Socialism is more popular than Project 2025

[AzogtheDefiler]

You think trump had nothing to do with it? Of course you do. Your brainwashing wouldn't allow anything else.

Hey bro

Trump won

You lost

You’re old

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Like trump his trying to force his will on all of US. What comes next will be welcomed by 99% of the people. The wealthy 1% will try to manipulate us against each other to maintain their power over us. They will fail in the end. Humanity has to win. Humanity has to survive.

Become wealthy and you won’t be whining so much.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Like trump his trying to force his will on all of US. What comes next will be welcomed by 99% of the people. The wealthy 1% will try to manipulate us against each other to maintain their power over us. They will fail in the end. Humanity has to win. Humanity has to survive.

Trump has little or nothing to do with this he is not the " answer ". If by " what comes next " you mean some sort of revolution then you are dead wrong it will not be welcomed. Mosty will oppose it.

The wealthy 1% do not have any power over us. They just want you to buy their stuff which you are free not to.

Humanity is fine

 

[Stann]

Trump has little or nothing to do with this he is not the " answer ". If by " what comes next " you mean some sort of revolution then you are dead wrong it will not be welcomed. Mosty will oppose it.

The welathy 1% do not have any power over us. They just want you to buy their stuff which you are free not to.

Humanity is fine

We weren't discussing trump. He is a sad sideline of present. We were talking about economic systems and what comes next as in 50.years or so into the future. trump will continue increasing the disparity of wealth in the world but not significantly. The 1% will soon have their fingers into everything and everyone. That is when it will become intolerable. We are just becoming uncomfortable , it's going to get a whole lot worse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We weren't discussing trump. He is a sad sideline of present. We were talking about economic systems and what comes next as in 50.years or so into the future. trump will continue increasing the disparity of wealth in the world but not significantly. The 1% will soon have their fingers into everything and everyone. That is when it will become intolerable. We are just becoming uncomfortable , it's going to get a whole lot worse.

Idiots like you should be uncomfortable.

 

[Soupnazi630]

We weren't discussing trump. He is a sad sideline of present. We were talking about economic systems and what comes next as in 50.years or so into the future. trump will continue increasing the disparity of wealth in the world but not significantly. The 1% will soon have their fingers into everything and everyone. That is when it will become intolerable. We are just becoming uncomfortable , it's going to get a whole lot worse.

Disparity of wealth harms no one

 

[para bellum]

With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce.

Who is the investor in your economy?
Who pays for the machines and buildings and trucks and stuff so the workers can work?

edit: sorry Todd I was trying to ask Tankie that question.

 

[Stann]

Disparity of wealth harms no one

Are you insane , trying telling that to the millions that starve to death each year on this planet.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Are you insane , trying telling that to the millions that starve to death each year on this planet.

No I am correct.

It is not disparity of wealth which causes starvation and you cannot demosntrate any harm it does

 

[Stann]

No I am correct.

It is not disparity of wealth which causes starvation and you cannot demosntrate any harm it does

WOW ! You are crazy. He direction it is going no one will have anything and all will be slaves to a very few.. Already many ho hungry even in America , it is only going to get worse.

 

[Tankie]

Every single CEO saw a 1460% pay hike?
Or only a few of them?

Toddsrterpatriot: "Every single CEO saw a 1460% pay hike, or only a few of them?"

The figure of 1460% is representative of the overall average increase concerning compensation for CEOs since 1978. The article also states that "CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021." Of course, figures like that do vary from source to source. I referenced the Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) findings because it is one of the better journalistic sources for tracking CEO pay over time. Like other such think tanks, EPI compares the average CEO compensation in a starting year to the average in a recent year, adjusting for inflation and calculating the percentage increase between the two points, which often involves considering both salary and stock-based compensation, which can fluctuate significantly depending on market conditions. It isn't perfect. Nonetheless, it does provide at least a general understanding of the already dangerous and ever-growing level of inequality under capitalism.

I wrote: "With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce."

In response, Toddsterpatriot asked: "Who is the investor in your economy?" while para bellum wrote: "Who pays for the machines, buildings, trucks, and other things so the workers can work?"

Just as it is at present under capitalism, the economic wealth produced via worker's labor power and intellectual power would be the source of investment capital under socialism. As I stated in the message Toddsterpatriot and para bellum responded to, "...the democratization of the workplace [ http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ] would make it possible for workers to decide the dispensation of the investment capital their labor power and their intellectual power would also produce."

In other words, under capitalism, capitalists decide how a corporation's capital or, in Marxist terminology, "real capital" is to be reinvested. However, they don't create the said monies; their employees do so through their labor power and intellectual power. So, under socialism, the source of investment capital would remain the same (read: workers) as the elimination of capitalism would have also eliminated the useless and parasitic intermediary.

"Without workers, capitalists would be nothing. Without capitalists, workers would be everything." --Daniel De Leon

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

 

[Soupnazi630]

WOW ! You are crazy. He direction it is going no one will have anything and all will be slaves to a very few.. Already many ho hungry even in America , it is only going to get worse.

