Movement Toward Socialism and National Debt in the USA.

[Balthazzar]

@PureX

What is socialism if not what was stated by me? Those were my words, my thoughts, and my understanding. I could've posted a wiki link but chose not to. Can I get a return on the curtesy?

 

[PureX]

@PureX

What is socialism if not what was stated by me? Those were my words, my thoughts, and my understanding. I could've posted a wiki link but chose not to. Can I get a return on the curtesy?

It's very simple.

Capitalism is the term used to refer to an economic system that gives total control over a business enterprise to the capital investor. It is, in effect, an economic autocracy (plutocracy).

Socialism is the term used to refer to an economic system that gives control over business enterprise to the people (society) involved in and effected by that business enterprise; i.e., the investors, the workers, the consumers, and the community.

There are various ways of spreading this control around, but the goal is the same: to give everyone involved in and effected by a business enterprise some say in how that enterprise is being conducted so that they can protect themselves from being exploited by the others involved and in control of it. Usuall, via some form of democratically appointed representation.

Capitalists HATE the whole idea of socialism because the goal of socialism would be to take most of their current control away from them and give it to those they currently are quite willing and able to exploit for their own gain: their workers, their customers, and their communities. So all we ever hear from the capitalists about socialism is how horrifically dictatorial it will be (only because it will end THEIR business dictatorship).

What capitalism is not; is free market commerce, capital investment, industrialized production, advancing technology, or quality control. So when you hear the capitalists claiming that capitalism has raised the well-being of people's lives all over the world, it didn't. Free market commerce, capital investment, industrialized production, advancing technology and enforced quality control did that. All capitalism did was take as much profit from all these advances in production for the capital investors as possible, and did so at the expense of everyone else involved in commercial enterprise.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's very simple.

Capitalism is the term used to refer to an economic system that gives total control over a business enterprise to the capital investor. It is, in effect, an economic autocracy (plutocracy).

Socialism is the term used to refer to an economic system that gives control over business enterprise to the people (society) involved in and effected by that business enterprise; i.e., the investors, the workers, the consumers, and the community.

There are various ways of spreading this control around, but the goal is the same: to give everyone involved in and effected by a business enterprise some say in how that enterprise is being conducted so that they can protect themselves from being exploited by the others involved and in control of it. Usuall, via some form of democratically appointed representation.

Capitalists HATE the whole idea of socialism because the goal of socialism would be to take most of their current control away from them and give it to those they currently are quite willing and able to exploit for their own gain: their workers, their customers, and their communities. So all we ever hear from the capitalists about socialism is how horrifically dictatorial it will be (only because it will end THEIR business dictatorship).

What capitalism is not; is free market commerce, capital investment, industrialized production, advancing technology, or quality control. So when you hear the capitalists claiming that capitalism has raised the well-being of people's lives all over the world, it didn't. Free market commerce, capital investment, industrialized production, advancing technology and enforced quality control did that. All capitalism did was take as much profit from all these advances in production for the capital investors as possible, and did so at the expense of everyone else involved in commercial enterprise.

ok, so a woman starts a business ... hires employees for fair compensation after spending 15 years on preparations and research, and networking with various communities for the effort. The products sold are priced fairly, and although the insurance offered only so, so, she is the highest earner associated with the company itself. The employee salaries fair, and she has control over her business, which feeds and homes over 25 families with benefits ... paid vacations, time and a half holiday pay, etc.

Capitalism

The same woman does the same thing, but no longer controls her company, and has taken a significant loss in pay as well as marketing channels due to the "community of employees, who disagreed with sending the products in other areas, where they thought it would be too great a risk to be in business or associated with. She no longer has the ability to terminate any employee due to the democratic nature of the entity itself under the socialist framework, and she after 25 years, 15 of which was spent on research, preparations, and networking was voted out because well ... she was unable to see eye to eye with everyone else who became part of that business entity after she put all her efforts, time, and money into it.

Socialism

Is this a fair assessment of the differences? Because the first was spot on.


.

 

[Secret Chief]

There are numerous forms of socialism, including the Nordic Model that I'm fond of. Maybe that explains at least in part why Norwegians and Swedes live an average of 8 years longer than Americans.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the buggers are always in the happiest countries charts. Still, they're not a free people and are generally deluded.

