Zone1 Let's Talk About Socialist Talking Points Against Capitalism

[Orangecat]

That's not an honest question. From Bernie's point of view it is what does our tax rate need to be to meet the standard of providing for the general welfare for our citizens.

The phrase is "Promote the general welfare", not "provide".

 

[Curried Goats]

The phrase is "Promote the general welfare", not "provide".

Same difference. Ensuring we don't live in an oligarchy fits that description.

 

[Orangecat]

Same difference. Ensuring we don't live in an oligarchy fits that description.

No. Words have meaning and “provide” and “promote” aren’t synonyms.
Funny that it wasn’t written “promote the common defense, provide the general welfare”. They must’ve been confused.
Get back to me when you’ve completed your GED.

 

[Curried Goats]

No. Words have meaning and “provide” and “promote” aren’t synonyms. Get back to me when you’ve completed your GED.

Get back to me when you read your constitution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-7/ALDE_00013362/#:~:text=Article I, Section 8, Clause,the United States; . . .

What is it that is says right there in Article 1, section 8, clause 1?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .​

 

[Orangecat]

Get back to me when you read your constitution.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-2-7/ALDE_00013362/#:~:text=Article I, Section 8, Clause,the United States; . . .

What is it that is says right there in Article 1, section 8, clause 1?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .​

The preamble says "promote", so there is a discrepancy there. Regardless, the word "general" is quite different from the word "individual", so you'll have to get a job.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Curried Goats]

The preamble says "promote", so there is a discrepancy there. Regardless, the word "general" is quite different from the word "individual", so you'll have to get a job.

Oh, who's looking to quickly move on now to irrelevant shit that has nothing to do with the original point i was making (which is not that individuals do not need jobs).


The actual articles have more legal weight than the preamble does, don't you think?

 

[Orangecat]

The actual articles have more legal weight than the preamble does, don't you think?

It's all part of the same document, don't you think?
You're the one who said "same difference" when I noted the words "promote" and "provide" aren't synonyms.
You gonna stick with that ignorance?

 

[Foxfyre]

Recently listened to a Bernie Sander talk at Oxford on youtube (Shared below). Bernie speaks well against Capitalism using conjecture, hyperbole, and sensationalism.
And I don't want debate point for point from his speech, but will ask a few questions.

From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?
From the socialist view point, what is a fair "living wage"?
From the socialist view point, can you define what the lifestyle one should be able have; home, car(s), luxury items, familiy size?
From the socialist view point, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors for when profit is too much profit?

I commend you for an important and interesting topic.

Your error, however, is assuming you can get our socialist leftists to contribute to the discussion. None of them believe they ARE socialists even as they promote pretty much every socialist idea or concept that is out there. If they actually understand how socialist minded they are, they are ashamed to admit it by arguing it.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's all part of the same document, don't you think?

I think it's part of the same document sure. I also think the preamble sets a general tone while the actual articles themselves get into the actual function of government.

You're the one who said "same difference" when I noted the words "promote" and "provide" aren't synonyms.
You gonna stick with that ignorance?

Considering the similarities between the preamble and article 1, section 8, clause 1, I'm going to say confidently, yes.

 

[DudleySmith]

Biden insists US economy is ‘strong as hell’ as he munches an ice cream cone

The economy hasn't been 'strong' since the 1970's. It's been a series of bubbles and busts, a Banana Republic economy.

 

[Cougarbear]

They don't have answers because their useful-idiot talking points are as shallow as their intellect.

100% correct! Why do these idiots think slavery is better than freedom?

 

[Ringo]

Even the AI understands that capitalism is a terrible, inescapable evil, leading everyone to perdition.

 

[Dwell]

My concern with the growing number of Americans that want to tax the rich is due to the narrative that is being presented.

Rich = Bad
You're Poor because of the Rich
Taxing the rich will fix YOUR problems

I realize our national economy is very complex. On the other hand, I believe the basic philosophy behind taxation could, and should, be simpler than it is now. What I would suggest is, determine our predicted federal spending for the year based on prior years, adjusted for inflation. (There are undoubtedly thousands of people across the country that could come up with reasonable estimates for this.) This estimate must include some interest and principal payments on the national debt, and then this estimate, itself, would be the year's federal tax burden to be imposed on citizens.

I believe that, for most people, their main concern over how taxes are divided up is not the specific amount for each individual, but how equitably the taxes are being divided. I suggest we give everyone the same standard deduction based on an estimated cost of living level (above the calculated poverty level). Here, again, I have no doubt there are plenty of people in the country that are capable of coming up with a reasonable number for this, including cost of living adjustments for different locales. Everyone, rich or poor, then subtracts their standard deduction from their annual income, and the remainder will be subject to federal tax at the calculated tax rate. The rate will be calculated by what percentage of the combined, people's gross income (Gross Domestic Product) is needed to cover federal taxes. No tax brackets. Everyone pays the same rate and gets the same standard deduction.