I am correct and you are silly and wrong

When a wealthy person even a billionaire makes a dollar no one loses a dollar.
Starvation is not caused by others being wealthy. By your stupid logic a sick person is caused by another person being healthy

 

[Stann]

I am correct and you are silly and wrong

When a wealthy person even a billionaire makes a dollar no one loses a dollar.
Starvation is not caused by others being wealthy. By your stupid logic a sick person is caused by another person being healthy

This world does not have limitless wealth. It is a physical entity and resources can be used up. Most of the wealth is based on fossil fuels which are not renewable. You figured wrong.

 

[Soupnazi630]

This world does not have limitless wealth. It is a physical entity and resources can be used up. Most of the wealth is based on fossil fuels which are not renewable. You figured wrong.

yes it does

It is a not a physical entity. I am correct no billionare is taking wealth from the starving people and they are not starving because someone else has wealth

 

[Stann]

yes it does

It is a not a physical entity. I am correct no billionare is taking wealth from the starving people and they are not starving because someone else has wealth

Looked it up
Wealth inequality causes a plethora of problems. Most not good. A lot of the problems we are seeing now are either a direct result of it or an indirect one. But on the health outcome. It did not mention starvation exactly but it did say it adversely affected the health of poorer people. I'm an extreme example that would lead to starvation and other food deficiencies. So you are full of shit. If you want more details see for yourself. International Monetary Fund , " Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality "

 

[Soupnazi630]

Looked it up
Wealth inequality causes a plethora of problems. Most not good. A lot of the problems we are seeing now are either a direct result of it or an indirect one. But on the health outcome. It did not mention starvation exactly but it did say it adversely affected the health of poorer people. I'm an extreme example that would lead to starvation and other food deficiencies. So you are full of shit. If you want more details see for yourself. International Monetary Fund , " Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality "

No you are wrong

Your sources are reporting ideology and association NOT cause and effect.

It harms no one. If I have one more dollar than you it does not harm you. If I have a billion more dollars than you it does not harm you.

None of tyhe sources you look up can explain any cause and effect they can only show association whcih is no where near the same thing

 

[Stann]

No you are wrong

Your sources are reporting ideology and association NOT cause and effect.

It harms no one. If I have one more dollar than you it does not harm you. If I have a billion more dollars than you it does not harm you.

None of tyhe sources you look up can explain any cause and effect they can only show association whcih is no where near the same thing

WTF , you are insane!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsrterpatriot: "Every single CEO saw a 1460% pay hike, or only a few of them?"

The figure of 1460% is representative of the overall average increase concerning compensation for CEOs since 1978. The article also states that "CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021." Of course, figures like that do vary from source to source. I referenced the Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) findings because it is one of the better journalistic sources for tracking CEO pay over time. Like other such think tanks, EPI compares the average CEO compensation in a starting year to the average in a recent year, adjusting for inflation and calculating the percentage increase between the two points, which often involves considering both salary and stock-based compensation, which can fluctuate significantly depending on market conditions. It isn't perfect. Nonetheless, it does provide at least a general understanding of the already dangerous and ever-growing level of inequality under capitalism.

I wrote: "With the private ownership of the means of production eliminated, workers would, in the end, enjoy 100% of the economic wealth their labor power and or their intellectual power would produce."

In response, Toddsterpatriot asked: "Who is the investor in your economy?" while para bellum wrote: "Who pays for the machines, buildings, trucks, and other things so the workers can work?"

Just as it is at present under capitalism, the economic wealth produced via worker's labor power and intellectual power would be the source of investment capital under socialism. As I stated in the message Toddsterpatriot and para bellum responded to, "...the democratization of the workplace [ http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/siu_chart.pdf ] would make it possible for workers to decide the dispensation of the investment capital their labor power and their intellectual power would also produce."

In other words, under capitalism, capitalists decide how a corporation's capital or, in Marxist terminology, "real capital" is to be reinvested. However, they don't create the said monies; their employees do so through their labor power and intellectual power. So, under socialism, the source of investment capital would remain the same (read: workers) as the elimination of capitalism would have also eliminated the useless and parasitic intermediary.

"Without workers, capitalists would be nothing. Without capitalists, workers would be everything." --Daniel De Leon

Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org

The figure of 1460% is representative of the overall average increase concerning compensation for CEOs since 1978.

But it isn't.

Chief Executives

www.bls.gov

Not unless you think the average CEO made under $17,000 in 1978.

The article also states that "CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021."

$258,900/499 = $518.84.

Did the typical worker make $518.84 in 2021?

I think you need to look a little deeper at your sources, or get better ones.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looked it up
Wealth inequality causes a plethora of problems. Most not good. A lot of the problems we are seeing now are either a direct result of it or an indirect one. But on the health outcome. It did not mention starvation exactly but it did say it adversely affected the health of poorer people. I'm an extreme example that would lead to starvation and other food deficiencies. So you are full of shit. If you want more details see for yourself. International Monetary Fund , " Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality "

Elon Musk owns about 715 million shares of Tesla. If the price increases by $100 per share, how much did each poor person contribute to Elon's extra $71 billion in wealth?

Did they volutarily send Elon the cash, or did he take it by force?

 

[Soupnazi630]

WTF , you are insane!

No I am correct