Democracy: Socialism or Capitalism

[Gary Childress]

Not a bit. I'm making you say things that are true, instead of making things up.


Who do you think owns the things that are exchanged in a free market?

"Capitalism" is an invented word, a phony concept created by Socialists in the 18th Century. They were so embarrassed over the clearly ideological nature of Socialism, that they had to invent an enemy for it that would be equivalently ideological. So they made up the term. But nobody worships "capital," there is no manifesto of "capital," and it has no particular ideology, no society, no theory, and only the free market.

Don't but Socialist hogwash. And they're full of it.

You're making it up as you go along.

Nope. Go and look at the etymology of "Capitalism." You'll see I've told you the truth. The very concept was invented just before Marx started writing.

Look in any textbook for a definition of capitalism; it'll be there.

Yeah, it will: because we live post-Marx. So of course it's there, just as "unicorn" and "pixie" will be there: people have been fooled by the term, and actually use it. So it's in the dictionary. It's also still nothing more than propaganda.

Where are the "Capitalism" societies? Where do they meet? Which are the "Capitalist" political parties? Where's their manifesto? Who wrote their theory, and who are the leading "Capitalist" figures of it? Where are there "Capitalist" riots, marches and demonstrations? Who funds the "Capitalists"? What regimes have been "Capitalist?" And how many people have they tortured, imprisoned and robbed?

I can give you all of these things for Socialism; if Capitalism is just the same, how come you can't do the same?

So would the following be an accurate statement about your beliefs:

Social programs for the poor and less fortunate are necessary and should be maintained in our societies; however, going so far as to redistribute wealth or prevent people from owning the means of production is going too far and will only result in disaster. Is that an accurate assessment of your beliefs?

[Immanuel Can]

So would the following be an accurate statement about your beliefs:

Social programs for the poor and less fortunate are necessary and should be maintained in our societies; however, going so far as to redistribute wealth or prevent people from owning the means of production is going too far and will only result in disaster. Is that an accurate assessment of your beliefs?

That's a good summary. It lacks detail, of course; but as far as it goes, it's right.

[Gary Childress]

So would the following be an accurate statement about your beliefs:

Social programs for the poor and less fortunate are necessary and should be maintained in our societies; however, going so far as to redistribute wealth or prevent people from owning the means of production is going too far and will only result in disaster. Is that an accurate assessment of your beliefs?

That's a good summary. It lacks detail, of course; but as far as it goes, it's right.

Can you flesh a little more detail into my synopsis? What would you like to elaborate on further?

[Immanuel Can]

So would the following be an accurate statement about your beliefs:

Social programs for the poor and less fortunate are necessary and should be maintained in our societies; however, going so far as to redistribute wealth or prevent people from owning the means of production is going too far and will only result in disaster. Is that an accurate assessment of your beliefs?

That's a good summary. It lacks detail, of course; but as far as it goes, it's right.

Can you flesh a little more detail into my synopsis? What would you like to elaborate on further?

Well, sure. There's still the question to be settled as to what rightly falls to governmental purview, and what to private choice. That's a big debate.

Something like "guaranteed living wage" is certainly outside any legitimate government purview, since it's not regulatory, involves significant interruption of free markets, requires confiscatory policies and excessive taxation, and would cripple the economy. So that shouldn't happen. But can the government establish things like inspection bodies for restaurants, or construction projects for roads and bridges? Sure. Roads and bridges enhance free markets, and regulating quality control of food would seem a proper governmental function, unless we like food poisoning.

Here's where the rubber meets the road, though: what about something like health care? That's really complicated. I know of no easy answer to that one. How much of a tax burden should private citizens bear for that one...and what service should be included...and what level of private enterprise is suitable...and how to protect the wider economy or distribute services...very, very hard to resolve. I haven't seen it done in any way I'd recommend. Nobody seems to be able to solve that one.

[MikeNovack]

Something like "guaranteed living wage" is certainly outside any legitimate government purview, since it's not regulatory, involves significant interruption of free markets, requires confiscatory policies and excessive taxation, and would cripple the economy.

