special interests in socialism

[Advocate]

[quote=uwot post_id=477058 time=1603699449 user_id=7941]
[quote=Advocate post_id=477037 time=1603676190 user_id=15238]The British pound is can be exchanged 1:1 for horseshit. That's why it's usually compared to the US dollar.[/quote]Thank you for that insight Advocate. So how much horseshit does a US dollar get you?
[/quote]

No no no, that's bullshit, you've got to find the exchange rate.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism, for people who are not rampant nationalists...

Hitler was both. Socialism's no cure for Nationalism.

That is, assuming loving one's own nation is some kind of disease, which you seem to believe, for some reason. However, I see no reason why preferring your homeland has to be xenophobic. After all, the immigrants coming to your country are AGREEING with your nationalism. They're voting for it with their feet.

...government and laws that support the rights of workers.

Socialist government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power. That's happened in every case, and it's the ordinary folks who've suffered...particularly in Socialism's endless search for "anti-revolutionaries," and enemies of the State. So the workers have done very poorly from a human rights perspective under Socialism, and have done even worse as their national economies fell into ruin.

How are "the workers" and their "rights" doing in Venezuela right now, B?

More right wing systems are biased towards the owners and shareholders. Do you not think the people who actually do the produce the goods should profit from their work?

Of course. Everybody thinks that. But Socialists never think of the guy who put his ours and sweat in and invented the product in the first place, the guy who worked his tail off marketing it to reluctant investors, the investors who gave up their money and took a huge risk to launch the product and fund materials and infrastructure, the shareholders who continue to risk their money so the business can compete and expand, and so on. They only think of "workers," which shows they're stuck in an Industrial Revolution model. That's to be expected, though, because they're in thrall to Marx.

It is true that people who form governing elites, or who are dictators, are often corrupted, corruptible, or stupid.

In Socialism, it's inevitable, because you really only allow one party. Nobody can call them to account, and everybody depends on the drippings from the corrupt dealings above them for their livelihood.

[RCSaunders]

Socialist government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

All government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

[Advocate]

>How are "the workers" and their "rights" doing in Venezuela right now, B?

I just have to laugh when an anti-socialist tries to use Venezuela as an example. Do you have Any idea how hard the US tried to mess things up over there, and it still kept working until the benevolent leader died. The problem is humans, not socialism. Socialism is the solution.

[Immanuel Can]

>How are "the workers" and their "rights" doing in Venezuela right now, B?

I just have to laugh when an anti-socialist tries to use Venezuela as an example.

You laugh too soon, then. You're too easily impressed.

How did the workers and their rights do in Russia? In China? In Cambodia? In Cuba..? Down the entire list of Socialist countries that have ever existed, and without exception, workers are better off in something other than Socialism.

Sorry, chum. Them's the facts.

[henry quirk]

Capitalism is raping the planet and trying to put a price tag on every molecule of air.

no, capitalism (free enterprise) doesn't do this...state capitalism, to the extent the state interferes to insulate the wealthy from natural market forces (supply & demand), can be unscrupulous...the problem, then, is not with capitalism, but with the corrupting state (any state)


There is no ideology of sustainability or fairness in capitalism.

capitalsm (free enterprise) is thoroughly moral as it encourages self-reliance, self-direction, and charity; the state, when it oversees & interferes in free enterprise, nullifies that moral dimension as it encourages greed over self-interest and domination over competition


There is no comparison between people doing evil in the name of capitalism, as has always been done, and doing bad in the name of socialism, which has nothing to do with the ideals of socialism whatsoever.

socialism only exists as state-driven affair; no pure socialism can work cuz it's ideals are unnatural

capitalism always work and only works less well when it becomes a state-driven affair


Socialism is about fair distribution, whether or not it's accomplished.

socialism works against the very natural uneven distribution of talent, experience, resources, property, etc.; it stifles competition, innovation, self-responsibility...sensible folks understand this and reject it which is why socialism never naturally happens..always, socialism is violently imposed


Capitalism is about unfair distribution, whether or not it's accomplished.

capitalism works with the very natural uneven distribution of talent, experience, resources, property, etc.; it encourages competition, innovation, self-responsibility...sensible folks understand this and embrace it which is why socialists look to adulterate it and advance the state as overseer of it


Capitalism is "successful" because it only needs to "work" for a very few, who can then lie to everyone else who have no power to overthrow or even fact check them effectively.

no...free enterprise works, even with the parasitical state suckin' at it, cuz man is quite naturally capitalistic...he wants to self-direct, to self-rely, to invest his energies and reap the benefit of that investment...again: it is the state that poisons capitalism

socialism never works, not as pure expression or state-driven affair, cuz man is quite naturally capitalistic...he wants to self-direct, to self-rely, to invest his energies and reap the benefit of that investment...socialism blunts man's natural inclinations

[henry quirk]

I grow tomatoes

i tend the garden

when the garden produces I collect the fruit

socialism suggests I give away that fruit to anyone, everyone...this is fair distribution...never mind the tomatoes exist solely cuz I planted, tended, and maintained while others did squat

capitalism (free enterprise) suggests the tomatoes are mine to do with as I choose: I can sell them as is, can them then sell 'em, I can donate them indiscriminately, I can gift them to those I deem worthy....my efforts, my investment of time and energy, as evidenced by those tomatoes, belong to me

socialism sez I, and what I do, belong to others

capitalism sez I, and what I do, belong to me

[Immanuel Can]

Socialist government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

All government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

Right. Which is why having a multi-party system with checks and balances on power is absolutely necessary. I agree...trust no politician. Hedge against their potential corruption. It's going to happen...if not with this guy, then with the next one.

