Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[DOTR]

and communism is socialism

That's a lie and the reason why Marxism is not taught in most US schools.
Marx wanted workers rights- that's all.

This is what a lifetime of government handouts does to individuals. It turns them into what America fought after we defeated it.

 

[the other mike]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

 

[the other mike]

This is what a lifetime of government handouts does to individuals. It turns them into what America fought after we defeated it.

You have no clue who I am or where I came from.
So stfu.

 

[the other mike]

A chalk outline is being drawn around common sense in this country, and most Americans can't even identify the victim.

 

[Andylusion]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

But the cause of the depression, was socialism. If government had no screwed up the market, none of that would have happened.

Every time you people point to something, and say Capitalism sucks, it always turns out to be a government intervention at the root of the problem.

The strawman argument, where you always forget to mention the corporate revolving door in government that is the problem.

Because it's not important to the facts of the case.

The great depression was connected to the intervention by the government in trade, and regulations passed by Hoover, and later expanded by FDR.

The real strawman here is the revolving door of corps and government. That had nothing to do with the crash. Bad policies caused the crash.

 

[the other mike]

From the OP.
If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system.

To take another example, feudal manors were production systems that juxtaposed lords and serfs. Since serfs were not slaves, no market in serfs existed. They were distributed via other, non-market systems. However, their non-human inputs and outputs could be distributed via markets, and in European feudalism often were distributed via market exchanges. Capitalist production systems – organized around the employer-employee (rather than the master-slave or lord-serf) relationship – could likewise coexist with market systems of distribution. Under capitalism, non-human inputs, labor power (the capacity to do labor), and outputs are all often distributed via market exchanges.

Thus it is confused to refer to capitalism as a “market system.” Market distribution systems vary in their specific qualities according to the different production systems and systems of exploitation with which they co-exist. Capitalist markets differ from slave markets, and both differ from feudal markets, but they are all markets. Moreover, markets usually coexist and interact with state apparatuses. Those interactions are marked with greater or lesser degrees of state interventions: from rigid regulation of exchanges all the way over to “free” trade or markets where regulation is minimized or absent. The state apparatus can also abolish the market system and replace it with an alternative system of distribution.

In that event, however, capitalism is not abolished because the market has been abolished. If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system. For the state to replace markets with some administrative (e.g., planned) system of distribution says nothing about the production system. The resources and products of a capitalist system of production can be distributed via more or less state-regulated markets or via non-market distribution systems. The same applies to the resources and products of slave and feudal production systems.

Why does it matter to differentiate markets and other distribution systems from production systems? The answer emerges from the recognition that most economic systems combine one or more production systems with one or more distribution systems. For a long time, the observers of such combinations – both celebrants and critics – have tended to conflate the two systems combined, as if they were one. Indeed, defining capitalism as “the market” or the “free market” system is precisely such a conflation.

Karl Marx went to considerable lengths to differentiate critiques of market exchange from his critique of capitalist production. He believed that major social problems of his time – inequality, cyclical instability, etc. – emerged from the capitalist production system as much or more than from the market system. He was a critic of both, but he kept the criticisms separate for basic reasons of analytical clarity and revolutionary strategy.

From capitalism’s beginnings, reformers have sought to soften its hard edges often by means of state interventions in markets. Minimum wages, maximum interest rates, progressive taxation, and so on are among their chosen mechanisms. More generally, reformers responded to capitalism’s profit-driven distribution of wealth by having the state redistribute that wealth according to non-capitalist (non-profit) criteria.

A more extreme criticism of markets displaced them in favor of other mechanisms of distributing resources and products such as centralized or decentralized state institutions charged with distribution, private institutions similarly charged, etc. However, if and when the production system continued to juxtapose employers and employees, all the different distribution systems discussed above – “free” market, regulated market, and non-market – coexist and interact with a capitalist production system.