 

[metis]

Almost sounds too good to be true. What's their debt to asset ratio?

Let me put it to you this way: I'm often jealous of what my cousins in Sweden have. Yes, they pay a lot more in taxes, but then they have cradle to grave security.

 

[metis]

Canada's model has some similarities to the Nordic Model. We cannot, of course, get there completely due to differences in our forms of government (all the Nordic Model countries are unitary nations, without states or provinces with their own governmental powers). Canada has both federal and provincial/territorial governments. But Canada is also quite high on the happiness index, and markedly less wealth concentrated in very few hands.

It's actually interesting that the US is about the wealthiest country in the world -- except that very, very few people actually have the lions share of that wealth, and far too many people are considered in relative poverty.

Yep, and as you know I've spent a lot of time in Canada, especially since it's about a 20-minute drive from where I live, and we almost moved to Windsor in the early 70's. However, I will disappoint you in saying that my favorite province is Quebec and my favorite city is Montreal.

 

[metis]

And the buggers are always in the happiest countries charts. Still, they're not a free people and are generally deluded.

They are not a free people and are deluded??? OOOOOOOO KKKKKKKKKKKK!

 

[Secret Chief]

They are not a free people and are deluded??? OOOOOOOO KKKKKKKKKKKK!

I'd like to be as unfree and as deluded as those poor Scandinavians...

 

[metis]

I'd like to be as unfree and as deluded as those poor Scandinavians...

Sorry I was slow to pick up on this.

 

[Balthazzar]

Let me put it to you this way: I'm often jealous of what my cousins in Sweden have. Yes, they pay a lot more in taxes, but then they have cradle to grave security.

I don't mind paying taxes. I'd actually prefer some increases due to our current deficit. The cradle and what have you sounds sweet, but this nation is in no condition to be adopting any sort of socialist type policies. For the moment, we have gen x, y, and z's on the sacrificial side of the fence for the alphas. Hopefully, we'll get there for them, but this isn't an easy time for us, nor do i anticipate it ever being again. My son, a gen z, would very likely be on board with a more socialist type of government. I can't say I blame him. The problem is we can't afford it. Period. The end. At least until we can, which means we x, y, and z's, are in position to

a. step up to the plate and do what we can to help pave our policies so alpha gen has a shot at redeeming this nation. This requires sacrifice and work and doing our part for the future of this nation. or

b. take, consume, and get by only on the generosity of others and our social programs.

Rent? I can't afford it. I'm currently a non-earning self-employed drifter with a gen z son, who I imagine has been sweating bullets due to his lack of opportunity. It's difficult, but thankfully there are some who understand the needs and who help accommodate many of them for all of us.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hmm
I'm European, so socialism is not scary. In Europe socialism is NOT communism. It involves capitalism as it accepts that some things are provided by private companies.
Are roads socialist? Are schools socialist?
Socialists are not immature capitalists. Socialists have compassion and realise that not everybody can look after themselves. In times of economic decline Capitalism leads to redundancies, not enough jobs, these people need support and certainly their children do.
Democracy should not be able to be bought by the biggest companies, foreign entities (Russia anyone) and anonymous PACs.
A Democratic country is not elected like the UK or US; in the UK currently the ruling party got just over 44% of the vote; the US has been governed by parties that did not win the popular vote. That is NOT democracy.
Yes, you can build your own castle BUT it still needs someone to lay the bricks, repair the roof, grow the crops, pick those crops, not everyone can be entrepreneurs, some have to work for those tycoons.
I live (not currently, it is more like a dictatorship) in a socialist country, I am free. I could do more under the last socialist government than I can under this free market capitalist government.

Socialism isn't communism in the U.S., either. You have to keep in mind that whenever Conservatives in America refer to "socialism", "communism", "Marxism", etc. they're simply referring to things they don't like (either due not understanding it and/or by being instructed not to like it). They don't go by dictionary definitions due to their aversion toward books, reading, learning, etc.

 

[Balthazzar]

Socialism isn't communism in the U.S., either. You have to keep in mind that whenever Conservatives in America refer to "socialism", "communism", "Marxism", etc. they're simply referring to things they don't like (either due not understanding it and/or by being instructed not to like it). They don't go by dictionary definitions due to their aversion toward books, reading, learning, etc.

