Stuff Republicans say.

[esmith]

And if that were to be done it would be the antithesis of what socialism is supposed to be about, namely that all people are important enough whereas society has a responsibility to each and all, and each and all have a responsibility to all of society as well. Capitalism, however, have no intrinsic process to help anyone.

absolute power corrupts absolutely

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And then they could go to making a determination of what persons are not beneficial or economically feasible to the community and terminate them.

That would not be likely. Under such a model, people are doing work not for economic gains but for societal gains, and as each person contributes towards society, society contributes towards the well being of those who are contributing. Being able to eat and sleep under a roof are not determined by being able to get a job that allows you to be able to afford them, as each person is afforded the necessities because they work.

absolute power corrupts absolutely

And under Capitalism, because of the power and economic feed-back loop, power becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. Under Communism, more people have more power, as the concentrated bubble of power is burst, allowing the average person to have more power and say-so in society.

 

[sun rise]

And then they could go to making a determination of what persons are not beneficial or economically feasible to the community and terminate them.

The right is doing a great job of that already with the right wanting to dispose of the poor in effect by denying them health care and other services which would help them live productive lives.

 

[sun rise]

absolute power corrupts absolutely

Which is exactly why we need to reign in the growing power of the .1% which is in effect wielding close to absolute power today. You've made my point for me.

 

[sun rise]

I love the above post.

There are both some local and chain restaurants that take what's left at the end of the day and donate it to food kitchens, and Panera's nationally and Buddy's Pizza locally here in the Detroit area do just that. The latter has an annual fund raiser for our local Capuchin food kitchen that we never miss.

Where I live there is an organization which picks up food and delivers it to organizations which serve the poor directly. This "middle man" service helps out both those with food to donate and those that need it.

 

[sun rise]

And if that were to be done it would be the antithesis of what socialism is supposed to be about, namely that all people are important enough whereas society has a responsibility to each and all, and each and all have a responsibility to all of society as well. Capitalism, however, have no intrinsic process to help anyone.

Capitalism worships money as the be-all and end-all.

Having worked in both, problem with both big government and big business is bureaucracy. A secondary problem is the assumption that proper planning works well over the long term. What's needed is a system which minimizes paperwork, maximizes flexibility, is oriented around positive social goals and makes enough money to survive.

 

[Revoltingest]

And if that were to be done it would be the antithesis of what socialism is supposed to be about, namely that all people are important enough whereas society has a responsibility to each and all, and each and all have a responsibility to all of society as well. Capitalism, however, have no intrinsic process to help anyone.

You fail to acknowledge that a hybrid system with capitalism can do what you want. There's no need to ditch it for.....for......uh.....what's your alternative? Where has your alternative worked at all? Cuba? N Korea? USSR? Pre-capitalistic PRC?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You fail to acknowledge that a hybrid system with capitalism can do what you want. There's no need to ditch it for.....for......uh.....what's your alternative? Where has your alternative worked at all? Cuba? N Korea? USSR? Pre-capitalistic PRC?

You keep mentioning these, even though all of us lefties have told you this is not what we have in mind. What we have in mind is more comparable to an updated form of hunter-gatherer distribution, where power is more evenly distributed, and no one who contributes goes without when their is an abundance. Especially when that abundance is an American abundance that is such an abundance that we waste about half of our food.

 

[Revoltingest]

You keep mentioning these, even though all of us lefties have told you this is not what we have in mind. What we have in mind is more comparable to an updated form of hunter-gatherer distribution, where power is more evenly distributed, and no one who contributes goes without when their is an abundance. Especially when that abundance is an American abundance that is such an abundance that we waste about half of our food.

I know you don't have those countries in mind, but I bring them up because they're the closest thing ever achieved to communism or socialism. As for a return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle where people eschew all centralized power, that's another thing which just doesn't happen. So you lefties should keep this in mind when trying to ditch capitalism......give us a plausible alternative.

 

[esmith]

Which is exactly why we need to reign in the growing power of the .1% which is in effect wielding close to absolute power today. You've made my point for me.

You do not see government that it is attempting to control more and more of your life as it continues to grows? Do you really think that the 0.1% wants to tell you what you can or can not do? I think not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You do not see government that it is attempting to control more and more of your life as it continues to grows? Do you really think that the 0.1% wants to tell you what you can or can not do? I think not.

They tell us what TV shows to watch, what electronics to use, how to eat, what music to listen to, they spend millions telling us how to vote, they broadcast what we are supposed to aspire to be, they tell us how to dress, they tell us how to perceive the world. Yes, I'm pretty sure they aren't just trying to tell us what to do, they're doing a pretty good job at it. They even have marketing stuff on our computers, phones, and even TVs so they can track what we do, and turn around and tell us what else we should have.

 

[sun rise]

You do not see government that it is attempting to control more and more of your life as it continues to grows? Do you really think that the 0.1% wants to tell you what you can or can not do? I think not.

I think exactly so. If we had a strong labor organization, a strong independent government and strong businesses I'd be happy. But since business basically control government, the cure is to cut down business power to control government which unfortunately will take a constitutional amendment to repeal the SCOTUS decision allowing unlimited bribery (aka campaign contributions) and lobbying.

Yes there are governmental overreaches but the solution is for the people to take power back from businesses and the super wealthy.

