Zone1 Predatory Capitalism

[dblack]

No, because the wealth is in the hands of the people ...

Nope. Not if it's controlled by the state.

The government is not the people. Nor does it represent the will of the people. At best, it represents the will of the majority of the people. It specifically dismisses and overrides the will of everyone else.

 

[dblack]

The evidence showing how unregulated markets and Bill Gates should replace all government lol.

WTF??? Bill Gates replacing the government? What are you smoking?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You can look at the polls.

That was my original point. I'm agreeing, not arguing. Yes, the polls consistently show that we'd be far better off if democracy reigned here rather than capital. If we actually behaved as though we cared about each other in times devoid of crisis and weren't always bullied into voting for the least boring of two duopoly party, Wall Street anointed evils. Those deemed "viable."

People here generally no longer understand what terms like "Medicare" actually mean and it's difficult to blame them. Few understand that Medicare has already been hollowed out to a shell of its former self after being bombarded for so long with Big Insurance lies and misinformation. TV news no longer provides the public any critical analyses of such things. Obama certainly had no reason to explain the terms he abused daily in order to shaft us with his glorified version of Romneycare. Yes, it still (barely) beats "Don't Get Sick!" Republican Healthcare. Big deal.

Medicaid remains much better than either Medicare or Obamacare, but it's being carved out now too. But I digress. Sorry. Allow me to start over..

What did I mean exactly by "Cognitive dissonance writ large."? The blurb provided by the link states:

A majority of U.S. adults continue to think the federal government should ensure universal healthcare coverage, while they also prefer that the U.S. healthcare system be based on private insurance rather than government run.

I submit that, apart from the operative word being "ensure" rather than "insure," the positions described in red and blue absolutely conflict. The entire point of "Medicare 4 All" being to eliminate all but "coverage" of cosmetic healthcare from the avaricious grasp of Big (Private) Insurance. We would pay more in taxes in exchange for paying private insurers nothing.. ever again.. Exactly what they've earned minus time behind bars. Plus, for the first time ever, we'd all receive meaningful basic healthcare as though it were our natural right or something.. Go figure

 

[TruthNotBS]

Nope. Not if it's controlled by the state.

The government is not the people. Nor does it represent the will of the people. At best, it represents the will of the majority of the people. It specifically dismisses and overrides the will of everyone else.

Do you want to eliminate the government? Are you an anarchist?

 

[TruthNotBS]

That was my original point. I'm agreeing, not arguing. Yes, the polls consistently show that we'd be far better off if democracy reigned here rather than capital. If we actually behaved as though we cared about each other in times devoid of crisis and weren't always bullied into voting for the least boring of two duopoly party, Wall Street anointed evils. Those deemed "viable."

People here generally no longer understand what terms like "Medicare" actually mean and it's difficult to blame them. Few understand that Medicare has already been hollowed out to a shell of its former self after being bombarded for so long with Big Insurance lies and misinformation. TV news no longer provides the public any critical analyses of such things. Obama certainly had no reason to explain the terms he abused daily in order to shaft us with his glorified version of Romneycare. Yes, it still (barely) beats "Don't Get Sick!" Republican Healthcare. Big deal.

Medicaid remains much better than either Medicare or Obamacare, but it's being carved out now too. But I digress. Sorry. Allow me to start over..

What did I mean exactly by "Cognitive dissonance writ large."? The blurb provided by the link states:

I submit that, apart from the operative word being "ensure" rather than "insure," the positions described in red and blue absolutely conflict. The entire point of "Medicare 4 All" being to eliminate all but "coverage" of cosmetic healthcare from the avaricious grasp of Big (Private) Insurance. We would pay more in taxes in exchange for paying private insurers nothing.. ever again.. Exactly what they've earned minus time behind bars. Plus, for the first time ever, we'd all receive meaningful basic healthcare as though it were our natural right or something.. Go figure

I believe Bush jr "reformed" Medicare and almost privatized it.