That must be it ... lack of education, failure to read, and non-critical thinking skills. My mother would have thought socialism was great. I think a lot of our younger generations do also. We were poor and struggling and the American dream seemed too far out of reach to attain it. She thought it'd be better for Americans to be on an equal financial playing field rather than the class divisions being the rule of the day and night here. Me? I still hold capitalistic values. I'm still poor and the American dream still escapes me, but ... the opportunity seems important enough to pursue, but only if it's not a carrot and stick type of playing field.

 

[Balthazzar]

Which it may well be...a carrot and stick type of playing field. My naivety rarely escapes me, but that's another matter altogether. I'm still idealistic and I still believe in the American dream and the pursuit of happiness ... as idealistic and naive as they may be. John and I would have gotten along fairly well, I think. Dreamers are us inc.

 

[PureX]

ok, so a woman starts a business ... hires employees for fair compensation after spending 15 years on preparations and research, and networking with various communities for the effort. The products sold are priced fairly, and although the insurance offered only so, so, she is the highest earner associated with the company itself. The employee salaries fair, and she has control over her business, which feeds and homes over 25 families with benefits ... paid vacations, time and a half holiday pay, etc.

She's quite the saint don't you think?

First, she isn't going to pay anyone she employs any more than she HAS TO, because that would diminish the return she gets from her investment. This pits her against her employees for both the their efforts and their compensation. And keep in mind that SHE has the final say, because SHE has all the control.

Same goes for her pricing. She is going to damand the highest price she can get for the products or services her business offers because anything less will diminish the profit she gains from the capital she's invested. So here, too, her goals are contrary to those of her customers, and SHE has the final say because she is in complete control of all the business decisions. And before you start in on "but the competition..." keep in mind that her competition has the exact same goal as she does: to maximize the profits returned on the capital they've invested. So they are ALL going to keep those prices just as high as they possibly can get away with.

And how about her vendors and the community in general? Again, she will want to pay as low a price for her supplies, and as low a tax for infrastructure as possible. And again she will be acting in antipathy with these in this regard. She will use her position and wealth to fight any laws that would cost her any money because that contradicts her goal of gaining a maximum profit from the capital she's invested.

So every step of that way, and every decision she makes, will be intended to minimize the benefits to everyone else involved in and effected by her business so that she can obtain the maximum profit on the capital she's invested for herself. And since she has complete control of the business, she has a very distinct advantage in doing this. And as those profits pile up, that asvantage only increases, because he power to control both commerce and politics will increase.

The same woman does the same thing, but no longer controls her company, and has taken a significant loss in pay as well as marketing channels due to the "community of employees, who disagreed with sending the products in other areas, where they thought it would be too great a risk to be in business or associated with. She no longer has the ability to terminate any employee due to the democratic nature of the entity itself under the socialist framework, and she after 25 years, 15 of which was spent on research, preparations, and networking was voted out because well ... she was unable to see eye to eye with everyone else who became part of that business entity after she put all her efforts, time, and money into it.

If the other people involved in and being effected by a business enterprise make bad choices regarding how it is being operated, they would only be harming themselves. So this is unlikely. And even if, once they see this, they could opt to change it. If not, then that business is not a viable enterprise for those people. Keep in mind the whole purpose of commerce is to serve the well-being of ALL the humans engaged in it. If it cannot do that. We humans should not be engaged in it.

Capitalism is designed not to do that. And we humans should not be engaged in it.

 

[Stevicus]

This topic is a spin off from another topic in the "Socialist only" area, where I could not and should not respond. Reading that topic theme triggered these new ideas. Socialism is about more government control over business and the private sector. But since the USA is still highly Capitalist, the Socialists of America get to live within the plentiful bounty of the free market of Capitalism, and not in the more rationed state of Socialism. The Socialist within the US Government, living within the US Capitalist country, see the excesses and fruit of free enterprise, and wish to share this bounty of Capitalism with their base. But they need deficit spending to do so, since Socialism, by itself, would never be able to reach that bountiful economic state of Capitalism, on its own. Central planning takes away self initiative with the politics of chain of command.

