CDZ Why Have Socialists Not Privatized The Socialist Ideals ?

[Monk-Eye]

" Why Have Socialists Not Privatized The Socialist Ideals ? "

* Cannot Earn A Dollar Of Their Own But Promotes That Money Grows On Trees In Gardens Of The Undeserving *

There is a banter by socialists for fair worker compensation , all while bemoaning elitism that exists for compensation in corporations .

Why do those aspiring for fair worker compensation , and for big business paying their fair share , forego government public policy for socialism and instead create private corporations that by personal volition , as philanthropic donations , facilitate their socialist ideals ?

Could it be that those bemoaning capitalism are incapable of owning up to a personal volition for socialist ideals implemented through their own private , philanthropic , policies and contributions ?

 

[wamose]

They won't privatize money they figure on stealing themselves. Socialists are thieves.

 

[Oddball]

They socialized the currency in 1913....The rest was just a matter of time.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Acquired Holdings In Quantities Of Commodities Rather Than Transient Currencies Values "

* Direct Ownership of Metal Transcends Fiat Currency Whimsy In Open Trade *

They socialized the currency in 1913....The rest was just a matter of time.

History of the United States dollar

en.wikipedia.org

For as long as the United States remained neutral in the war, it remained the only country to maintain its gold standard, doing so without restriction on import or export of gold from 1915 to 1917.

Fiat money - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fiat money is a currency (a medium of exchange) established as money, often by government regulation. Fiat money does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value (inherent utility, such as a cow or beaver pelt might have). It has value only because a government maintains its value, or because parties engaging in exchange agree on its value.[1] It was introduced as an alternative to commodity money (a medium which has its own intrinsic value) and representative money (money which represents something with intrinsic value). Representative money is similar to fiat money, but it represents a claim on a commodity (which can be redeemed to a greater or lesser extent).[2][3][a]

-- Petrocurrency --

-- Energy currency - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki --

-- Bitcoin --

The Congolese Mountain of Gold: Surprise Discovery in Africa Shows Metal's Scarcity Is Hard to Prove – Finance Bitcoin News

The Congo is well known for being a region that sees tons of smuggled gold filtered into the global financial system unreported.

news.bitcoin.com

 

[emilynghiem]

" Why Have Socialists Not Privatized The Socialist Ideals ? "

* Cannot Earn A Dollar Of Their Own But Promotes That Money Grows On Trees In Gardens Of The Undeserving *

There is a banter by socialists for fair worker compensation , all while bemoaning elitism that exists for compensation in corporations .

Why do those aspiring for fair worker compensation , and for big business paying their fair share , forego government public policy for socialism and instead create private corporations that by personal volition , as philanthropic donations , facilitate their socialist ideals ?

Could it be that those bemoaning capitalism are incapable of owning up to a personal volition for socialist ideals implemented through their own private , philanthropic , policies and contributions ?

I've brought this up and have been discussing and debating it with my friends who are most ardent about centralized govt health care.

The answers I get from them include
1. Not having faith that everyone can get equal access by voluntary nonprofit efforts.
2. Belief in federal govt as the only way to ensure equal public access to all
3. Not trusting nonprofits but believing govt is more accountable to people
4. Belief that govt will ensure health care and education will continue so if crises occur the govt will guarantee programs will be supported no matter what

It is so weird that my liberal friends trust govt but don't trust nonprofit or religious organizations or corporate interests when ALL these collective entities are prone to abuse; they still believe we have a better chance of stabilizing and checking govt rather than rely on independent nonprofits or cooperatives for health care.

And it seems contradictory they are willing to give up "freedom of choice" to govt in exchange for having security since the govt will run programs on a deficit and just charge debts to taxpayers. While independent groups don't have that to fall back on by forcing taxpayers to pay.

So the very factor of "guaranteed funding forced on taxpayers as mandatory, regardless if they agree to terms and policies or not" that Conservatives oppose as compromising choice, representation and accountability is the very reason Liberals want to go through govt, in order to ensure security of funding and equal access mandated by law.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Gearing Towards Private Collectives Competing In A Free Market With Other Individuals "

* Excuses Not Acceptable That Government Is A Replacement For Private Volition *

I've brought this up and have been discussing and debating it with my friends who are most ardent about centralized govt health care.

The answers I get from them include
1. Not having faith that everyone can get equal access by voluntary nonprofit efforts.
2. Belief in federal govt as the only way to ensure equal public access to all
3. Not trusting nonprofits but believing govt is more accountable to people
4. Belief that govt will ensure health care and education will continue so if crises occur the govt will guarantee programs will be supported no matter what

It is so weird that my liberal friends trust govt but don't trust nonprofit or religious organizations or corporate interests when ALL these collective entities are prone to abuse; they still believe we have a better chance of stabilizing and checking govt rather than rely on independent nonprofits or cooperatives for health care.

And it seems contradictory they are willing to give up "freedom of choice" to govt in exchange for having security since the govt will run programs on a deficit and just charge debts to taxpayers. While independent groups don't have that to fall back on by forcing taxpayers to pay.