 

[dblack]

Do you want to eliminate the government? Are you an anarchist?

Nope. I just don't want it meddling in the economy.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Nope. I just don't want it meddling in the economy.

How do you define "meddling"? What constitutes "meddling"? Be specific, don't be vague. Provide some examples.

 

[dblack]

How do you define "meddling"? What constitutes "meddling"? Be specific, don't be vague. Provide some examples.

Don't even start with the "be specific" horseshit. You're no quizmaster and I'm not your student. Strike a pose on someone else's time.

The state should be prevented from interfering in the economy for the same reasons it should be prevented from interfering with religion. It concentrates too much power under one entity. It took us a few hundred years to figure out that combining religious power with state power was a really bad idea. Now we're learning the same lessons with the socialist's ambitions to combine economic power with state power.

Merging state power with economic power will mean your employer, your landlord, your doctor, your educators, your grocer, etc, etc ... will all work for the same corporation. Don't piss them off!

 

[Grumblenuts]

contrarian

adjective

1. opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
   "the comment came more from a contrarian disposition than moral conviction"

Add militant, one-man-island individualism. Yields upside-down, ass-backward, and inside out commentary.. every time.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Don't even start with the "be specific" horseshit. You're no quizmaster and I'm not your student. Strike a pose on someone else's time.

The state should be prevented from interfering in the economy for the same reasons it should be prevented from interfering with religion. It concentrates too much power under one entity. It took us a few hundred years to figure out that combining religious power with state power was a really bad idea. Now we're learning the same lessons with the socialist's ambitions to combine economic power with state power.

Merging state power with economic power will mean your employer, your landlord, your doctor, your educators, your grocer, etc, etc ... will all work for the same corporation. Don't piss them off!

Don't even start with the "be specific" horseshit. You're no quizmaster and I'm not your student. Strike a pose on someone else's time.

If you can't clearly define your terms and give at least one example of what you're referring to, then you are clearly the one spewing "horseshit".


The state should be prevented from interfering in the economy.....

In your horseshit fantasy world, what does the state "interfering" look like. Can you present us all with one example of "state interference"?



...for the same reasons it should be prevented from interfering with religion.

Our nation's economy and religion are two different subjects. If I tell you that Julio Martinez my gardener is "fusing" all of my cactus flowers in my garden, you may know what the word "fusing" means, but you'll probably not know what I mean by "fusing cactus flowers" in my garden. How does the act of "fusing" apply to cactus flowers in my garden? If I respond to your request to provide you with an explanation about "fusing cactus flowers", and say "Well that's exactly like fusing green beans throughout my garden at night while wearing fluffy rabbit slippers". That response doesn't clarify anything. I would definitely be full of "horseshit" if I gave you that answer.

Telling me that you're against the state "meddling" in the economy without providing an example of what you mean by "meddling" within the context of state meddling in the economy, is the equivalent of me not providing you with an example of what I mean by "fusing cactus flowers" in my garden. I know what "meddling" and "intervening" means, but I don't have a clear picture of what you mean by "state meddling in the economy". Define your terms. Telling me that state meddling in the economy is like it meddling with religion, is like me telling you that fusing cactus flowers in my garden is like fusing green beans in my garden at night, wearing fluffy rabbit slippers. I haven't clarified anything by answering your question that way.

...It concentrates too much power under one entity. It took us a few hundred years to figure out that combining religious power with state power was a really bad idea.

You're talking about state religion or the state supporting one religion over another and forcing people to follow a particular religion. That doesn't clarify anything to anyone about the state meddling in the economy. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Now we're learning the same lessons with the socialist's ambitions to combine economic power with state power. Merging state power with economic power will mean your employer, your landlord, your doctor, your educators, your grocer, etc, etc ... will all work for the same corporation. Don't piss them off!