Excuse me please --- why not LEGITIMATE

a) Does not interfere with free markets except to the extent that workers able to survive on guaranteed minimum would not accept low ball wage offers from perspective employers. NORMALLY "guaranteed annual systems" mean not having to have things like "legal minimum wage" and thus are LESS interference with the free market.

b) ANY taxes are "confiscatory" and many taxpayers find any taxes excessive. The question we should ask ourselves about taxes is whether the money spent for purposes of which we approve. I live in New England "town" which still decides in town meetings what our taxes will be and on what spent. In a democracy/republic we vote and either ourselves or through our chosen representatives decide. It's your right to oppose "guaranteed annual income" as good use of taxes just as it is mine to support it.

c) Generally experiments with "guaranteed income" (or grants to all) have not had a deleterious effect on the economy. Why do you imagine that it would cripple the economy? Do you expect the poor folk who get "guaranteed minimum" will just stick it in their piggy bank? Or be spending it all (returning it to the economy).

BTW --- I am usually having to argue this with traditional Marxists, IC They don't approve of EVERYBODY receiving the guaranteed minimum. Yeah I know, you don't believe the libertarian left exists (or ever existed) but "guaranteed minimum" is the anarchist alternative to intrusive "welfare".

[Immanuel Can]

Something like "guaranteed living wage" is certainly outside any legitimate government purview, since it's not regulatory, involves significant interruption of free markets, requires confiscatory policies and excessive taxation, and would cripple the economy.

Excuse me please --- why not LEGITIMATE

Because of everything that comes after the word "since."

a) Does not interfere with free markets

It certainly does.

b) ANY taxes are "confiscatory" and many taxpayers find any taxes excessive.

No, I think most people, judging by their behaviour, are okay with contributing a certain amount to the common purse, if they believe the goods achieved thereby are significant. For example, I don't think most people object to roads and bridges. But the idea of paying loafers and non-contributors for doing nothing at all does not sit well with very many people who actually work.

c) Why do you imagine that it would cripple the economy?

That's what it's done in 100% of the cases. That's a pretty good indicator.

[MikeNovack]

A)

a) Does not interfere with free markets

It certainly does.

B)

b) ANY taxes are "confiscatory" and many taxpayers find any taxes excessive.

No, I think most people, judging by their behaviour, are okay with contributing a certain amount to the common purse, if they believe the goods achieved thereby are significant. For example, I don't think most people object to roads and bridges. But the idea of paying loafers and non-contributors for doing nothing at all does not sit well with very many people who actually work.

C)

c) Why do you imagine that it would cripple the economy?

That's what it's done in 100% of the cases. That's a pretty good indicator.

Well do you or do you not believe in "democracy"?

A --- It does not interfere with free markets because only affecting a constant, not the slope.

B --- Precisely, what most people are OK with. You are objecting to this (guaranteed annual minimum) EVEN IF that is what is agreed to in a "democracy". Please note this proposal is NOT coming from the traditional left who would prefer it going ONLY to the people you consider "loafers and non-contributors" but EVERYBODY. Elon Musk gets the "guaranteed annual minimum" too.

C --- I was referring to actual experiments and their results. Can you point to any such experiments which had the results you predict?

Elaboration of B ----- I know you will have trouble accepting this, but on THIS ISSUE you are more or less on the same side as the traditional "commie" (for different reasons). While only on the organization level (not the state level) it is something with which I have experience. A measure is proposed to give some sort of aid TO ALL. Say the organization puts on an event and it is proposed "children of attendees can attend for free" (the organization as a whole is imposing a "tax" for this purpose). The intent is to allow poorer members of the organization to attend (and their children to attend). Now who opposes this? NOT just you of the "right" but the traditional lefties also. You because "I refuse to be taxed for this "illegitimate purpose" and they because "not needs based, the well off parents benefit also".

Now voluntary organizations aren't strictly speaking "democratic", since the losing side can leave. Decisions of this sort require a substantial super majority, no way to get the measure adopted. So what did the anarchists do? << they formed a subset organization of people committed to the project (subsidize children attending) whose purpose was to raise the necessary funds --- no need for "permission"of either the "right" or the "left" folks to do that >>

[Immanuel Can]

A)

a) Does not interfere with free markets

It certainly does.

B)

b) ANY taxes are "confiscatory" and many taxpayers find any taxes excessive.

