This is the main problem I have with the people who call for socialism. If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to “i want free stuff”. They dont want to socialize means of production… most of the time they dont even know what that even means. People conflate social programs with socialism when thats just not the case.
If you truly hate capitalism so much, you will be willing to reduce your paycheck, willing to purchase less, willing to donate your social wealth for the common good.
If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to “i want free stuff”.
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for capitalism . If you boil down to what capitalist really want, it usually gets down to “I want to own people”. They don’t want to free the markets… most of the time they don’t even know what it means. People conflate employees as people when that’s just not the case.
If you truly hate socialism so much, you would be willing to shun unions, willing to work more for less, willing to donate your body and health to enrich your employer for their own self interest.
How do you even claim to love capitalism when you aren’t even a child working in a coal mind?
Socialism doesnt imply that you cant have coal mines with children… unions are not socialism. Capitalism doesnt have to be rutheless top-down… What are you even talking about.
You can make a case where you want to see more co-ops but this still is in a capitalist structure. You can have more unions and not be more socialist i am so confused by what you are saying. Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Capitalism doesn’t imply that you should have coal mines with children… just that you can. Socialism doesn’t have to be ruthless top-down…What are you even talking about?
My point was that your statement was so vague and based on vibes that you could literally change a few words and make the opposite claim.
Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Hmmm, what if were to have just one big international union? One that could dictate the command of the entire global economy ? One with enough group bargaining power to perhaps control the means of production…?
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions. Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers. They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate. We can call it capitalism!
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions.
Like forbidding people to strike , forcing unions to utilize arbitration, destroying their fund raising capabilities, and sending in the national guard to murder the people who don’t capitulate? Yep sounds like capitalism…
Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers.
Lol, how does the government “give more worth to the most desired workers” when the workers themselves are the ones who create the wealth in the first place?
They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate.
Ahh yes, I love to be given a tiny portion of the wealth that I created.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers.
That’s pretty arguable… mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits.
How do they find these social programs…? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Lol, I don’t care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that? Would this still be the evil capitalism? These ideas are not exclusive to socialism… in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all. A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream “mixed economies” all day but its just not true.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy. It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with ‘rich bad man’ and socialism with ‘poor enlightened worker’. I feel like i am falling on deaf ears though so ill just leave it here. You have a blessed day.
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for socialism. If you boil it down to what they really want, it usually gets down to “i want free stuff”. They dont want to socialize means of production… most of the time they dont even know what that even means. People conflate social programs with socialism when thats just not the case.
If you truly hate capitalism so much, you will be willing to reduce your paycheck, willing to purchase less, willing to donate your social wealth for the common good.
This is the main problem I have with the people who call for capitalism . If you boil down to what capitalist really want, it usually gets down to “I want to own people”. They don’t want to free the markets… most of the time they don’t even know what it means. People conflate employees as people when that’s just not the case.
If you truly hate socialism so much, you would be willing to shun unions, willing to work more for less, willing to donate your body and health to enrich your employer for their own self interest.
How do you even claim to love capitalism when you aren’t even a child working in a coal mind?
Based
Socialism doesnt imply that you cant have coal mines with children… unions are not socialism. Capitalism doesnt have to be rutheless top-down… What are you even talking about.
You can make a case where you want to see more co-ops but this still is in a capitalist structure. You can have more unions and not be more socialist i am so confused by what you are saying. Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Capitalism doesn’t imply that you should have coal mines with children… just that you can. Socialism doesn’t have to be ruthless top-down…What are you even talking about?
My point was that your statement was so vague and based on vibes that you could literally change a few words and make the opposite claim.
Hmmm, what if were to have just one big international union? One that could dictate the command of the entire global economy ? One with enough group bargaining power to perhaps control the means of production…?
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions. Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers. They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate. We can call it capitalism!
Like forbidding people to strike , forcing unions to utilize arbitration, destroying their fund raising capabilities, and sending in the national guard to murder the people who don’t capitulate? Yep sounds like capitalism…
Lol, how does the government “give more worth to the most desired workers” when the workers themselves are the ones who create the wealth in the first place?
Ahh yes, I love to be given a tiny portion of the wealth that I created.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
That’s pretty arguable… mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
How do they find these social programs…? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
Lol, I don’t care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?
If a capitalist economy started giving out mass UBI without somehow creating inflation and expanded healthcare/ social programs but they acted competitively would you be on board with that? Would this still be the evil capitalism? These ideas are not exclusive to socialism… in fact, I would argue that it doesnt have to do with socialism at all. A socialist economy suggests a split of the earnings from their production equally. Thats it. You can scream “mixed economies” all day but its just not true.
Broadening the scope of non excludable public goods is not the same as being in a socialist economy. It seems like ideas are being mixed up and I hate that we are conflating capitalism with ‘rich bad man’ and socialism with ‘poor enlightened worker’. I feel like i am falling on deaf ears though so ill just leave it here. You have a blessed day.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”