Your argument seems to overlook the intricate interplay between state power and economic systems, which remains present regardless of whether a capitalist model with private property rights is adopted or not. It's necessary to consider whether the system of production is controlled by an exclusive class of wealthy capitalists who continuously use their financial influence to bend governmental policies to their advantage, often undermining public interests. Alternatively, socialists advance a system where the ownership of the productive enterprise and its operations and processes, are collectively and democratically determined by the public, the very workers who put their effort into producing and delivering all of the goods and services everyone consumes. Production is owned and managed collectively and democratically, through a government that is committed to the public good and interest, rather than that of a small group of wealthy capitalist elitists.

The involvement of the state in economic matters is inevitable, and it inevitably legislates in favor of a particular dominant group. However, socialists diverge from capitalists in their vision of the "dominant group". For socialists, the dominant group ought to be the working class, the backbone of any economy, not a parasitical class of wealthy owners and exploiters, who use their capital to extract (exploit, scalp) surplus value off of the labor of other human beings who lack the capital to own the means of production.

In a socialist system, it is these everyday laborers who create value through their work and thus, should be the ones who have the majority say in economic decisions. Rather than allowing economic power to be concentrated in the hands of a few capitalist dictators and parasites. Socialists advocate for the democratization of economic power, allowing for a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. The primary focus is on the collective good and ensuring that every individual has access to the essentials required for a dignified life. Thus, unlike capitalism, which prioritizes the rights of property owners, socialism emphasizes the rights of those who contribute their labor to society.

Although we do recognize the right of people to own personal property (their home, a plot of land for their own use, their personal library, toothbrush, computer, their fruit of the looms), we're against the ownership of "private property" (the "means of production" such as factories, businesses, land used for profit, or any asset that can be used to generate wealth, that is owned and controlled by individuals or corporations). Socialists like myself, assert that private ownership of the means of production leads to a concentration of wealth in a few hands and creates a class-based society, which leads to mass social strife and poverty. If there is a major consumer nation in the world or an empire, with a vast consumer base, then the consumers living in that dominant consumer-nation, will enjoy a higher standard of living, than the people who are being consumed in other countries, for their cheap labor and raw materials. The American consumer, was once the aristocracy of labor, with the highest standard of living in the world, but that is now changing.

In conclusion, the debate between socialism and capitalism is ultimately a question of who wields power and for whose benefit. While capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and influence in the hands of a few, socialism strives for an egalitarian society where the working class. the majority holds the reins of power. I prefer majority rule to the rule of a small minority of wealthy, elitist parasites and exploiters. You can complain about majority rule and say you're repulsed by the term "rule", but nonetheless, in the real world, someone is always ruling and dictating, and I prefer as most people do, for that leadership and power, to be in the hands of elected officials, chosen by the majority.

That doesn't imply that those who are of a minority opinion or worldview can have their human rights violated or that they don't have a right to express their opinions. I'm for free speech and the right to assemble and those who choose to convey their message and form organizations to promote their ideas. I believe in the free-marketplace of ideas. Sell your ideals and policies, and see if people buy them, that's how one's point of view becomes the majority opinion. Get to work, and become an activist.

 

[dblack]

Don't even start with the "be specific" horseshit. You're no quizmaster and I'm not your student. Strike a pose on someone else's time.

If you can't clearly define your terms and give at least one example of what you're referring to, then you are clearly the one spewing "horseshit".

Listen, if you're going to pretend that socialism - state control of the "means of production" - isn't meddling, then there's not much point in continuing the conversation. I'm not interested in chasing you around the denial bush.

The state should be prevented from interfering in the economy.....

In your horseshit fantasy world, what does the state "interfering" look like. Can you present us all with one example of "state interference"?

State ownership of the means of production. That's what you're advocating for, right?

...for the same reasons it should be prevented from interfering with religion.
Our nation's economy and religion are two different subjects.

I know, I know. "It's different when we do it!"

The government has no business dicating to either.

...It concentrates too much power under one entity. It took us a few hundred years to figure out that combining religious power with state power was a really bad idea.

