Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[Freiheit]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit and it is quite unnecessary in the process of transforming nature into something useful to humans.

We do not need to rely on the market, speaking of magic, to make decisions that we are fully capable of making using our own intellect.

In a socialist system, a system without capital, the state would look entirely different. It was capital that built the state that we have now. It was built to protect capital.

"the state would look entirely different" Tehon. Yes the state would look different, The German Democratic Republic is a good historical example and Venezuela is a good current example. The German Democratic Republic had to build a wall to keep its' people in and Venezuela is suffering from hyperinflation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Check out Korea, you dumb motherfucker.

One side is Communist, the other Capitalist.

See the difference, stupid?

Lousy management does that. Firms fail all the time under Capitalism.

In right wing fantasy, all things are possible.

Pull your head out of your ass for 5 minutes every year, drug addict.

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone be afraid of something that has failed everytime it has been used?

Socialism "fails" because capitalists control world reserve currencies, the IMF and World Bank, and the most powerful military in history.

Andrew Neil on Twitter

Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed

And advanced industrial economy without money is as unthinkable is an honest politician.

I have to agree with you that any advanced economy that could function without money is hard to imagine, but there are many things I can't imagine that will possibly become reality one day.

We would use labor credits as a medium of exchange in a socialist economy first before we would transition into a moneyless communist society.

ROFL! Unless "work credits" are a euphemism for money, they will be a disaster. Why do you imagine people had to stand in long lines for everything in the USSR? Because the prices had no relationship to the actual demand for things. How will the government determine how many "work credits" are needed to purchase a home? The answer is that it can't know, because price is the result of exchange in the market place using money. There is no such phenomenon using "work credits" where the government sets an arbitrary price based on nothing more than the ill informed opinion of bureaucrats. The Soviet Union set all its prices based on what a private firm would charge in a market economy. Without the existence of market economies, it would have been entirely clueless about how much to charge for gas or color TVs.

Your idea has already been tried, and it failed, utterly.

 

[bripat9643]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit and it is quite unnecessary in the process of transforming nature into something useful to humans.

We do not need to rely on the market, speaking of magic, to make decisions that we are fully capable of making using our own intellect.

In a socialist system, a system without capital, the state would look entirely different. It was capital that built the state that we have now. It was built to protect capital.

"the state would look entirely different" Tehon. Yes the state would look different, The German Democratic Republic is a good historical example and Venezuela is a good current example. The German Democratic Republic had to build a wall to keep its' people in and Venezuela is suffering from hyperinflation.

Not only is it suffering from hyperinflation, the people are all starving. They've resorted to eating their pets and the animals in the zoo. Last year the average Venezuelan lost 20 lbs.

 

[bripat9643]

And advanced industrial economy without money is as unthinkable is an honest politician.

I have to agree with you that any advanced economy that could function without money is hard to imagine, but there are many things I can't imagine that will possibly become reality one day.

We would use labor credits as a medium of exchange in a socialist economy first before we would transition into a moneyless communist society.

Using labor credits as a medium of exchange seems similar in some ways to the notion debt and credit appeared historically before money?

Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011...."

"The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith.

"To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

"The primary theme of the book is that excessive popular indebtedness has sometimes led to unrest, insurrection, and revolt.

"He argues that credit systems originally developed as means of account long before the advent of coinage, which appeared around 600 BC.

"Credit can still be seen operating in non-monetary economies.

"Barter, on the other hand, seems primarily to have been used for limited exchanges between different societies that had infrequent contact and often were in a context of ritualized warfare."

I'm assuming the transition into a moneyless communist society would eliminate the existence of private fortunes and ritualized warfare?

Yes, socialism would eliminate the existence of private fortunes. And there would be no one to be indebted to. Capital would be no more.

Capital would still be the there. It would just be controlled by government instead of the people.

Yep. Instead or producing products that people actually want to buy, bureaucrats would acquire control of capital by kissing ass, sucking up, lying, shitting on their inferiors and all the other well known means of climbing the power structure in a bureaucracy. Somehow I just don't see that as a preferable alternative.