People living in poverty would pay no federal income tax because the standard deduction would be greater than their income. Everyone else would pay the same rate on the amount left over after subtracting the standard deduction, but the actual dollar amount would increase as an individual's wages increase.

 

[Red Front]

Recently listened to a Bernie Sander talk at Oxford on youtube (Shared below). Bernie speaks well against Capitalism using conjecture, hyperbole, and sensationalism.
And I don't want debate point for point from his speech, but will ask a few questions.

From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?
From the socialist view point, what is a fair "living wage"?
From the socialist view point, can you define what the lifestyle one should be able have; home, car(s), luxury items, familiy size?
From the socialist view point, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors for when profit is too much profit?

1st Q: From the socialist viewpoint, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?

The answer to your question depends on the type of socialist or socialism. Socialism according to Marx is the revolutionary process that leads to high-communism (i.e. a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money). From capitalism to high-communism, you have various degrees of "socialization", from a mixed economy (capitalism and socialism working together) to high communism.

Bernie is of the opinion that billionaires shouldn't exist in a democratic society because having individuals or certain families with that amount of capital, can and usually does (according to Bernie), undermine democracy. It leads to cronyism, where the government is in bed with the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class (94% of the population/the public). It undermines the public good to have individuals with that much power, according to Bernie.

I agree with Bernie up to a point, but not completely, because at the beginning of the process of socializing and democratizing production (socializing/democratizing the economy), there might be a phase where there are billionaires. We're not even at the beginning of that process of socialization/democratization, so it would be a shock to the system to just ban billionaires and confiscate most of their shit (prohibiting them from owning more than a billion dollars in assets). In my opinion, that's not the way to transition society into socialism and eventually high communism.

We have to allow for the technology of production (advanced 21st-century automation technology, robotics, artificial intelligence, autonomous machines, nanotech, quantum computing. etc) to continue advancing and informing, clearly demonstrating our need for socializing and democratizing production. It becomes more and more obvious to everyone, even the billionaires, that as technology develops, we will have to adopt a non-profit mode of production.

​

Even the billionaires see the writing on the wall for capitalism, recognizing that we are gradually entering into a post-capitalist economy. The so-called "UBI" is just a desperate effort to keep capitalism on life-support. The capitalists need paying customers, hence push the government to send American consumers a monthly check. In other words, UBI is another bailout for capitalism. Advanced automation technology, will create the most serious unemployment crisis in our history, requiring the adoption of a new non-profit system of production.

No Wage Labor (or not enough paying jobs) = No Paying Consumers (or not enough paying customers) = No Market (or not a large enough market worth investing in) = No Capitalism (without the aforementioned elements there is no for-profit production) = No Capitalists (no one producing goods to sell to paying consumers in a market for a profit).

The above "equation" reflects the process of the socialization and democratization of production (the economy). At the end of that equation, you can add "high-communism".

2nd Q: From the socialist viewpoint, what is a fair "living wage"?

Under a capitalist waged-labor system, full-time workers should at least have enough to live on, as in having enough food and adequate housing. I would add healthcare and access to an education.

What constitutes "enough" or "adequate" is up to a democratic society to determine. It's self-evident, that enough and adequate isn't being hungry or living in a little closet, much less in a tent. So we should apply our "thinking caps", and accurately identify and thoughtfully and clearly define what is enough and adequate within the context of a human being's basic, foundational needs. What do Americans need to survive and thrive in a modern world where technology replaces wage labor and eventually the privately owned, productive, for-profit enterprise?

3rd Q: From the socialist viewpoint, can you define what lifestyle one should be able to have; home, car(s), luxury items, family size?

If we began the process of socializing/democratizing the economy, in the beginning, there really wouldn't be much of a change as far as what people own. The vast majority of people in society would continue as they are now, as far as their assets. The major centers of economic power in the country, all of the heavy industries would be nationalized or become publicly owned. The revenue of those companies would be used to improve and modernize our infrastructure (highways, bridges, electric grid..etc) and pay for healthcare, education/job training. More people would have jobs, due to an "economic bill of rights", where everyone has ensured employment in the private or public sectors. You wouldn't see any homeless people or drug addicts doing drugs out in the street, like this:

​

(Drug dealers would get charged with a capital crime and sent to the firing squad and drug addicts would be forced into rehab camps to kick their addictions. Without that rehab-process, drug addicts can't function in society, hence they're forced to become clean and sober in rehab camps.)