You're talking about state religion or the state supporting one religion over another and forcing people to follow a particular religion.

And you're talking about state owned businesses and the state making decisions about how resources and labor are applied and forcing people to play along. Same shit, same abuse, same concentration of power.

Now we're learning the same lessons with the socialist's ambitions to combine economic power with state power. Merging state power with economic power will mean your employer, your landlord, your doctor, your educators, your grocer, etc, etc ... will all work for the same corporation. Don't piss them off!
Get to work, and become an activist.

No. The last thing I want to be is an "activist".

This is is exactly why I hate socialism. I don't want every single aspect of society to subjected to a political shitshow, a petty culture war between factions of busybody "activists" all trying to tell each other how to live. That kind of intrusive government doesn't work in a diverse society like ours. "Live and let live" is the only thing that does.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Listen, if you're going to pretend that socialism - state control of the "means of production" - isn't meddling, then there's not much point in continuing the conversation. I'm not interested in chasing you around the denial bush.

State ownership of the means of production. That's what you're advocating for, right?

I know, I know. "It's different when we do it!"

The government has no business dicating to either.

And you're talking about state owned businesses and the state making decisions about how resources and labor are applied and forcing people to play along. Same shit, same abuse, same concentration of power.


No. This is exactly why I hate socialism. I don't want every single aspect of society to subjected to be a political shitshow, a petty culture war between factions of busybody "activists" all trying to tell each other how to live. That kind of intrusive government doesn't work in a diverse society like ours. "Live and let live" is the only thing that does.

Listen, if you're going to pretend that socialism - state control of the "means of production" - isn't meddling, then there's not much point in continuing the conversation. I'm not interested in chasing you around the denial bush.

Firstly, let's clarify that all economies require a degree of regulation to function optimally. No functioning modern economy is purely capitalist or purely socialist. Even in a capitalist economy, government intervention is necessary to establish and maintain a fair, efficient, and safe marketplace.

For example, in the US, the Federal Reserve (a government institution) regulates the money supply and sets interest rates to prevent recessions and manage inflation. Without this, our economy would be at the mercy of market volatility and boom-bust cycles. In other words, our capitalist economy relies heavily on the state to provide monetary stability.

Government is also necessary to enforce the rule of law and protect property rights, without which capitalism would not function. Companies would have no guarantee that their hard-earned profits would not be stolen, leading to a breakdown in commerce.

Furthermore, the state needs to intervene in cases of market failure, which occur when the market cannot provide certain goods or services efficiently. This includes public goods like national defense, environmental protection, infrastructure, and education. Even Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, acknowledged the necessity of public goods.

Now, let's discuss some specific examples where the U.S. government has bailed out the private sector.

1. The most notable recent example is the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, Congress passed the CARES Act, which provided over $2 trillion in relief to individuals, small businesses, and major industries. This was a clear case of government intervention to prevent an economic collapse.
2. In the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the U.S. government spent around $700 billion on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase distressed assets and inject capital into banks.
3. In the 1980s, the Savings and Loan crisis led to a $125 billion bailout by the federal government to address the insolvency of more than 1,000 savings and loan institutions.
4. During the Great Depression, the U.S. government implemented a series of programs and reforms known as the New Deal to stabilize the economy, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to protect bank depositors and restore trust in the banking system.

These examples illustrate that our economy, though capitalist, regularly relies on government intervention, particularly in times of crisis. The idea that the state 'meddles' isn't unique to socialist economies; it is a fundamental aspect of all economies. And we should view it not as 'meddling', but as 'managing' and 'stabilizing', to ensure an equitable and functioning society.



State ownership of the means of production. That's what you're advocating for, right?