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

 

[progressive hunter]

and communism is socialism

That's a lie and the reason why Marxism is not taught in most US schools.
Marx wanted workers rights- that's all.

marx is taught in all us colleges,,,
and communism is the highest form of socialism

you can dislike it if you want,,doesnt mean its not true,,,

 

[the other mike]

you can dislike it if you want,,doesnt mean its not true,,,

Marxism is not openly taught in colleges and universities here, other than a couple of chapters in freshman economics.

 

[Andylusion]

From the OP.
If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system.

To take another example, feudal manors were production systems that juxtaposed lords and serfs. Since serfs were not slaves, no market in serfs existed. They were distributed via other, non-market systems. However, their non-human inputs and outputs could be distributed via markets, and in European feudalism often were distributed via market exchanges. Capitalist production systems – organized around the employer-employee (rather than the master-slave or lord-serf) relationship – could likewise coexist with market systems of distribution. Under capitalism, non-human inputs, labor power (the capacity to do labor), and outputs are all often distributed via market exchanges.

Thus it is confused to refer to capitalism as a “market system.” Market distribution systems vary in their specific qualities according to the different production systems and systems of exploitation with which they co-exist. Capitalist markets differ from slave markets, and both differ from feudal markets, but they are all markets. Moreover, markets usually coexist and interact with state apparatuses. Those interactions are marked with greater or lesser degrees of state interventions: from rigid regulation of exchanges all the way over to “free” trade or markets where regulation is minimized or absent. The state apparatus can also abolish the market system and replace it with an alternative system of distribution.

In that event, however, capitalism is not abolished because the market has been abolished. If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system. For the state to replace markets with some administrative (e.g., planned) system of distribution says nothing about the production system. The resources and products of a capitalist system of production can be distributed via more or less state-regulated markets or via non-market distribution systems. The same applies to the resources and products of slave and feudal production systems.

Why does it matter to differentiate markets and other distribution systems from production systems? The answer emerges from the recognition that most economic systems combine one or more production systems with one or more distribution systems. For a long time, the observers of such combinations – both celebrants and critics – have tended to conflate the two systems combined, as if they were one. Indeed, defining capitalism as “the market” or the “free market” system is precisely such a conflation.

Karl Marx went to considerable lengths to differentiate critiques of market exchange from his critique of capitalist production. He believed that major social problems of his time – inequality, cyclical instability, etc. – emerged from the capitalist production system as much or more than from the market system. He was a critic of both, but he kept the criticisms separate for basic reasons of analytical clarity and revolutionary strategy.

From capitalism’s beginnings, reformers have sought to soften its hard edges often by means of state interventions in markets. Minimum wages, maximum interest rates, progressive taxation, and so on are among their chosen mechanisms. More generally, reformers responded to capitalism’s profit-driven distribution of wealth by having the state redistribute that wealth according to non-capitalist (non-profit) criteria.

A more extreme criticism of markets displaced them in favor of other mechanisms of distributing resources and products such as centralized or decentralized state institutions charged with distribution, private institutions similarly charged, etc. However, if and when the production system continued to juxtapose employers and employees, all the different distribution systems discussed above – “free” market, regulated market, and non-market – coexist and interact with a capitalist production system.

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Right, and FDRs policies were horrific.

Wealth is not "distributed" to begin with.

No one is sitting around "distributing" wealth.

People who produce and invest, gain more income, than those who do not.

And those who save and invest their income, gain more wealth than those who do not.

There is no need to 'redistribute' wealth, because people who are acting wisely are rewarded, and those who don't, are not.

This is how it should be.

People who blow all their money on the weekends, drinking themselves silly, are not going to be wealthy.

And those who save up, year by year, are going to end up wealthy.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

A one-time janitor and gas station attendant demonstrated that you can become a multimillionaire with a modest salary.

www.cnbc.com

This is not wrong, but morally right and good. People who act wisely should be rewarded.

 

[progressive hunter]

you can dislike it if you want,,doesnt mean its not true,,,

Marxism is not openly taught in colleges and universities here, other than a couple of chapters in freshman economics.

so you switched from not being taught to only taught sometimes,,,

well youre getting closer,,,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50%

Which 3 Americans? How'd they get their wealth?

