• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sticks and carrots, socialism and capitalism.

Lisa said:
There would be the same private property as there is now but the ownership and the wealth from it would be more widely distributed among the general population. We would still have the same government services that we have now. From the outside, a market socialist economic plan would not look very different at all from what we have now or that of western Europe, Canada, and other 1st world countries.

Socialism is purely an economic idea. You can have a democratic constitutional government such as we have or you could have an authorization dictatorial government or anything in between.
The fact that the mass employees own the means of production means that businesses are privately owned by a group of owners/workers than by a single owner or a group of shareholders that are managed by a CEO and board of directors.
Click to expand...

You are not making any sense. Nothing in our current capitalist system prevents a bunch of people from starting a business together. The idea of employees owning a business is just nonsense. If they OWN the business, they are OWNERS.

When a business owner sells shares of his company, then the shareholders become the owners. The shareholders can be employees, or not.

The whole idea of worker-owned businesses is sheer nonsense. It's playing with words. Calling someone a "worker" because at some point they were hired as an employee. But as soon as they become an actual owner and decision maker, they are NOT a mere employee anymore!

And there are many other problems with the concept. Does the person who joined the cooperative yesterday have the same level of power and control as the original members? Do the low-skill workers have the same power and control as the high-level experts?

And what about sales and marketing? How do workers deal with things they might know nothing about? The guy who makes the pizza dough is supposed to know how to get customers to buy the pizza?

None of it has been thought out. Yes there are a small number of small worker-owned cooperatives. But this idea is in no way a solution to our problems or any kind of improvement.

Let's say you get a great idea for a product and figure out how to manufacture it and sell it. And you hire workers. And then 10 years later, the workers decide they want to own your company and be in charge. And they have the same compensation and decision-making power as you.
 
Outlook said:
It sounds so good, the workers own and control the means of production. The reality is that the government or government elites own and control everything.
Click to expand...


So does that mean since in US since the top 1% elite control 90% of wealth and income we are and have been a socilaist country...who knew?!?!?!

fig1.png



by the same token countries in Europe; top 10% owns less and wealth distribution is more even. As a matter of fact the more authoritarian the country the more Elite own and controls everything. Clearly you need to change the definition of Capitalism or maybe read book!

2019-09-24 16_23_14-New paper on extreme income inequality in Brazil, India, the Middle-East and.jpg

Diving Mullah
 
aociswundumho said:
If the farm is owned by the farmer or a group of farmers, then it is private property in the means of production regarding agriculture. The farmers who farm this private land are capitalists.

Collective farms are public ownership/control of the means of production regarding agriculture, i.e. socialism.
Click to expand...

It seems that the definition of the word socialist is something that you do not understand. You have a very narrow idea of what the word socialist means and when it does not meet your idea you claim that everyone else is wrong. You want the definition to be black and white but the truth is a series of grey scales. Is your definition of capitalism just as binary?
 
Lisa said:
It seems that the definition of the word socialist is something that you do not understand.
Click to expand...

We already went through this in post #18 of this thread. I'm defining socialist the way economists, politicians, and dictionaries define it: Public ownership/control of the means of production.

Is your definition of capitalism just as binary?
Click to expand...

Capitalism is private ownership/control of the means of production.

I'm defining these terms the way virtually everyone does.
 
aociswundumho said:
We already went through this in post #18 of this thread. I'm defining socialist the way economists, politicians, and dictionaries define it: Public ownership/control of the means of production.



Capitalism is private ownership/control of the means of production.

I'm defining these terms the way virtually everyone does.
Click to expand...

Government is Socialism; we have a mixed-market economy as proof.
 
aociswundumho said:
Food is a need, not a want. Do you support collective farms and government-run grocery stores?
Click to expand...


It's a guiding principle. Don't get excited.

Of course there are grey areas, and a more detailed treatise which accommodates the real world in ways that work best for the real world is needed, but that wasn't the purpose of making the comment.
 
aociswundumho said:
We already went through this in post #18 of this thread. I'm defining socialist the way economists, politicians, and dictionaries define it: Public ownership/control of the means of production.



Capitalism is private ownership/control of the means of production.