No, public ownership. The state or government is comprised of elected officials or people appointed by that elected leadership, and they're all accountable to the public. When you say the word "state" you're conveying something that is divorced from the public and free from its influence or control. I define the "state" as a social apparatus organized by the people to manage their large-scale, socioeconomic affairs and projects. Within the context of socialism, it's a socially accountable, democratic, government. It's nothing more than a management tool. As far as the means of production, that's in the hands of workers, and the government provides data from the central planning and logistics office, to assist factories and other productive enterprises, know how much they need to produce based on consumption data. There's a close collaboration, between productive forces and the government in the social effort to provide everyone with the goods and services that they need and want.

Whether you like it or not, choose to ignore it or acknowledge it, it doesn't matter. This technology:

​

Is eventually going to force society by necessity, to adopt a non-profit mode of production, owned by the public. You can pretend otherwise, but most people who know a bit about economics and reflect on the effects of advanced automation, know that this is true. Advanced automation = no wage labor or too little of it = no paying consumers/not enough of a market to invest in = no more capitalism = socialism. The only other alternative is techno-feudalism. Most people will opt for socialism, than being slaves to a small wealthy elite who own all of the robots and facilities.

The government has no business dicating to either.

So-called "state-meddling" exists whether it's a democratic socialist state or a plutocratic one, ruled by rich capitalist elites as we currently have. Under capitalism, every few years the government has to bail out the capitalists with public funds to avoid a complete collapse of our economy. Without "state meddling", we would have child labor, 12, 16 hour work days, low pay, no benefits, no labor rights or protection, no Social Security or Medicare, no government-enforced licenses and permits (want your doctor to practice medicine without a license?), no sanitary standards for restaurants. Do you want to eat in a restaurant that hasn't properly cleaned its kitchen for two years or properly sterilizes its utensils? It takes a government to "meddle" with the market in order to properly regulate it, enforce standards, penalize fines, and arrest criminals for putting people's health and lives at risk.


And you're talking about state owned businesses and the state making decisions about how resources and labor are applied and forcing people to play along.

I appreciate your concerns about state control in a socialist society, and it is crucial to understand that socialism isn't about "forcing people to play along". It's about fostering an economic system where those who work in the factories, fields, offices, and other workplaces - the workers - are the ones making decisions and reaping the benefits of their labor.

In a socialist society, businesses are state-owned or run as cooperatives by workers who have a stake in their operations and outcomes. This allows for a democratic decision-making process and gives workers the power to elect officials who will act in their interests. These elected representatives, in turn, have the responsibility to appoint competent and dedicated non-elected officials to oversee specific tasks. It's a system that allows for accountability, with worker councils able to recall elected officials who are underperforming or failing to fulfill their promises.

Now, regarding your point about central planning, the goal is not to dictate every aspect of people's lives but to provide an overarching structure to the economy that avoids the inefficiencies and inequalities inherent in capitalism. We need to consider the advent of advanced automation technologies and AI, which pose significant challenges to the future of work.

In a capitalist society, these technologies may lead to a scenario of "techno-feudalism," where a few elite owners control the robots and AI systems that do most of the productive work, leaving the vast majority of people unemployed or underemployed. But in a socialist society, these technologies can be collectively owned by the public, ensuring that their benefits are shared by all, not just a privileged few.

It's not about controlling people or dictating their lives. It's about ensuring that everyone shares in the prosperity generated by these advanced technologies, which are, after all, developed based on the collective knowledge of humanity. It's about using rational, centralized planning to manage these technologies for the common good.


Same shit, same abuse, same concentration of power. No. This is exactly why I hate socialism. I don't want every single aspect of society to subjected to be a political shitshow, a petty culture war between factions of busybody "activists" all trying to tell each other how to live. That kind of intrusive government doesn't work in a diverse society like ours. "Live and let live" is the only thing that does.

Firstly, it's essential to point out that democratic socialism promotes diffusing power among the many, rather than concentrating it among a few. Noam Chomsky, a well-known linguist and political philosopher, elucidates this when he states:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media," co-authored with Edward S. Herman.

Democratic socialism, by enabling workers to make decisions about their workplace and economy, extends the spectrum of acceptable opinion and encourages a more active citizenry.