The best system is the one in which the people have the most votes...and in Capitalism, they not only have votes every four years or so, they also have the power of their "vote" expressed in their consumer, lifestyle and charitable choices. They put their money where they want it to be, and control of it is not taken from them by a centralized power. So they "vote" informally by supporting those inventions, products, services, charitable causes and situations that they personally wish to persist. And since economic power is very persuasive, even to corrupt politicians, the people get their way when the people "vote" in that manner.

In the end, then, Capitalism is far more direct and democratic than Socialism can ever be.

[Belinda]

Socialist government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

All government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

Right. Which is why having a multi-party system with checks and balances on power is absolutely necessary. I agree...trust no politician. Hedge against their potential corruption. It's going to happen...if not with this guy, then with the next one.

The best system is the one in which the people have the most votes...and in Capitalism, they not only have votes every four years or so, they also have the power of their "vote" expressed in their consumer, lifestyle and charitable choices. They put their money where they want it to be, and control of it is not taken from them by a centralized power. So they "vote" informally by supporting those inventions, products, services, charitable causes and situations that they personally wish to persist. And since economic power is very persuasive, even to corrupt politicians, the people get their way when the people "vote" in that manner.

In the end, then, Capitalism is far more direct and democratic than Socialism can ever be.

Do you know the term 'left of centre' ?

[Skepdick]

I grow tomatoes

i tend the garden

when the garden produces I collect the fruit

socialism suggests I give away that fruit to anyone, everyone...this is fair distribution...never mind the tomatoes exist solely cuz I planted, tended, and maintained while others did squat

capitalism (free enterprise) suggests the tomatoes are mine to do with as I choose: I can sell them as is, can them then sell 'em, I can donate them indiscriminately, I can gift them to those I deem worthy....my efforts, my investment of time and energy, as evidenced by those tomatoes, belong to me

socialism sez I, and what I do, belong to others

capitalism sez I, and what I do, belong to me

"Socialism" suggests that you give shares (part-ownership) to your employees (owning the means of production).

Of course, you don't have to - it's your business. You get to run it how you want to. And I get to run my business how I want to.

Henry Quirk offers only salaries to his farm workers.
Skepdick offers everything that henry offers. Plus shares.

Which one of us is offering greater value to the free labour market, do you think?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know the term 'left of centre' ?

Enlighten me. What do you suppose "left of centre" is?

[Immanuel Can]

Skepdick offers everything that henry offers. Plus shares.

Then Skepdick is a Capitalist.

"Shares" don't exist under Socialism. They produce the dirty little secret called *gasp* "surplus value".

[henry quirk]

I grow tomatoes

i tend the garden

when the garden produces I collect the fruit

socialism suggests I give away that fruit to anyone, everyone...this is fair distribution...never mind the tomatoes exist solely cuz I planted, tended, and maintained while others did squat

capitalism (free enterprise) suggests the tomatoes are mine to do with as I choose: I can sell them as is, can them then sell 'em, I can donate them indiscriminately, I can gift them to those I deem worthy....my efforts, my investment of time and energy, as evidenced by those tomatoes, belong to me

socialism sez I, and what I do, belong to others

capitalism sez I, and what I do, belong to me

"Socialism" suggests that you give shares (part-ownership) to your employees (owning the means of production).

Of course, you don't have to - it's your business. You get to run it how you want to. And I get to run my business how I want to.

Henry Quirk offers only salaries to his farm workers.
Skepdick offers everything that henry offers. Plus shares.

Which one of us is offering greater value to the free labour market, do you think?

in a capitalism (free enterprise), as you say, we each get to run our operations as we like

even in a state capitalism (what we largely have right now) this is the case

not so in a socialism or state socialism

now: what's your point (other than, as Mannie points, you're a capitalist)?

[Skepdick]

Then Skepdick is a Capitalist.

"Shares" don't exist under Socialism. They produce the dirty little secret called *gasp* "surplus value".

*yawn*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership

The concept of social ownership refers to various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems. These systems may encompass state ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, common ownership, or collective ownership.

Every single publicly-traded company on every single stock exchange exemplifies employee ownership, citizen ownership, common ownership and collective ownership etc. etc.

Label it however you want.

[Skepdick]

in a capitalism (free enterprise), as you say, we each get to run our operations as we like

even in a state capitalism (what we largely have right now) this is the case

not so in a socialism or state socialism

now: what's your point (other than, as Mannie points, you're a capitalist)?

My point is that while you are bickering over categories, all that the "filthy fucking socialist" want is fucking shares in the businesses they work in.

Which is suddenly way more rational/charitable a position than Stalinism.