Socialism, left to its own devices, would never reach this state of Capitalist bounty, since it is too centrally planned and chain of command inefficient. However, a pocket of Socialist, in a Capitalist country, can buy the bounty of Capitalism, by creating debt; cells phones and internet are able to become entitled items, but not through Socialism, but Socialism plus debt in a Capitalist country.

Socialism, via the Democrat party, is eating the surplus created by Capitalism; buy the extra Capitalist fruit, to make Socialism look better than it actually is by itself; via the national debt. This nebulous debt tricks people into thinking Socialism is creating this shared prosperity all on its own, and is therefore just as good as Capitalism; if you can ignore the debt, to complete the magic trick.

Say there was no more Government borrowing through a Constitutional Amendment. There would need to be more rationing of social resources since government, is way over extended and is too inefficient to pay for everything offered by Capitalism, with just the tax revenues. Plus the Socialist element does not wish to become more efficient, due to unions and union dues needing bodies for bonuses. You can cannot fire anyone, and get away with that, as long as you can borrow to pay for today, while kicking the can to the future as debt.

The expanding debt is exposing real Socialism away from Capitalist Illusion Socialism. The former does not typically have the same bucket of Capitalist fruit and borrowing to create an illusion. Capitalism may be needed within Government, since it is the best way to use limited resources and can get by with less, as learned through free market competition versus trickle down central planning.

In the free market, you can be low on social the totem pole; poor or middle class, but if you have a good idea or skill, you can start a small business and get your idea into the system. But if you were a low member on the totem pole, in the chain of command of Socialism, you will need to push that same idea up the system, against the resistance of company politics, such that so many ideas wither on the vine. But if the idea appears within the fertile ground of Capitalism, where all seeds can flourish, the Socialist chain of command can borrow, to buy this fruit, from the fertilizes fields, starting at the top, adding waste and inefficiency, as it trickles down, with more debt needed to compete the magic trick.

I think conflating the policies of the Democratic Party with various ideas related to socialism doesn't really ring true. It's reminiscent of McCarthyite "red baiting" which used to go on during the Cold War, where anyone whose views were to the left of Ronald Reagan were considered "pinkos" and "commies."

I don't believe it's correct to refer to the high standard of living of the U.S. and credit it with capitalism. Were that true, then every capitalist state on Earth would have an enormous bounty similar to the U.S. - even capitalist countries like Guatemala and Chad. Since that's never been the case, then I don't see how our "great bounty" can be attributed to capitalism. It was more due to military expansionism than anything else.

I would also note that socialism has improved every country it has been implemented. Socialism turned Russia from a backward, defeated, agrarian state into a respected industrial and military superpower within 20 years. Similar improvements were made in China, which had previously been invaded numerous times and was openly looted and exploited by multiple nations. That all came to an end when the socialists took over. Likewise for Cuba and Vietnam.

We don't have anything even closely resembling socialism in the U.S., nor does there appear to be any genuinely socialist proposals which have any chance of being accepted in the current political climate. Even the possibility of socialized healthcare was torpedoed by the Democratic spinelessness manifested in Obamacare. I would also wonder why the vast array of wealthy Democratic supporters would favor an ideology where their immense wealth and life of bourgeois luxury could be at risk. Could anyone imagine the Obamas or Clintons giving up their mansions and luxury in exchange for a more practical, more spartan proletarian lifestyle? The limousine liberals and champagne socialists are the best friends of capitalists, which is why they get along so well.

 

[PureX]

Let me put it to you this way: I'm often jealous of what my cousins in Sweden have. Yes, they pay a lot more in taxes, but then they have cradle to grave security.

People taking care of each other. My, what a horrific concept!

 

[Balthazzar]

She's quite the saint don't you think?

First, she isn't going to pay anyone she employs any more than she HAS TO, because that would diminish the return she gets from her investment. This pits her against her employees for both the their efforts and their compensation. And keep in mind that SHE has the final say, because SHE has all the control.

Same goes for her pricing. She is going to damand the highest price she can get for the products or services her business offers because anything less will diminish the profit she gains from the capital she's invested. So here, too, her goals are contrary to those of her customers, and SHE has the final say because she is in complete control of all the business decisions. And before you start in on "but the competition..." keep in mind that her competition has the exact same goal as she does: to maximize the profits returned on the capital they've invested. So they are ALL going to keep those prices just as high as they possibly can get away with.