 

[bripat9643]

I have to agree with you that any advanced economy that could function without money is hard to imagine, but there are many things I can't imagine that will possibly become reality one day.

We would use labor credits as a medium of exchange in a socialist economy first before we would transition into a moneyless communist society.

Using labor credits as a medium of exchange seems similar in some ways to the notion debt and credit appeared historically before money?

Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011...."

"The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith.

"To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

"The primary theme of the book is that excessive popular indebtedness has sometimes led to unrest, insurrection, and revolt.

"He argues that credit systems originally developed as means of account long before the advent of coinage, which appeared around 600 BC.

"Credit can still be seen operating in non-monetary economies.

"Barter, on the other hand, seems primarily to have been used for limited exchanges between different societies that had infrequent contact and often were in a context of ritualized warfare."

I'm assuming the transition into a moneyless communist society would eliminate the existence of private fortunes and ritualized warfare?

Yes, socialism would eliminate the existence of private fortunes. And there would be no one to be indebted to. Capital would be no more.

Capital would still be the there. It would just be controlled by government instead of the people.

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Why would there be capital if we call it socialism?

Are you saying there wouldn't be any factories, machinery, buildings or computers under socialism? That's economists call "capital." Only the ignorant believe that stock certificates are "capital." They are only claims on capital.

Apparently you want us to devolve to the Stone Age, and that's pretty much will happen. Just look at Venezuela.

 

[bripat9643]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

They call it Democratic Socialism because so many people have been brainwashed to think that democracy is inherently good. They'd probably be just as excited to see Democratic Fascism - which is what we're going to get.

Some speculate, and I agree with them, that we already have it.

Inverted totalitarianism - Wikipedia

Inverted

Using labor credits as a medium of exchange seems similar in some ways to the notion debt and credit appeared historically before money?

Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011...."

"The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith.

"To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

"The primary theme of the book is that excessive popular indebtedness has sometimes led to unrest, insurrection, and revolt.

"He argues that credit systems originally developed as means of account long before the advent of coinage, which appeared around 600 BC.

"Credit can still be seen operating in non-monetary economies.

"Barter, on the other hand, seems primarily to have been used for limited exchanges between different societies that had infrequent contact and often were in a context of ritualized warfare."

I'm assuming the transition into a moneyless communist society would eliminate the existence of private fortunes and ritualized warfare?

Yes, socialism would eliminate the existence of private fortunes. And there would be no one to be indebted to. Capital would be no more.

Capital would still be the there. It would just be controlled by government instead of the people.

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Why would there be capital if we call it socialism?

Because words are just labels? Seriously?

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

You don't know what the word "capital" means.

 

[bripat9643]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

More or less. To be more precise, capital is the goods we use to make other goods.

 

[bripat9643]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Everywhere it's tried.

 

[bripat9643]

200 million butchered by Socialism in the 20th century, but georgephillip doesn't think there are enough dead yet.

He wants another 100 million dead by the end of the decade.

how many die under capitalism simply because they have no capital?

None.

 

[bripat9643]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit and it is quite unnecessary in the process of transforming nature into something useful to humans.

We do not need to rely on the market, speaking of magic, to make decisions that we are fully capable of making using our own intellect.

In a socialist system, a system without capital, the state would look entirely different. It was capital that built the state that we have now. It was built to protect capital.

Wrong. Capital is goods used for making other goods. A factory or a bulldozer are capital. It's quite necessary for transforming nature into something useful to humans. Your belief that capital is a bunch of scraps of paper shows you have a demagogue's understanding of the term, not an economic understanding.

And, yes, we absolutely do need to relay on the market, because government bureaucrats have no way of knowing what goods and services the public demands the most. Do you imagine bureaucrats would have ever created anything like Google or Facebook?

"Capital" didn't build the state, except in the sense that the later is a parasite on the former. The tick can't survive without a host, and neither can the state.

 

[bripat9643]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Everywhere it's tried.

