks which were owned by the mining companies.

There were no labor laws back then. Boys as young as twelve worked in the mines -- where conditions have been described as horrific. Death and job-related (lung) illness was commonplace.

That region was a manifest example of pure capitalism until the imposition of (socialist) labor laws, such as the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, minimum wage and safe working conditions put an end to capitalist rule and its associate cruelties.

The essential meaning of capitalism is to derive a profit from the efforts of others, a system which is perfectly acceptable -- provided it is equitably and benevolently administered via socialist regulations.

It is interesting to note how many contemporary Americans are hostile to the mere mention of the word, socialism, while enjoying so many benefits of certain strongly socialist policies which affect their lives. In fact I have a neighbor who, like me, has for years been enjoying his monthly Social Security allotment and benefiting from Medicare, yet he speaks with contempt for the "goddam socialists who are ruining this Country."

I once tried to explain how mistaken he is. He listened but now he avoids me -- and I'm sure he thinks of me as a goddam socialist.

 

[esthermoon]

Well maybe if a capitalist society is regulated by some socialist policies is not "full" capitalist anymore I guess.

[...]

One good example of full-blown capitalism is the condition which existed in the West Virginia coal-mining region during the 1920s/early 30s and was well represented in the movie, The Molly McGuires.

During this era the region was economically ruled by capitalists who owned the coal mines and dominated all of the surrounding businesses. The primary occupation in that region was coal-mining. The miners worked twelve hour days and six-day weeks for pitiful wages, most of which were spent at the company stores -- which were owned by the mining companies. They lived in rented shacks which were owned by the mining companies.

There were no labor laws back then. Boys as young as twelve worked in the mines -- where conditions have been described as horrific. Death and job-related (lung) illness was commonplace.

That region was a manifest example of pure capitalism until the imposition of (socialist) labor laws, such as the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, minimum wage and safe working conditions put an end to capitalist rule and its associate cruelties.

The essential meaning of capitalism is to derive a profit from the efforts of others, a system which is perfectly acceptable -- provided it is equitably and benevolently administered via socialist regulations.

It is interesting to note how many contemporary Americans are hostile to the mere mention of the word, socialism, while enjoying so many benefits of certain strongly socialist policies which affect their lives. In fact I have a neighbor who, like me, has for years been enjoying his monthly Social Security allotment and benefiting from Medicare, yet he speaks with contempt for the "goddam socialists who are ruining this Country."

I once tried to explain how mistaken he is. He listened but now he avoids me -- and I'm sure he thinks of me as a goddam socialist.

We can say Socialism can improve Capitalism
Joking aside I think both systems have positive and negative perspectives.
Maybe mixing all the good things you can find in Socialism and Capitalism could be a very useful thing for all of us (I have found a new name for that, Socialcapitalism )

 

[MikeK]

We can say Socialism can improve Capitalism. Joking aside I think both systems have positive and negative perspectives.

[...]

The positive aspect of capitalism is it promotes economic growth by enabling entrepreneurs to develop profitable enterprises. The negative aspect of capitalism is it also affords opportunities for ruthless exploitation and criminal pursuits.

The most commonly referenced negative aspect of socialism is its tendency to devitalize ambition and bring about economic and social stagnation because everyone's basic needs are provided for by government. But in spite of the destructive effect of full-blown socialism there are certain elements of its economic mechanism which when applied to a capitalist system have the enormously positive and constructive effect of transforming an essentially exploitative economic system into one which retains its productive (capitalistic) energy, enabling growth of powerfully profitable enterprises while equitably distributing their profits.

Equitable distribution of profits within our capitalist system occurs in the form of fair labor practices and such major social benefits as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and numerous other federally administered programs. The ultimate effect of this socialistically regulated capitalist system is a relatively high standard of living throughout the lower and middle classes along with a phenomenally wealthy upper class.

So, while there definitely is room for improvement in the existing distribution ratio of the U.S. example, it is quite clear that the capitalist economic system, which is balanced by certain socialist regulations, is by far the best system ever devised.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That region was a manifest example of pure capitalism until the imposition of (socialist) labor laws, such as the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, minimum wage and safe working conditions put an end to capitalist rule and its associate cruelties.

so why not do that in India China Africa today since socialism is so cool?? In fact, it takes
capitalism to generate enough wealth so that workers can earn enough to survive on a meager 40 hour week.
China just switched to capitalism from socialism and instantly eliminated 40% of all the poverty on earth. Does that leave your tiny liberal brain all befuddled?

 

[danielpalos]

Mogadishu had no taxes and virtually no regulation, for over a decade; how many fortune five hundred Firms, relocated there?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Mogadishu had no taxes and virtually no regulation, for over a decade; how many fortune five hundred Firms, relocated there?

dear stupid liberal, they have no capitalism in Mogadishu

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

major social benefits as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,

how stupid and liberal can you be?? SS steals 15% of your life time income and gives you back pennys if you live long enough to collect a penny. Medicare is free except the libnazis tax you 4 times what other countries pay for similar or better health care!! Do you understand??

 

[MikeK]

major social benefits as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,

how stupid and liberal can you be?? SS steals 15% of your life time income and gives you back pennys if you live long enough to collect a penny. Medicare is free except the libnazis tax you 4 times what other countries pay for similar or better health care!! Do you understand??

Edward,

I've been receiving a substantial Social Security allotment ever month since I turned sixty-five, which is fifteen years. I haven't done the exact math but I know I've already collected a lot more than I contributed -- and I'll be collecting more until I die, which I hope won't be very soon.

This notion you have about being cheated by Social Security has been deposited in your brain by right-wing propagandists in service to Wall Streeters -- who would love to get their hands on what Social Security has become.

I don't expect you to believe that because I recognize you as being one of those profoundly brainwashed individuals whose thinking couldn't be altered with electro-shock assistance. You seem to be beyond help.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This notion you have about being cheated by Social Security has been deposited

how would you know??? You said you have not run the numbers??????????????????????????????????
Do you understand the time value of money. how much would your pay check from 1937 be worth today if you had invested for retirement. Will you die with an estate fromr SS they way you would if you had socked away $1.4 million in your own name while you were working?? Do you understand??? You're a liberal fool to think that because they are giving you SS welfare and Medicare welfare they are doing you a big favor!! They exist based upon you being a fool.

 

[MikeK]

how would you know??? You said you have not run the numbers??????????????????????????????????
Do you understand the time value of money. how much would your pay check from 1937 be worth today if you had invested for retirement. Will you die with an estate fromr SS they way you would if you had socked away $1.4 million in your own name while you were working?? Do you understand??? You're a liberal fool to think that because they are giving you SS welfare and Medicare welfare they are doing you a big favor!! They exist based upon you being a fool.

If you had been faithfully depositing a regular amount of money in a safe and reliable investment throughout your working life you are an extremely rare exception, because it's a simple fact of human nature that the vast majority of workers would not, could not, do that. And that awareness of human nature, which was based on educated observation is why Social Security was devised.

As far as I'm concerned I have no regrets about my financial status -- even though you do. And based on any and all intelligent observations Social Security has resulted in America having the highest standard of living in the developed world. If you doubt that, consider the condition of the senior U.S. population prior to the implementation of the Social Security program.

Also, there is no reason why a worker cannot invest money in addition to his/her Social Security contribution.