For example: guess who is really against a simple set of tax laws - not the ordinary person by and large but businesses who want all sorts of loopholes and special breaks.

 

[sun rise]

I know you don't have those countries in mind, but I bring them up because they're the closest thing ever achieved to communism or socialism. As for a return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle where people eschew all centralized power, that's another thing which just doesn't happen. So you lefties should keep this in mind when trying to ditch capitalism......give us a plausible alternative.

Well, libertarians don't like centralized power so you're arguing against pure libertarianism which no one here is proposing. Libertarianism is typically a right wing idea.

I see that 20th century saw the failure of the communist countries (which were really state capitalist countries) and now we're seeing the cracks in traditional capitalism due to a number of factors including unbridled greed and abuse of power by gigantic corporations and the super rich. My thought is that some combination of "third-way" and social democracy ideas with growth of public benefit corporations constitutes the future.

 

[sun rise]

Meanwhile back at the Republican party and what is said Bobby Jindal talks ‘no go zones,' demands immigrants assimilate | MSNBC

If he's going to complain about Muslims, he also needs to complain about ultra-orthodox Jewish communities http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/nyregion/shadowy-squads-enforce-modesty-in-hasidic-brooklyn.html - if this were Muslims and not Jews there would be outrage from Republicans. As it is: silence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, libertarians don't like centralized power so you're arguing against pure libertarianism which no one here is proposing. Libertarianism is typically a right wing idea.

Au contraire, you have it entirely wrong. "Libertarian" (small "l") can mean pretty much anything (especially on RF....see its definition).....there are socialists, communists & anarchist libertarians too. But we Libertarians (the capital "L" types who belong to the Americastanian & Canuckistanian political parties) are minarchist, ie, we favor a smaller central government limited by a constitution. "Right wing" just doesn't apply to any, although they might share our preference for capitalism & free markets.

I see that 20th century saw the failure of the communist countries (which were really state capitalist countries) and now we're seeing the cracks in traditional capitalism due to a number of factors including unbridled greed and abuse of power by gigantic corporations and the super rich. My thought is that some combination of "third-way" and social democracy ideas with growth of public benefit corporations constitutes the future.

Capitalism has always had "cracks", & always will. It's a stochastic system with dynamic emergent properties. This is a consequence of having individual liberty (both social & economic) without central planning. If you want predictability, highly controlled behavior, then capitalism isn't for you. But all systems have cracks....hunter gatherer is archaic, communism is an impossibility, & socialism results in oppression. Even you have a crack.....it's true....I have pix!

 

[Revoltingest]

Btw, here's the political spectrum (Nolan Chart) as I see things.....

As you can see, the "right" is about social control, which ain't libertarian (even using goofy Europistanian definitions). Note that countries which are ostensibly "socialist" or "communist" typically tend towards the "statist" quadrant.

 

[metis]

absolute power corrupts absolutely

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Secondly, socialism does not imply power being concentrated at the top-- quite the reverse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Secondly, socialism does not imply power being concentrated at the top-- quite the reverse.

Power at the top is just what happens with attempts at socialism....every time.

 

[metis]

Even at repeated attempts to try and explain to some that both socialism and Marxist economics actually wants wealth and power to be more equally distributed, some here still resort to placing them at the door of totalitarian states with government controlled economies such as the Soviet Union and China.

BTW, slavery was a "great" capitalistic enterprise that was done because it made countries that had them more efficient and competitive internationally. After all, with capitalism, "money talks, and..."-- well I think the reader can finish the sentence. Socialism, otoh, which is philosophically based on more equality, would naturally oppose this approach.

And finally, some here are simply stuck with the paradigm that, under socialism and Marxist economics, there is no competition. Only under extreme forms of socialism would this be true, and I don't see anyone here advocating that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even at repeated attempts to try and explain to some that both socialism and Marxist economics actually wants wealth and power to be more equally distributed, some here still resort to placing them at the door of totalitarian states with government controlled economies such as the Soviet Union and China.

You can talk theory all you want...how people will be different....more caring about each other....less materialistic...more in tune with the natural world. But the reality of socialism is that when tried, the results are oppression & privation. The utopian theory seems an impractical fantasy.

BTW, slavery was a "great" capitalistic enterprise that was done because it made countries that had them more efficient and competitive internationally. After all, with capitalism, "money talks, and..."-- well I think the reader can finish the sentence. Socialism, otoh, which is philosophically based on more equality, would naturally oppose this approach.

The old "slavery" straw man, eh? It's been practiced not just by capitalists, but also by hunter gatherer societies, feudalism, & by socialist regimes (eg, Nazis, USSR). The cure to slavery isn't the simplistic & misguided banning of capitalism, but rather the prohibition of slavery itself.
Socialism is "philosophically based on more equality", but the actual results are even less rosy than evil capitalist countries like Canuckistan, Swedenstan, Australiastan or Americastan.

And finally, some here are simply stuck with the paradigm that, under socialism and Marxist economics, there is no competition. Only extreme forms of socialism would this be true, and I don't see anyone here advocating this.

Here's the problem with discussing socialism & communism.....no matter what is argued against, the definition always changes. You oppose capitalism, & you praise socialism. Is there any real world example which you would admit eschews capitalism in favor of socialism?