 

[Andylusion]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

If they are earning it... why is that a problem?

Right now, with my $30K income, have a higher net worth, than most of the people who have double my income. This is because I don't borrow money. I own my car free and clear. I own my condo free and clear. I have no credit cards, no debts whatsoever. My students loans were paid off over a decade ago. I fund my 401K for 20 years. And I have an IRA that I fund monthly.

Because of all of this, I have a pretty nice net worth.

Why should other people who have not saved and invested, not lived below their means, not made the choice to cut their life style so they have wealth..... why should they get some of my wealth?

And if not my wealth, then why should they get the wealth my parents who were school teachers earned?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my relatives who worked as pipe fitters, and electricians?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my uncles who were Engineers and Doctors?

And if not their wealth, then why should they get Warren Buffets wealth?

Warren Buffet, who at age 10 was buying stock in companies, saving from paper routes, and investing the money?

Do you see the problem? Every single group of people in the above example, all made sacrifices and choices, that resulted in them being wealthy. Whether it's a Janitor, or someone like me, with a low income, to a school teacher, to a pipe fitter, to an engineer, to a super wealthy investors.

There is no more moral reason to steal people's wealth, at the top, nor at the bottom.

 

[the other mike]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

If they are earning it... why is that a problem?

Right now, with my $30K income, have a higher net worth, than most of the people who have double my income. This is because I don't borrow money. I own my car free and clear. I own my condo free and clear. I have no credit cards, no debts whatsoever. My students loans were paid off over a decade ago. I fund my 401K for 20 years. And I have an IRA that I fund monthly.

Because of all of this, I have a pretty nice net worth.

Why should other people who have not saved and invested, not lived below their means, not made the choice to cut their life style so they have wealth..... why should they get some of my wealth?

And if not my wealth, then why should they get the wealth my parents who were school teachers earned?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my relatives who worked as pipe fitters, and electricians?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my uncles who were Engineers and Doctors?

And if not their wealth, then why should they get Warren Buffets wealth?

Warren Buffet, who at age 10 was buying stock in companies, saving from paper routes, and investing the money?

Do you see the problem? Every single group of people in the above example, all made sacrifices and choices, that resulted in them being wealthy. Whether it's a Janitor, or someone like me, with a low income, to a school teacher, to a pipe fitter, to an engineer, to a super wealthy investors.

There is no more moral reason to steal people's wealth, at the top, nor at the bottom.

Like the author of the OP said.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality .
Which is why we need to 'unrig' the system so there's a level playing field.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

I'm not "downplaying" anything. I'm stating right out that OBVIOUSLY most of any population isn't going to be rich, and so the fuck what? Maybe YOU spend your life eating your liver out because someone else is wealthy and you aren't. I don't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is what a lifetime of government handouts does to individuals. It turns them into what America fought after we defeated it.

You have no clue who I am or where I came from.
So stfu.

"How dare you think that just because you can read my words and know what they mean, that you know something about what I think and what sort of person I am?"

Yeah, whatever, Sparkles.

 

[dblack]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

If they are earning it... why is that a problem?

Right now, with my $30K income, have a higher net worth, than most of the people who have double my income. This is because I don't borrow money. I own my car free and clear. I own my condo free and clear. I have no credit cards, no debts whatsoever. My students loans were paid off over a decade ago. I fund my 401K for 20 years. And I have an IRA that I fund monthly.

Because of all of this, I have a pretty nice net worth.

Why should other people who have not saved and invested, not lived below their means, not made the choice to cut their life style so they have wealth..... why should they get some of my wealth?

And if not my wealth, then why should they get the wealth my parents who were school teachers earned?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my relatives who worked as pipe fitters, and electricians?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my uncles who were Engineers and Doctors?

And if not their wealth, then why should they get Warren Buffets wealth?

Warren Buffet, who at age 10 was buying stock in companies, saving from paper routes, and investing the money?

Do you see the problem? Every single group of people in the above example, all made sacrifices and choices, that resulted in them being wealthy. Whether it's a Janitor, or someone like me, with a low income, to a school teacher, to a pipe fitter, to an engineer, to a super wealthy investors.