Secondly, democratic socialism does not aim to politicize every aspect of society. Rather, it aims to empower citizens to have a say in decisions that directly affect their lives. We already accept this principle in political democracy; democratic socialism merely extends it to the economic realm.

Regarding the issue of diversity, democratic socialism doesn't undermine it but supports it. As Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist and founder of the Democratic Socialists of America, put it: "

Socialism doesn't mean sameness. It means diversity."

Addressing economic inequalities, it allows people from all backgrounds to thrive. As for the "live and let live" philosophy you mentioned, that's a valuable principle. But it only works if people have the freedom to live their lives without being hindered by socioeconomic constraints. Economic inequality, which is inherent to capitalism, undermines this principle by creating large disparities in wealth and power. To be clear, democratic socialism does not seek to force a specific lifestyle or set of beliefs on anyone. It's about providing the basic necessities for all people like healthcare, education, and housing so that they can pursue their own interests and passions. It's about giving everyone a fair shot, not dictating how they should live their lives.

In a well-regulated, democratic socialist society, we can create a more equitable world that upholds both individual freedoms and societal well-being. Our goal isn't to control people but to ensure that everyone has the freedom to live a dignified and meaningful life. This, in essence, is the heart of socialism.

 

[dblack]

Listen, if you're going to pretend that socialism - state control of the "means of production" - isn't meddling, then there's not much point in continuing the conversation. I'm not interested in chasing you around the denial bush.

Firstly, let's clarify that all economies require a degree of regulation to function optimally. No functioning modern economy is purely capitalist or purely socialist. Even in a capitalist economy, government intervention is necessary to establish and maintain a fair, efficient, and safe marketplace.

For example, in the US, the Federal Reserve (a government institution) regulates the money supply and sets interest rates to prevent recessions and manage inflation. Without this, our economy would be at the mercy of market volatility and boom-bust cycles. In other words, our capitalist economy relies heavily on the state to provide monetary stability.

Government is also necessary to enforce the rule of law and protect property rights, without which capitalism would not function. Companies would have no guarantee that their hard-earned profits would not be stolen, leading to a breakdown in commerce.

Furthermore, the state needs to intervene in cases of market failure, which occur when the market cannot provide certain goods or services efficiently. This includes public goods like national defense, environmental protection, infrastructure, and education. Even Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, acknowledged the necessity of public goods.

Now, let's discuss some specific examples where the U.S. government has bailed out the private sector.

1. The most notable recent example is the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, Congress passed the CARES Act, which provided over $2 trillion in relief to individuals, small businesses, and major industries. This was a clear case of government intervention to prevent an economic collapse.
2. In the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the U.S. government spent around $700 billion on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase distressed assets and inject capital into banks.
3. In the 1980s, the Savings and Loan crisis led to a $125 billion bailout by the federal government to address the insolvency of more than 1,000 savings and loan institutions.
4. During the Great Depression, the U.S. government implemented a series of programs and reforms known as the New Deal to stabilize the economy, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to protect bank depositors and restore trust in the banking system.

These examples illustrate that our economy, though capitalist, regularly relies on government intervention, particularly in times of crisis. The idea that the state 'meddles' isn't unique to socialist economies; it is a fundamental aspect of all economies. And we should view it not as 'meddling', but as 'managing' and 'stabilizing', to ensure an equitable and functioning society.



State ownership of the means of production. That's what you're advocating for, right?


No, public ownership. The state or government is comprised of elected officials or people appointed by that elected leadership, and they're all accountable to the public. When you say the word "state" you're conveying something that is divorced from the public and free from its influence or control. I define the "state" as a social apparatus organized by the people to manage their large-scale, socioeconomic affairs and projects. Within the context of socialism, it's a socially accountable, democratic, government. It's nothing more than a management tool. As far as the means of production, that's in the hands of workers, and the government provides data from the central planning and logistics office, to assist factories and other productive enterprises, know how much they need to produce based on consumption data. There's a close collaboration, between productive forces and the government in the social effort to provide everyone with the goods and services that they need and want.