I'm defining these terms the way virtually everyone does.
Click to expand...


No you're not. You are using the classic/academic definition. However, the term is rather loosely flung about in the modern era.


For dems, we just mean government sponsored, that's all and for me, you can toss all that philosophical talk.

But, if you ask a repub, he will tell you dems are goose-stepping marxists.
 
aociswundumho said:
.... because the money for their pay is taken from people coercively, via taxation.
Click to expand...
Mandatory, but not coercively. Running any government requires funds. There is no other way around it.

Taxes fund the government. A necessary burden on the American population. Even George Washington understood the need to raise funds through taxation.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Mandatory, but not coercively. Running any government requires funds. There is no other way around it.

Taxes fund the government. A necessary burden on the American population. Even George Washington understood the need to raise funds through taxation.
Click to expand...

Apparently, conservatives think that we fund the government with bake sales and PBS fund drives.

I'll bake 1.5 million biscotti and 500K brownies so we can buy a stealth bomber. :roll:
 
aociswundumho said:
Is it?

How about housing. Would you prefer to live in a public housing project, or in a private home?
Click to expand...


Why don't you ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as evidenced by your handle, she's the "one dumb whore' you are obsessed about.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Mandatory, but not coercively.
Click to expand...

No, a tax is a forced exaction. If they weren't collected by force, then they wouldn't be taxes, they would be voluntary contributions.

A necessary burden on the American population.
Click to expand...

They are a huge burden, which is why they should be minimized.
 
OscarLevant said:
Why don't you ask Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as evidenced by your handle, she's the "one dumb whore' you are obsessed about.
Click to expand...

Ah, so your empty platitude of "capitalism for wants, socialism for needs" ends up being worthless after all. Turns out, capitalism is best for needs, unless you want mass starvation and mass poverty.

What you should have said is socialism for public goods, and capitalism for private goods, but that would have required you to actually learn and understand what you're talking about, instead of going by your feelings.
 
aociswundumho said:
Ah, so your empty platitude of "capitalism for wants, socialism for needs" ends up being worthless after all. Turns out, capitalism is best for needs, unless you want mass starvation and mass poverty.

What you should have said is socialism for public goods, and capitalism for private goods, but that would have required you to actually learn and understand what you're talking about, instead of going by your feelings.
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I should have said, as it is a broad principle, and that language is way too narrow.

No, your feeble attempt to reduce a broad concept with anemic lack-of-vision binary-ism notwithstanding, I"m just not the kind of guy who imagines someone who obsesses over a congresswoman, calling her "one dumb whore" is someone whose comment merits a serious response.

But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and do it anyway.

Your last comment is nonsense, as all the principle needs is a treatise/doctrine, which addresses and adjusts for nuance, shades of grey, etc., for which anyone with a modicum of wisdom would realize is needed for any broad principle, given the obvious fact that the real world requires pragmatism, and I, as a dem, believe that pragmatism should be guided by principle, but it must accommodate reality, as needed.

However, the right is commanded entirely by principle, (and a bad principle, at that ) and forces that principle on the real world, regardless of what that policy actually does. Take the last tax cut, which caused historical deficits which are careening out of control and endangering national security.

But, being a threat to national security has been a close companion to Trump, all along. Nuthin' new here.
 
aociswundumho said:
No, a tax is a forced exaction. If they weren't collected by force, then they wouldn't be taxes, they would be voluntary contributions.



They are a huge burden, which is why they should be minimized.
Click to expand...

If taxes didn't have some sort of force to compel their collection then it would be a donation. Nobody would pay them if there wasn't a force to compel them to be paid. Taxes are levied on a progressive scale so as to minimize the burden. We cannot operate a 1st world country on donations.

It is hilarious that liberations love to claim that they support the rule of law but when that same law is enforced them claim that the government is using violence on the citizens.
 
aociswundumho said:
Which means free stuff from the government should be minimized. Glad you agree.
Click to expand...

Only the right is saying that they are free. Rational people understand that tax dollars would be spent on programs that benefit the society, usually at a rate that exceeds the cost because of the quantity of scale and lack of a net profit being created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom