Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[francoHFW]

totalitarian means a dictatorship

Sadly, that's not true. People can vote for astonishingly evil things.

Totalitarianism means dictatorship.

As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

Yes. Do you think any one is defending communism here?

No, but you seem to be of the opinion that being "democratic" makes it all ok, and that's not so. Democracy isn't inherently just or good. It's primary benefit is that it's stable - if there's majority support for the government there's less likely to be a bloody revolution. But there's nothing righteous about majority rule. The majority is frequently (usually?) wrong and they shouldn't be allowed bully the minority willy-nilly.

That's why we have courts- Independent Courts.

Democracy and socialism is the answer. Every modern country has that. Our problem is garbage GOP propaganda machine and the GOP giveaway to the rich screw the rest.not to mention Wrecking the middle East and the world economy. The GOP always a disgrace and disaster lately. Like the last 50 years Jesus....

 

[Tehon]

Totalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.

totalitarian means a dictatorship

Sadly, that's not true. People can vote for astonishingly evil things.

Totalitarianism means dictatorship.

As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

As in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which is what we experience.

 

[bripat9643]

Totalitarian means it is not democratic. or coming from the Democratic party either.

Sadly, that's not true. People can vote for astonishingly evil things.

They voted Hitler into office.

No they did not he only got 33% of the vote or something but more than anyone else. And Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor big mistake. As usual you have no clue you dupes...

Hindenburg had to appoint him to something because his party got the most votes in the election. That's how the German government worked.

Yes, the democratic result what a big mistake. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

communism may only require Ten simple Commandments from a God to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

 

[georgephillip]

So what?
The question is whether we want more socialism or less, whether state control over our economic decisions is a good thing and should be expanded, or a dangerous power that should be strictly limited.

Why would you think democratic control of our economic decisions represents a bigger threat than oligarchic control of our economic decisions?

Because there is a profound difference between economic power and political power and each must be limited to ensure freedom. Economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion. Political power is limited by the Constitution. Socialism seeks to combine the two and remove the limitations. That's why it's so dangerous and why it so often leads to totalitarian government.

If economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion (whatever that means), who's your pick for the ultimate control of the monopoly of violence, elected officials who are (theoretically) responsible to the voters or rich, un-elected capitalist billionaires like Larry Fink or Bill Gates or Bezos or Dimon or Buffet?

Giants: The Global Power Elite - Project Censored

You could drown government in Grover's bathtub tomorrow, and the economic and political power of billionaires would expand exponentially.

 

[georgephillip]

Anyone who believes democracy is a good way to make decisions is a certifiable moron. The term "oligarchy" is virtually meaningless.

What's your choice?

Types of Governments - Fact / Myth

 

[Andylusion]

Well of course not doofus... We on the right have been saying this since before Ronald Reagan. Rich people do not end up suffering from socialist policies. They either end up in bed with the government, or they end up leaving. Rich from New York and California, leave for lower tax, less socialist states all the time. The rich in France left in droves. The rich in Russia moved to west Europe when Putin was cracking down.

How does real estate affect the net worth of the rich?
The rich can run and hide (it is what they do best); however, they won't be taking all their private property with them.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...l-estate-tycoon-is-a-warning-from-history-950

They don't need to. They sell the property, and move the capital out of the country.

Capital flight in Venezuela 103% of GDP | Venezuela's Corruption Exposed

This is translated blog, from a spanish news outlet.

Rafael Ramirez, acting CEO of PDVSA, Minister of Energy and VP of Economy (no conflict of interest there), claimed yesterday "We have accumulated $477 billion from oil income". Trouble is, no one knows where that money is...​

Capital Flight Hits Venezuela; IMF Lowers Fiscal Forecast

Most of the capital flight in Venezuela, happened in the 2000s.

It's true that today capital flight from Venezuela is lower than the past decade, but only because there is so little wealth left in the country.

And yes, you are correct that the wealthy cannot pack up land, or buildings. But that does not matter. The value of those buildings, and that land, is entirely dependent on what you can do with them. Under a socialist system, you can't do anything with them. If you can't make a profit, because of regulations and controls and taxes.... then what value is there in having a building to run your business in?

Obviously the building has no value. So leaving something that is effectively worthless, is not losing anything. That's why most of the wealthy were selling off their property in the 2000s, and moving those funds to other countries, where they then opened new businesses, and bought new buildings.

The same will happen here.

If we engage in socialism to the point that it is unprofitable to engage in business in the US, they will simply sell off those assets, and capital flight will move somewhere else.

I find it ironic you are arguing this, after you yourself posted that people were packing up and moving to Spain.

 

[georgephillip]

Letting people keep more of their own money isn't a give away; however, welfare is a give away.

Do you believe you have a right to your pre-tax income?
If so, is is a legal or a moral right?

It's a moral right. What gives anyone else the right to it?

If you believe you have a moral right to your pre-tax income then you must believe an amoral market (at best) distributes incomes in a completely just manner.

So a cancer researcher earns more than some high-frequency parasite on Wall Street or a prissy New York real estate speculator, right?

As long as coercion isn't involved, then how is it unjust? You opinion on how much people should earn is purely idiosyncratic. It has no basis in fact.

Coercive persuasion or brainwashing reduces a person's ability to think critically and independently, and one would have to be thoroughly brainwashed to believe a market economy accidentally delivers to each person exactly what they deserve. You don't have to look any further than the Oval Office to see that.

Brainwashing - Wikipedia

 

[Andylusion]

There are sanctions, but they are sanctions against individuals who are acting corruptly on the world market, at the expense of the Venezuelan people.

Venezuela-Related Sanctions

They target specific officials in the Venezuelan government, that are using the power of the government to screw over what little wealth is left in the country, and exporting it into hidden accounts out of the country.

They target the basis of Venezuela's economy in much the same way US sanctions have targeted Cuba with exactly the same motive: to destroy any alternative to the Washington Consensus.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf

"Broader Economic Sanctions In addition to targeted sanctions against individuals, President Trump has imposed broader economic sanctions on Venezuela because of the government’s serious human rights sabuses, antidemocratic actions, and responsibility for the deepening humanitarian crisis.

"In August 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13808, which prohibits access to the U.S. financial markets by the Venezuelan government, including Venezuela’s state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PdVSA, with certain exceptions to minimize the impact on the Venezuelan people and U.S. economic interests.

"The sanctions seek to restrict the Venezuelan government’s access to U.S. debt and equity markets.

"Among the exceptions are transactions for new debt by CITGO, owned by PdVSA; transactions by U.S. owners of Venezuelan/PdVSA bonds on secondary markets; financing for agricultural and medical exports; and short-term financing to facilitate trade."

Right. All of which makes sense. There is a massive corruption scheme going on at PDVSA. They report billions in 'profits', but then can't account for the money. I think a decade from now, we'll find the people in government were siphoning off money into tax shelters around the world.

Again, as I said before... clearly the socialists are bleeding the country dry, while people are dying. Everything Trump is doing in regards to PDVSA is absolutely justified.

Again... any claims that what is going on in Venezuela have anything to do with Trump, are pure ignorance.

Venezuela was in a death spiral in 2016. Actually they have been in a death spiral since 2000. Claiming that Trump had anything to do with declining oil production that started in 2001, is ridiculous.

Food shortages first started showing up in 2003. They got worse in 2005, even while oil prices were going up. The real damage from food shortages started in 2014. Long before Trump was even a candidate.

So this whole "blame trump because I'm an ignorant idiot" crap, doesn't work when faced with facts.

 

[dblack]

If economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion (whatever that means)

Seriously? You really don't know what that means?? It means no matter how much money someone has they can't force you to bend to their will. That's the purpose of government - to protect us from that kind of crap. That's why we have laws. It's hard to believe you can blind yourself to this obvious fact.

who's your pick for the ultimate control of the monopoly of violence, elected officials who are (theoretically) responsible to the voters or rich, un-elected capitalist billionaires like Larry Fink or Bill Gates or Bezos or Dimon or Buffet?

The government has control of the monopoly of violence. That's what it does. If some rich people are bribing government for favors we need to root that out and punish them. But your solution is to get rid of rich people altogether. Which makes as much sense as getting rid of government altogether.

Economic power is formidable, I don't deny that. But it does have its limits. Socialism pretends to abolish economic power, but it doesn't. It just merges it with government. If we eliminate private entrepreneurship, ambitious people will pursue careers in government rather than careers in business. The same avarice and greed will be driving them, but they'll have all the tools of the state at their disposal.

Giving the bulk of economic power to government makes as much sense (and is essentially the same thing) as giving the coercive power of the state to wealthy interests.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who believes democracy is a good way to make decisions is a certifiable moron. The term "oligarchy" is virtually meaningless.

What's your choice?

Types of Governments - Fact / Myth

They're still rulers under democracy, moron. Furthermore, Aristotle wasn't right about everything. He calls Anarchy a "deviant" form of democracy. It's not. Anarchy is the absence of government. Democracy is still government, and it's often oppressive.

 

[bripat9643]

If economic power is limited by the prohibition on coercion (whatever that means)

Seriously? You really don't know what that means?? It means no matter how much money someone has they can't force you to bend to their will. That's the purpose of government - to protect us from that kind of crap. That's why we have laws. It's hard to believe you can blind yourself to this obvious fact.

who's your pick for the ultimate control of the monopoly of violence, elected officials who are (theoretically) responsible to the voters or rich, un-elected capitalist billionaires like Larry Fink or Bill Gates or Bezos or Dimon or Buffet?