Where? AnCap is still economic fiction not economic fact.

What the hell is "AnCap?"

Capitalism worked wonderfully in the USA, the UK, Hong Kong, Singapore and countless other countries.

 

[danielpalos]

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Check out Korea, you dumb motherfucker.

One side is Communist, the other Capitalist.

See the difference, stupid?

Lousy management does that. Firms fail all the time under Capitalism.

In right wing fantasy, all things are possible.

Pull your head out of your ass for 5 minutes every year, drug addict.

it makes no difference. i smoke two joints and then smoke two more, and you still have nothing but fallacy.

lousy management fails all the time. Governments last longer.

 

[ph3iron]

No thanks. One need not look any further than europe to see what a travesty it is.

And how long have you lived in Europe again?
Rather be here with white bigoted zero college rubes?

 

[ph3iron]

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Everywhere it's tried.

Where? AnCap is still economic fiction not economic fact.

What the hell is "AnCap?"

Capitalism worked wonderfully in the USA, the UK, Hong Kong, Singapore and countless other countries.

Keep the gov out of my social security as the Don rube said

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No thanks. One need not look any further than europe to see what a travesty it is.

And how long have you lived in Europe again?
Rather be here with white bigoted zero college rubes?

Ive been several times. Yeah, Id rather be here. Thanks, at least you're showing your racist roots.

 

[georgephillip]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Socialism is a failed economic and political notion, actual liberty and freedom ought to be tried next.

Who controls the means of production in your economy based on "actual liberty and freedom," those who perform most of the labor or those who hoard most of the profit?

Chances Are, You're Already a Democratic Socialist | HuffPost

When people start talking talking "means of production" and "excess labor value", it means they produce nothing and never labor.

Oh yeah, and they're fucking Communist turds, too.

Were you stupid enough to vote for this turd?

Yes.

Of course you did.

https://psmag.com/news/trumps-appeal-to-the-cognitively-challenged

 

[georgephillip]

I think Japan has faire capitalism with a good safety net and is very democratic. Sir everywhere outside the GO garbage propaganda bin, yes it is. Socialist no longer means communist and the rest of the world, super duper cold war dinosaur GOP dingbat.
Socialist International - Wikipedia

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Some critics of capitalism think of socialism as its shadow; although, I'm not sure how that relates to the notion that US politics is the shadow cast on society by big business:

What is Socialism? | International Socialist Review

"IN A matter of months, the global financial crisis has dramatically reshaped the economic and political landscape around the world.

"The high priests of global capitalism have scrapped decades of neoliberal orthodoxy, replacing their denunciations of government spending as harmful interference in the free market with calls for trillions in bailout bills and stimulus packages.

"'The goal is to get the engine of capitalism going as productively as possible,' Nancy Koehn, a historian at the Harvard Business School, told the New York Times. 'Ideology is a luxury good in times of crisis.'"

Still pushing the Communist mantra, huh? Fuck You!



Excess labor value my ass, motherfucker!


Get a job!

Wall Street first, Cracker.

Wall Street First | Michael Hudson

"One of the first reactions to Trump’s election victory was for stocks of the most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe taken to the public sector.

"Navient, the Department of Education’s knee-breaker on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 after it seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a green light for financial fraud.

Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary – and Trump pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and savers 'broader choice,' e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food."

You're a sad Communist nutbar.

Not sad/stupid enough to see a "difference" between white trash

What's your excuse, Retard.

 

[georgephillip]

Some critics of capitalism think of socialism as its shadow; although, I'm not sure how that relates to the notion that US politics is the shadow cast on society by big business:

...

Do you have any opinions of your own? Seriously, ninety percent of your posts are just c-n-p and links to barely-related articles. I dunno about anyone else here, but I never bother reading them.

Sometimes I don't bother reading all of my links either.
I look for opinions that match my own written by sources more familiar with the topic than I am. Use the Ignore function if you find that distracting.

 

[initforme]

Most working folk know there is no socialism here so the op is baseless