Whether you like it or not, choose to ignore it or acknowledge it, it doesn't matter. This technology:

​

Is eventually going to force society by necessity, to adopt a non-profit mode of production, owned by the public. You can pretend otherwise, but most people who know a bit about economics and reflect on the effects of advanced automation, know that this is true. Advanced automation = no wage labor or too little of it = no paying consumers/not enough of a market to invest in = no more capitalism = socialism. The only other alternative is techno-feudalism. Most people will opt for socialism, than being slaves to a small wealthy elite who own all of the robots and facilities.

The government has no business dicating to either.

So-called "state-meddling" exists whether it's a democratic socialist state or a plutocratic one, ruled by rich capitalist elites as we currently have. Under capitalism, every few years the government has to bail out the capitalists with public funds to avoid a complete collapse of our economy. Without "state meddling", we would have child labor, 12, 16 hour work days, low pay, no benefits, no labor rights or protection, no Social Security or Medicare, no government-enforced licenses and permits (want your doctor to practice medicine without a license?), no sanitary standards for restaurants. Do you want to eat in a restaurant that hasn't properly cleaned its kitchen for two years or properly sterilizes its utensils? It takes a government to "meddle" with the market in order to properly regulate it, enforce standards, penalize fines, and arrest criminals for putting people's health and lives at risk.


And you're talking about state owned businesses and the state making decisions about how resources and labor are applied and forcing people to play along.

I appreciate your concerns about state control in a socialist society, and it is crucial to understand that socialism isn't about "forcing people to play along". It's about fostering an economic system where those who work in the factories, fields, offices, and other workplaces - the workers - are the ones making decisions and reaping the benefits of their labor.

In a socialist society, businesses are state-owned or run as cooperatives by workers who have a stake in their operations and outcomes. This allows for a democratic decision-making process and gives workers the power to elect officials who will act in their interests. These elected representatives, in turn, have the responsibility to appoint competent and dedicated non-elected officials to oversee specific tasks. It's a system that allows for accountability, with worker councils able to recall elected officials who are underperforming or failing to fulfill their promises.

Now, regarding your point about central planning, the goal is not to dictate every aspect of people's lives but to provide an overarching structure to the economy that avoids the inefficiencies and inequalities inherent in capitalism. We need to consider the advent of advanced automation technologies and AI, which pose significant challenges to the future of work.

In a capitalist society, these technologies may lead to a scenario of "techno-feudalism," where a few elite owners control the robots and AI systems that do most of the productive work, leaving the vast majority of people unemployed or underemployed. But in a socialist society, these technologies can be collectively owned by the public, ensuring that their benefits are shared by all, not just a privileged few.

It's not about controlling people or dictating their lives. It's about ensuring that everyone shares in the prosperity generated by these advanced technologies, which are, after all, developed based on the collective knowledge of humanity. It's about using rational, centralized planning to manage these technologies for the common good.


Same shit, same abuse, same concentration of power. No. This is exactly why I hate socialism. I don't want every single aspect of society to subjected to be a political shitshow, a petty culture war between factions of busybody "activists" all trying to tell each other how to live. That kind of intrusive government doesn't work in a diverse society like ours. "Live and let live" is the only thing that does.

Firstly, it's essential to point out that democratic socialism promotes diffusing power among the many, rather than concentrating it among a few. Noam Chomsky, a well-known linguist and political philosopher, elucidates this when he states:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media," co-authored with Edward S. Herman.

Democratic socialism, by enabling workers to make decisions about their workplace and economy, extends the spectrum of acceptable opinion and encourages a more active citizenry.

Secondly, democratic socialism does not aim to politicize every aspect of society. Rather, it aims to empower citizens to have a say in decisions that directly affect their lives. We already accept this principle in political democracy; democratic socialism merely extends it to the economic realm.