Everyone would at the very least, have the basics upon which to build their lives. As society becomes more and more "socialist" due to the advancement of technology and people's increased knowledge and appreciation for socialism, private for-profit production would gradually become fully automated with robots, artificial intelligence and autonomous machines. Robots will work 24/7, extracting raw materials from mines, processing those materials and transporting them to factories. The automated manufacturing hubs would take those materials and produce everything we consume.

Most people would probably work 20 hours weekly, supervising the system (robots, autonomous machines. etc), and receive credits, allowing them to go to the store and get whatever they want. A system would have to be created that provides everyone with everything they consume and use, satisfying their needs and wants. Maybe you get provisioned three gallons of milk per week, and your spouse also gets three gallons and your kids get access to resources as well. Everyone gets some land, two houses, anywhere in the country, and you can trade your house for another one. There's a lot we can do as far as how we organize society.

The foundational principles that we organize society upon, include democracy, human rights, material abundance, good health, opportunities to serve your community and country, acquiring merits, awards, honor, glory, adventure..etc. We can design and build a civilization, that no longer relies on "for profit" capitalist production and the employer/employee relationship. Adam Smith the father of capitalism, calls the capitalist employer a "master":

"What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine/organize much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations/organizations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations).

A society where no one is a master of another person. No employer-exploiters or employee-exploitees, but rather democracy in both the political and economic spheres of life. Just as capitalism replaced chattel slavery and feudalism, socialism and later high-communism will replace capitalism.

4th Q: From the socialist viewpoint, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors when profit is too much profit?

There doesn't have to be a prohibition on a certain amount of profits. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe what you're actually asking is how much income for the owners is too much, not necessarily how much profits is too much. This goes back to the 1st question of whether we should allow billionaires in a democratic, free society. As production becomes more socialized and democratized, private for-profit companies become superfluous and unprofitable. The capitalist system eventually collapses as technology fully or considerably automates production, eliminating wage-labor. Take a look at the "equation" above, where I illustrate the process of socializing production/the economy.

Advanced technology eventually renders capitalism superfluous and unable to function. Socialism and then "high-communism" becomes a necessity.

 

[Red Front]

Recently listened to a Bernie Sander talk at Oxford on youtube (Shared below). Bernie speaks well against Capitalism using conjecture, hyperbole, and sensationalism.
And I don't want debate point for point from his speech, but will ask a few questions.

From the socialist view point, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?
From the socialist view point, what is a fair "living wage"?
From the socialist view point, can you define what the lifestyle one should be able have; home, car(s), luxury items, familiy size?
From the socialist view point, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors for when profit is too much profit?

After answering your questions I was curious as to how my AI (ChatGPT4) would've answered your questions. So I opened a chat with the following prompt:

" Every sentence line that begins with a number before the letter Q is followed with my answer. I answered those questions from my socialist perspective. How would you answer those questions? You have my answers below, but how would you answer? " Here is the AI's response:

1st Q: From the socialist viewpoint, how much money is too much money for one person to take home annually?

From a socialist perspective, extreme wealth inequality would be viewed as problematic. The exact amount of money that would be "too much" for an individual to earn could vary depending on the specific branch of socialism. However, the central theme would be that wealth should be distributed more equally across society. This means that wealth accumulated through the exploitation of workers or from ownership of vast amounts of capital would likely be seen as excessive.

2nd Q: From the socialist viewpoint, what is a fair "living wage"?

A living wage, from a socialist viewpoint, would be a wage that not only covers the basic necessities of life - food, housing, healthcare, and education - but also allows for leisure time, personal development, and participation in society and politics. It's hard to put an exact number on this as costs vary by location and individual needs, but the key principle would be that work should provide an adequate standard of living that allows for full participation in society.

3rd Q: From the socialist viewpoint, can you define what lifestyle one should be able to have; home, car(s), luxury items, family size?

From a socialist viewpoint, everyone should have access to the resources necessary for a decent standard of living and the opportunity to live a fulfilling life. This includes not just basic necessities, but also access to cultural goods, leisure activities, and opportunities for personal and professional development. Regarding family size, it's generally not seen as the state's role to dictate this. Instead, everyone should have access to the resources and support necessary to raise a family, if they choose to do so.

4th Q: From the socialist viewpoint, for a business/corporation, what would be the determining factors when profit is too much profit?

In a socialist system, businesses and corporations would not typically be profit-driven in the same way they are under capitalism. Instead, they would be oriented towards meeting the needs of society. This could be through the provision of goods and services, the creation of jobs, or contribution to the community. If a business were making excessive profits at the expense of these goals - for example, by underpaying workers, cutting corners on safety or quality, or damaging the environment - this could be seen as excessive.