So the very factor of "guaranteed funding forced on taxpayers as mandatory, regardless if they agree to terms and policies or not" that Conservatives oppose as compromising choice, representation and accountability is the very reason Liberals want to go through govt, in order to ensure security of funding and equal access mandated by law.

Non profit organizations are not the principle suggestion of the thread .

The principle suggestion of the thread is where private individuals run their own private corporations that compete in the free market , and from those private earnings practice the socialist ideals .

The opening post proposition does not presume that those individuals implementing socialism ideals through private corporations would necessarily distribute funds through non profit organizations , though a private institution , that is not a government institution , may be needed to distribute funds based on need wherever it is decided .

As also typical of government bureaucracies , not for profit organizations allocate magnanimous funds towards satisfying bloated over head costs of project management while funds actually applied for direct need are greatly poached and distributed with whimsy .

* State Capitalism Options When Public Funding Private Neomercantilism *

Public Private Trust

"Public Private Trust" A Public Private Trust originates through a variation of state capitalism where shares of stock from corporations are exchanged for state subsidies. However, unlike state capitalism the shares acquired through the exchange are relinquished by the state into private...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[sartre play]

Socialists have not privatized there ideas because we have very few ACTUAL socialists in the USA. So actual socialists control Nothing.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Easier To Identify With Mass Communications Where An Outlet Is Verifiable "

* Farce Book Is A Communist Haven And Numerical Representation Counts Snow Flake *

Socialists have not privatized there ideas because we have very few ACTUAL socialists in the USA. So actual socialists control Nothing.

The question is generalized and not specific to the us .

What Is Democratic Socialism?

For those under age 30, things like the Berlin Wall and the Cold War are part of a historical narrative that can only be comprehended from textbooks. The personal knowledge and memory of how socialism looks, how it was regarded, and the inherent dangers that it carries in its wake remain—to a large extent—with the older generation of Americans.
That’s one of the reasons there is a new interest among today’s young people in the idea of socialism. There is a popular movement that carries the notion that a socialist economy can be modified to be democratized and to provide a better overall lifestyle than our current capitalist economy. The idea has been labeled “democratic” socialism and is promoted by many Americans as a utopian solution.
But what is democratic socialism exactly? And can it truly exist?
Are countries like Denmark and Sweden positive models of this type of economy? How would the COVID-19 pandemic have looked under such an economic system? What components are missing from the average American mindset for a full understanding of the best way for markets to function?
All of these questions and more are answered in a compelling interview with Dr. Anne Rathbone Bradley, who is the George and Sally Mayer Fellow for Economic Education and the academic director at The Fund for American Studies.
Get the answers and find out the truth about democratic socialism today when you get your free copy today.
Let us know where to email your free copy of this helpful digital resource, What Is Democratic Socialism? and we will send it to you immediately.


* Subterfuge Of Defining Racism Without Non Violence Principles And Individualism *

The communist ideology nearly completely controlled the entirety of the modern societies , after the war entitled " world war ii " as denoted by nineteenth century perspective .

It should be a platitudinous consideration that the history of hue mammon included numerous conflicts where racial clads have sought expansion of geographic extents for its peoples at the expense of other peoples .

The national socialism movement of germany during said world war ii was one of such expansions .

Even now the numerically over represented semitic huns are promoting territorial expansion to ensure their own providence .

Huns - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Huns were a nomadic people who lived in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe between the 4th and 6th century AD. According to European tradition, they were first reported living east of the Volga River, in an area that was part of Scythia at the time; the Huns' arrival is associated with the migration westward of an Iranian people, the Alans.[1] By 370 AD, the Huns had arrived on the Volga, and by 430 the Huns had established a vast, if short-lived, dominion in Europe, conquering the Goths and many other Germanic peoples living outside of Roman borders, and causing many others to flee into Roman territory. The Huns, especially under their King Attila, made frequent and devastating raids into the Eastern Roman Empire. In 451, the Huns invaded the Western Roman province of Gaul, where they fought a combined army of Romans and Visigoths at the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, and in 452 they invaded Italy. After Attila's death in 453, the Huns ceased to be a major threat to Rome and lost much of their empire following the Battle of Nedao (454?). Descendants of the Huns, or successors with similar names, are recorded by neighbouring populations to the south, east, and west as having occupied parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia from about the 4th to 6th centuries. Variants of the Hun name are recorded in the Caucasus until the early 8th century.


* Anti-Racist Racist Anti-Sectarian Sectarian Socialism Assimilation Introducing Anti-Japheticism *

Pan-Islamism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pan-Islamism (Arabic: الوحدة الإسلامية‎) is a political ideology advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic country or state – often a caliphate[1] – or an international organization with Islamic principles. As a form of internationalism and anti-nationalism, Pan-Islamism differentiates itself from pan-nationalistic ideologies, for example Pan-Arabism, by seeing the ummah (Muslim community) as the focus of allegiance and mobilization, excluding ethnicity and race as primary unifying factors. It portrays Islam as being anti-racist and against anything that divides Muslims based on ethnicity.

Islamic socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org