The government has control of the monopoly of violence. That's what it does. If some rich people are bribing government for favors we need to root that out and punish them. But your solution is to get rid of rich people altogether. Which makes as much sense as getting rid of government altogether.

Economic power is formidable, I don't deny that. But it does have its limits. Socialism pretends to abolish economic power, but it doesn't. It just merges it with government. If we eliminate private entrepreneurship, ambitious people will pursue careers in government rather than careers in business. The same avarice and greed will be driving them, but they'll have all the tools of the state at their disposal.

Giving the bulk of economic power to government makes as much sense (and is essentially the same thing) as giving the coercive power of the state to wealthy interests.

Getting rid of government altogether makes a lot of sense.

 

[dblack]

Democracy and socialism is the answer.

The worship of democracy baffles me. Democracy is a good thing - when it's kept in perspective and applied to proper functions. When we really need to make a decision as a group, when we must have conformity, when we can't afford to let people go their own way, it's a reasonable way to make that decision. When we're picking a leader, or deciding whether or not to go to war, we can't afford dissent. So we resort to majority rule.

But if conformity isn't required, voting to force the will of the majority on everyone else is an abuse of democracy. That's why it's dumb, and wrong, to use democracy to make economic decisions. We don't need to pool all our resources and then vote on what to do with them. Those kinds of decisions are better made by individual investors and consumers - voluntarily and collaboratively. There's no need to employ state coercion to force conformity. We can let people go their own way, and we're better off doing that.

 

[basquebromance]

socialism is out of fashion

 

[georgephillip]

Yea I’d say government is a very shitty vessel for solving our problems. Individuals on the other hand are very good at it. I’m typing on a device that would’ve been considered a supercomputer in the 90s...and it fits in my palm. It’s tech making the entire globe richer, giving the impoverished worldwide access to the internet where they can participate in things like commerce and education they could not have dreamed of 10 years ago. Made by the same company that took 40 some years to be worth what our government lost track of in 10.

You should also be willing to ask the question : "What role did government play in the creation of Apple Computers?" Starting with its official corporate charter and extending through decades of taxpayer-funded (government) research and development into revolutionary technologies like the Internet, GPS, and touchscreen display.

Apple received its early stage finance from the US government's small business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten Apple to the critical proof of concept stage.

Considering everything government contributed to Apple's current $1 trillion market cap, it is also shameful that Apple refuses to should its fair share of the federal tax burden, imho.

Taxpayers Helped Apple, but Apple Won’t Help Them

 

[basquebromance]

when asked if he minded being called a socialist. Crazy Bernie said "i'm not afraid of that word!"

 

[georgephillip]

This thread should be shut down. This is a capitalists nation. Socialism isn't found in this nation.

So, all government is an example of socialism?

 

[basquebromance]

brothers and sisters, this rigged economy is robbing regular Americans of wealth and wages

 

[Andylusion]

Yea I’d say government is a very shitty vessel for solving our problems. Individuals on the other hand are very good at it. I’m typing on a device that would’ve been considered a supercomputer in the 90s...and it fits in my palm. It’s tech making the entire globe richer, giving the impoverished worldwide access to the internet where they can participate in things like commerce and education they could not have dreamed of 10 years ago. Made by the same company that took 40 some years to be worth what our government lost track of in 10.

You should also be willing to ask the question : "What role did government play in the creation of Apple Computers?" Starting with its official corporate charter and extending through decades of taxpayer-funded (government) research and development into revolutionary technologies like the Internet, GPS, and touchscreen display.

Apple received its early stage finance from the US government's small business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten Apple to the critical proof of concept stage.

Considering everything government contributed to Apple's current $1 trillion market cap, it is also shameful that Apple refuses to should its fair share of the federal tax burden, imho.

Taxpayers Helped Apple, but Apple Won’t Help Them

So you were stupid enough to fund research for Apple..... that's your fault, not Apples.

This is what is baffling to me. Many companies are more than willing to fund their own research. But you have these idiotic left-wing doornobs that demand we fund research..... so we do. We give massive research grants.

Did we have to fund research? No. But we choose to do so.

Now after blowing tons of money on research that could have been privately funded, now you want to say that these companies owe you?

No, they don't owe you.

If they owe you, then maybe we should demand people who take money for food housing and health, start working for the government. Maybe we can some Stalinist gulags going.

NO. No. Sorry. You being dumb enough to fund research for private companies, just makes you an idiot, not them in debited to you.

 

[Andylusion]

brothers and sisters, this rigged economy is robbing regular Americans of wealth and wages

How? I have not been robbed. I doubt you have either.

You earn what your labor is worth. If you don't like your wages, find something more valuable to do with your time. Stop being a whiny blame machine, running around looking for someone to point your finger at. The only person to blame, is that worthless slob in your mirror.