And how about her vendors and the community in general? Again, she will want to pay as low a price for her supplies, and as low a tax for infrastructure as possible. And again she will be acting in antipathy with these in this regard. She will use her position and wealth to fight any laws that would cost her any money because that contradicts her goal of gaining a maximum profit from the capital she's invested.

So every step of that way, and every decision she makes, will be intended to minimize the benefits to everyone else involved in and effected by her business so that she can obtain the maximum profit on the capital she's invested for herself. And since she has complete control of the business, she has a very distinct advantage in doing this. And as those profits pile up, that asvantage only increases, because he power to control both commerce and politics will increase.

If the other people involved in and being effected by a business enterprise make bad choices regarding how it is being operated, they would only be harming themselves. So this is unlikely. And even if, once they see this, they could opt to change it. If not, then that business is not a viable enterprise for those people. Keep in mind the whole purpose of commerce is to serve the well-being of ALL the humans engaged in it. If it cannot do that. We humans should not be engaged in it.

Capitalism is designed not to do that. And we humans should not be engaged in it.

Fair compensation is fair compensation. Don't forget the healthcare, paid vacations and overtime rates. The point is the company was her brainchild that she worked on for 15 years prior to hiring anyone. It ended employing over 25 people providing the vehicle that clothed, fed, housed, and educated some of their kids. Some-how she ended up ousted from her own company when she insisted on some retail channels in areas her employee base decided wasn't a good idea. It was her or them walking and given the socialist framework, she ended up being the one who left. The good news is she reopened in a different country where capitalism is championed and went into direct competition with her former business, retaining many of her associates in retail and in the areas in question that caused the entire ordeal in the first place. She now employees 300 and her business has grown to an international level. It was her brainchild and company. By the way, given the growth, she's not paying anymore than she has to, but it's quite a lot more than her employees earned the first 10 years of operation under the socialist framework.

 

[PureX]

Fair compensation is fair compensation.

But who gets to decide what is fair? Is working 40 hours a week for a paycheck that doesn't even provide half of what a person needs to live on, fair? The capitalists certainly think so. In fact they think they should be allowed to pay even less if they can get away with it. And they spend millions of dollars bribing politicians to make that happen.

Don't forget the healthcare, paid vacations and overtime rates.

All advantages forced onto the capitalists by law, and fought against tooth and nail by those same capitalists. We should have universal health care like every other sensible nation on Earth. But that requires the imposition of price caps on the capitalist health care providers to stop them from using our health to price gouge us, and of course they fought that idea with massive political bribery and propaganda and so we still don't have it, and we are still paying twice what the rest of the world pays for health care.

The point is the company was her brainchild that she worked on for 15 years prior to hiring anyone.

Why do you think this gives her the right to use her excess wealth and expertise to exploit her fellow humans for as much profit as she can get from them? Because this is what capitalism encourages, enables, and rewards.

It ended employing over 25 people providing the vehicle that clothed, fed, housed, and educated some of their kids.

Many millions of employed people still can't afford those things because capitalism allows the business owners/investors they work for to exploit them for their own profit. And that is exactly what they do.

Some-how she ended up ousted from her own company when she insisted on some retail channels in areas her employee base decided wasn't a good idea.

The somehow was that she was ignoring the needs and desires of the other people involved in and effected by their joint business endeavor.

It was her or them walking and given the socialist framework, she ended up being the one who left.

Yes, that's what happens when you ignore and exploit the society within which you live.

The good news is she reopened in a different country where capitalism is championed and went into direct competition with her former business, retaining many of her associates in retail and in the areas in question that caused the entire ordeal in the first place. She now employees 300 and her business has grown to an international level. It was her brainchild and company. By the way, given the growth, she's not paying anymore than she has to, but it's quite a lot more than her employees earned the first 10 years of operation under the socialist framework.

No such fantasy capitalists exist. People are greedy. The more they get the more they want. And the more they harm others trying to get it, the more they will blame their victims so as to justify themselves.

The only solution is to spread the power and control out so that everyone involved can protect themselves from everyone else's excessive greed.