There is no more moral reason to steal people's wealth, at the top, nor at the bottom.

Like the author of the OP said.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality .
Which is why we need to 'unrig' the system so there's a level playing field.

How do you think the system is rigged, and what would you do to 'unrig' it?

And what happens after you level the playing field? As soon as people start trading again, wealth will be distributed unequally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50%

Which 3 Americans? How'd they get their wealth?

I really fail to see his problem, but then envy and covetousness aren't really issues for me.

 

[the other mike]

I'm not "downplaying" anything. I'm stating right out that OBVIOUSLY most of any population isn't going to be rich, and so the fuck what? Maybe YOU spend your life eating your liver out because someone else is wealthy and you aren't. I don't.

No reason to project your anger at me, twisted sister.
Rough month on your 401k was it ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

If they are earning it... why is that a problem?

Right now, with my $30K income, have a higher net worth, than most of the people who have double my income. This is because I don't borrow money. I own my car free and clear. I own my condo free and clear. I have no credit cards, no debts whatsoever. My students loans were paid off over a decade ago. I fund my 401K for 20 years. And I have an IRA that I fund monthly.

Because of all of this, I have a pretty nice net worth.

Why should other people who have not saved and invested, not lived below their means, not made the choice to cut their life style so they have wealth..... why should they get some of my wealth?

And if not my wealth, then why should they get the wealth my parents who were school teachers earned?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my relatives who worked as pipe fitters, and electricians?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my uncles who were Engineers and Doctors?

And if not their wealth, then why should they get Warren Buffets wealth?

Warren Buffet, who at age 10 was buying stock in companies, saving from paper routes, and investing the money?

Do you see the problem? Every single group of people in the above example, all made sacrifices and choices, that resulted in them being wealthy. Whether it's a Janitor, or someone like me, with a low income, to a school teacher, to a pipe fitter, to an engineer, to a super wealthy investors.

There is no more moral reason to steal people's wealth, at the top, nor at the bottom.

Like the author of the OP said.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality .
Which is why we need to 'unrig' the system so there's a level playing field.

Like people have been telling the OP from the beginning: no one "distributed" the wealth in the first place, dumbass, and it sure as hell isn't YOUR job to come in, take it away, and then pass it out according to how you think it ought to be.

Please feel free to detail for us, in great specifics, how you think the system is "rigged".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, noes! There are rich people in the US, and they're a small percentage of the population! The horrors!

And then?

Yeah.
Try to downplay the fact that the 3 richest Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% ( 175 million people) 3 vs 175,000,000

If they are earning it... why is that a problem?

Right now, with my $30K income, have a higher net worth, than most of the people who have double my income. This is because I don't borrow money. I own my car free and clear. I own my condo free and clear. I have no credit cards, no debts whatsoever. My students loans were paid off over a decade ago. I fund my 401K for 20 years. And I have an IRA that I fund monthly.

Because of all of this, I have a pretty nice net worth.

Why should other people who have not saved and invested, not lived below their means, not made the choice to cut their life style so they have wealth..... why should they get some of my wealth?

And if not my wealth, then why should they get the wealth my parents who were school teachers earned?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my relatives who worked as pipe fitters, and electricians?

If not their wealth, then why should they get the wealth of my uncles who were Engineers and Doctors?

And if not their wealth, then why should they get Warren Buffets wealth?

Warren Buffet, who at age 10 was buying stock in companies, saving from paper routes, and investing the money?

Do you see the problem? Every single group of people in the above example, all made sacrifices and choices, that resulted in them being wealthy. Whether it's a Janitor, or someone like me, with a low income, to a school teacher, to a pipe fitter, to an engineer, to a super wealthy investors.

There is no more moral reason to steal people's wealth, at the top, nor at the bottom.

Like the author of the OP said.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality .
Which is why we need to 'unrig' the system so there's a level playing field.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality .

Yes, that was hilarious!!!
How do you get this wealth to "distribute" in the first place?
Does it grow on trees?