No, I think most people, judging by their behaviour, are okay with contributing a certain amount to the common purse, if they believe the goods achieved thereby are significant. For example, I don't think most people object to roads and bridges. But the idea of paying loafers and non-contributors for doing nothing at all does not sit well with very many people who actually work.

C)

c) Why do you imagine that it would cripple the economy?

That's what it's done in 100% of the cases. That's a pretty good indicator.

Well do you or do you not believe in "democracy"?

It depends on how you define it. There are ideas of democracy that don't work...like what we might call "simplistic democracy," where you just take all the people in a big country and give each one one vote, and that's it. It doesn't work, because regions with fewer people are obliterated by regions with more people, which leaves the people from smaller states or provinces with absolutely no democratic say at all -- so, say, New York and Cali would determine every US election, and no politician would even have a reason to care about Montana, or Idaho, or Nevada.

The idea of a constitutional republic, or of a confederation of provinces works better to improve but not eliminate that particular problem, but still has significant problems. So there are different democratic options. None is perfect. None is utopian.

A --- It does not interfere with free markets because only affecting a constant, not the slope.

You are objecting to this (guaranteed annual minimum) EVEN IF that is what is agreed to in a "democracy".

Again, that depends on the type of democracy you're talking about.

But I don't think you're going to get everybody to vote for loafers and non-contributors to get free money. You'll wait a while for that, I suspect.

Can you point to any such experiments which had the results you predict?

Sure...every Socialist regime in the history of the world.

[MikeNovack]

Can you point to any such experiments which had the results you predict?

Sure...every Socialist regime in the history of the world.

The IMMEDIATE topic "guaranteed annual income" (and actual experiments with this concept)

State socialism regimes not experiments with that. That some of the experiments with "guaranteed annual income" have been done in "mixed" systems like the Nordic countries is not particularly relevant << they are not "socialist" the way you insist on using that term >> Please note that the concept is NOT particularly new. Rome had the "grain dole" << and the well off miser who bothered to collect his share a subject of comedy --- but yes, ALL citizens in were entitled to it >>

[Immanuel Can]

Can you point to any such experiments which had the results you predict?

Sure...every Socialist regime in the history of the world.

The IMMEDIATE topic "guaranteed annual income" (and actual experiments with this concept)

No, it was merely an example.

State socialism regimes not experiments with that.

Yeah, they are. There's no reason for ignoring the evidence, except that they all disprove that Socialism ever works.

Here we go: same story again. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pD_pBIkbLmQ

Nordic countries

Not Socialist. Denmark, for example, puts far less restrictions on private capital acquisition than the US does. And Norway runs its social programs off the avails of the capital of the oil fields it has. In no Nordic country does the government own all the means of production...nothing close to that.

[MikeNovack]

State socialism regimes not experiments with that.

Yeah, they are. There's no reason for ignoring the evidence, except that they all disprove that Socialism ever works.

Nordic countries

Not Socialist. Denmark, for example, puts far less restrictions on private capital acquisition than the US does. And Norway runs its social programs off the avails of the capital of the oil fields it has. In no Nordic country does the government own all the means of production...nothing close to that.

I wasn't saying that they were (socialist)

We are (supposedly) talking about experiments with "guaranteed annual income" and in NON-SOCIALIST places. It is YOU associating "guaranteed annual income" with socialism, not I. And we are discussing EXPERIMENTS (not the adoption on a national scale). It is a sensible, not crazy idea, to try something like this out on a smaller scale before going national. But in the US we do have examples state wide, say Alaska, where all citizens receive the PFD payment << it's not an amount enough to be a proper "annual minimum" but is enough to be a valid test/experiment for questions like "disrupt free market? "destroy the economy?" etc. >>

[Immanuel Can]

State socialism regimes not experiments with that.

Yeah, they are. There's no reason for ignoring the evidence, except that they all disprove that Socialism ever works.

Nordic countries

Not Socialist. Denmark, for example, puts far less restrictions on private capital acquisition than the US does. And Norway runs its social programs off the avails of the capital of the oil fields it has. In no Nordic country does the government own all the means of production...nothing close to that.

I wasn't saying that they were (socialist)

Right. So I'm not seeing any relevance there. Socialism is a totalizing system of ideology. It admits of no half-way measures.

We are (supposedly) talking about experiments with "guaranteed annual income"

No, that was just an obvious example. If it troubles you, pick another. But stay on point.