 

[Koldo]

This topic is a spin off from another topic in the "Socialist only" area, where I could not and should not respond. Reading that topic theme triggered these new ideas. Socialism is about more government control over business and the private sector. But since the USA is still highly Capitalist, the Socialists of America get to live within the plentiful bounty of the free market of Capitalism, and not in the more rationed state of Socialism. The Socialist within the US Government, living within the US Capitalist country, see the excesses and fruit of free enterprise, and wish to share this bounty of Capitalism with their base. But they need deficit spending to do so, since Socialism, by itself, would never be able to reach that bountiful economic state of Capitalism, on its own. Central planning takes away self initiative with the politics of chain of command.

Socialism, left to its own devices, would never reach this state of Capitalist bounty, since it is too centrally planned and chain of command inefficient. However, a pocket of Socialist, in a Capitalist country, can buy the bounty of Capitalism, by creating debt; cells phones and internet are able to become entitled items, but not through Socialism, but Socialism plus debt in a Capitalist country.

Socialism, via the Democrat party, is eating the surplus created by Capitalism; buy the extra Capitalist fruit, to make Socialism look better than it actually is by itself; via the national debt. This nebulous debt tricks people into thinking Socialism is creating this shared prosperity all on its own, and is therefore just as good as Capitalism; if you can ignore the debt, to complete the magic trick.

Say there was no more Government borrowing through a Constitutional Amendment. There would need to be more rationing of social resources since government, is way over extended and is too inefficient to pay for everything offered by Capitalism, with just the tax revenues. Plus the Socialist element does not wish to become more efficient, due to unions and union dues needing bodies for bonuses. You can cannot fire anyone, and get away with that, as long as you can borrow to pay for today, while kicking the can to the future as debt.

The expanding debt is exposing real Socialism away from Capitalist Illusion Socialism. The former does not typically have the same bucket of Capitalist fruit and borrowing to create an illusion. Capitalism may be needed within Government, since it is the best way to use limited resources and can get by with less, as learned through free market competition versus trickle down central planning.

In the free market, you can be low on social the totem pole; poor or middle class, but if you have a good idea or skill, you can start a small business and get your idea into the system. But if you were a low member on the totem pole, in the chain of command of Socialism, you will need to push that same idea up the system, against the resistance of company politics, such that so many ideas wither on the vine. But if the idea appears within the fertile ground of Capitalism, where all seeds can flourish, the Socialist chain of command can borrow, to buy this fruit, from the fertilizes fields, starting at the top, adding waste and inefficiency, as it trickles down, with more debt needed to compete the magic trick.

Yes, please, cut ALL spending on welfare. This will be the start of a revolution towards actual socialism.

 

[Balthazzar]

But who gets to decide what is fair? Is working 40 hours a week for a paycheck that doesn't even provide half of what a person needs to live on, fair? The capitalists certainly think so. In fact they think they should be allowed to pay even less if they can get away with it. And they spend millions of dollars bribing politicians to make that happen.

All advantages forced onto the capitalists by law, and fought against tooth and nail by those same capitalists. We should have universal health care like every other sensible nation on Earth. But that requires the imposition of price caps on the capitalist health care providers to stop them from using our health to price gouge us, and of course they fought that idea with massive political bribery and propaganda and so we still don't have it, and we are still paying twice what the rest of the world pays for health care.

Why do you think this gives her the right to use her excess wealth and expertise to exploit her fellow humans for as much profit as she can get from them? Because this is what capitalism encourages, enables, and rewards.

Many millions of employed people still can't afford those things because capitalism allows the business owners/investors they work for to exploit them for their own profit. And that is exactly what they do.

The somehow was that she was ignoring the needs and desires of the other people involved in and effected by their joint business endeavor.

Yes, that's what happens when you ignore and exploit the society within which you live.

No such fantasy capitalists exist. People are greedy. The more they get the more they want. And the more they harm others trying to get it, the more they will blame their victims so as to justify themselves.

The only solution is to spread the power and control out so that everyone involved can protect themselves from everyone else's excessive greed.

Exploit must be a term you utilize to mischaracterize a corporate reality. I remember stating fair wages and prices on products and benefits, which amounts to opportunity for employees, who decided that their employer's efforts and company would be better off without its founder. It seems to me the exploitation came by the hands of her employee base and she the victim via the framework imposed on her company.