Regarding the issue of diversity, democratic socialism doesn't undermine it but supports it. As Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist and founder of the Democratic Socialists of America, put it: "

Socialism doesn't mean sameness. It means diversity."

Addressing economic inequalities, it allows people from all backgrounds to thrive. As for the "live and let live" philosophy you mentioned, that's a valuable principle. But it only works if people have the freedom to live their lives without being hindered by socioeconomic constraints. Economic inequality, which is inherent to capitalism, undermines this principle by creating large disparities in wealth and power. To be clear, democratic socialism does not seek to force a specific lifestyle or set of beliefs on anyone. It's about providing the basic necessities for all people like healthcare, education, and housing so that they can pursue their own interests and passions. It's about giving everyone a fair shot, not dictating how they should live their lives.

In a well-regulated, democratic socialist society, we can create a more equitable world that upholds both individual freedoms and societal well-being. Our goal isn't to control people but to ensure that everyone has the freedom to live a dignified and meaningful life. This, in essence, is the heart of socialism.

The full propaganda treatment!

Cool story, bro!

 

[TruthNotBS]

The full propaganda treatment!

Cool story, bro!

I understand if you find these perspectives challenging or if they diverge from your current viewpoints. It's important to remember that societies evolve.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Here are some ways in which the government enables capitalism to exist.

1. Establishment of Property Rights: Governments establish and enforce property rights, allowing individuals and businesses to own, trade, and dispose of property. Without this legal framework, markets wouldn't function because there would be no security or predictability in transactions.
2. Creation and Enforcement of Laws and Regulations: Governments create laws to prevent fraud, theft, and monopolistic practices. These regulations protect consumers, ensure fair business practices, and maintain competition. They also establish standards for products and services to prevent harmful practices, ensuring public safety.
3. Provision of Public Goods and Services: Governments fund public goods and services such as roads, schools, public parks, and emergency services, all of which are critical to the functioning of a market economy but are often undersupplied by the market.
4. Monetary and Fiscal Policy: Governments issue the currency and manage the economy through monetary and fiscal policies, controlling inflation and attempting to prevent economic recessions and eliminating them with public funds (bailout money), when they occur.. These actions allow capitalism to exist and flourish.
5. Creation and Maintenance of Infrastructure: Governments create and maintain critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports, and airports. This infrastructure enables trade and commerce, allowing markets to function.
6. Trade Policies: Governments establish trade policies that can either promote free trade or protect domestic industries. These policies shape the terms of competition and market access.

Examples of "free-market" (so-called free markets have never existed and will never exist) regulation promoting commerce and avoiding social unrest include:

1. Anti-trust Laws: Laws like the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act in the U.S. have been used to break up monopolies and promote competition. This ensures that no single business entity can completely dominate the market, stifle competition, and control prices.
2. Consumer Protection Laws: Governments enact laws to protect consumers from unsafe products and fraudulent business practices, such as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Consumer Protection Act. These provide consumers with the confidence to participate in the market, facilitating commerce.
3. Labor Laws: Regulations like the Fair Labor Standards Act protect workers' rights, limit work hours, and regulate wages. This prevents social unrest by protecting workers from gross exploitation, which in turn contributes to a more stable society and economy.
4. Environmental Regulations: Governments impose environmental standards to prevent harm to the public and the environment. This is essential for sustainable economic growth and prevents social unrest related to environmental issues.

 

[dblack]

I understand if you find these perspectives challenging or if they diverge from your current viewpoints. It's important to remember that societies evolve.

The memes and videos are the best part! Do they send you packet or something? Or do you collect those yourself?

 

[TruthNotBS]

The memes and videos are the best part! Do they send you packet or something? Or do you collect those yourself?

Our conversation here is about substantial issues that impact us all, the kind of economy and society we want to live in, and how best to achieve it. So while I certainly enjoy a good meme as much as the next person, I think we should keep our focus on these significant questions. That said, if you ever come across a good meme about economics, don't hesitate to share!