What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[Revoltingest]

Whether you see it like that or not, that is basically what people do, even in socialism people would sell their labour. In capitalism, if there is a high supply of workers you can be pretty sure that the condition by which you can sell yourself is weakened, which is partly why there are labour unions etc. Which again could be argued is a socialist concept, rather than just letting the "free market/capitalists" decide.

Starting your own company would still be possible, obviously, work slightly differently, but possible.

Under socialism, there is only one employer, ie,
"the people" which is necessarily government.
lUnder which socialist regime was it possible for
an entrepreneur to start their own company?

I don't think socialism is the "final solution" I think what is much more important is what the aim of the system is. If freedom and equality for all people are important, then clearly capitalism has failed.

Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.

This to me at least is absurd and it or something similar probably holds true in many countries. I don't think socialism can or even should make everyone completely equal, but simply reduce the gap and focus on solidarity rather than egoism.


What do you mean by "never deal with reality"? again socialism was "invented" as a response to the failure of capitalism in an attempt to create more equal societies. It would be like saying that capitalism never dealt with reality when it sought to replace/fix feudalism. For some reason, people have been convinced that capitalism is the end of the line and no other system can improve on it, I find that odd.

But having such a little % of people owning so much wealth should be a clear indication that something is clearly not working in a world where people are starving and living in poverty.


Because it wasn't socialism. At the end of the video, he gives an example of Chili and how it went with them when they went down that path, it was greatly improving the lives of the Chilean people until the US decided to interfere and the democratically elected president had to commit suicide. Was it perfect? probably not, but at least it was better for a lot of people in Chili. But it is from 18.20 in the video that you can hear about that.

Reality is facing what socialism is in the real
world, not the reasons it was invented.
Complaining about capitalism just isn't an
argument.
Why not compare the best results under
capitalism with the best results under socialism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Under socialism, there is only one employer, ie,
"the people" which is necessarily government.
lUnder which socialist regime was it possible for
an entrepreneur to start their own company?


Reality is facing what socialism is in the real
world, not the reasons it was invented.
Complaining about capitalism just isn't an
argument.
Why not compare the best results under
capitalism with the best results under socialism?

The problem is not that capitalism is better than your version of socialism, I will grant you that. But which version of capitalism is the best one?

 

[Father Heathen]

It is unfortunate that we allow emotions of nationalism cloud our thinking.

My support for a people who are defending their lives, their land, and their freedom has nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with human decency.
The ones with clouded thinking are those who side with tyrants, terrorists, and war criminals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whether you see it like that or not, that is basically what people do, even in socialism people would sell their labour. In capitalism, if there is a high supply of workers you can be pretty sure that the condition by which you can sell yourself is weakened, which is partly why there are labour unions etc. Which again could be argued is a socialist concept, rather than just letting the "free market/capitalists" decide.

Starting your own company would still be possible, obviously, work slightly differently, but possible.


I don't think socialism is the "final solution" I think what is much more important is what the aim of the system is. If freedom and equality for all people are important, then clearly capitalism has failed.

Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.

This to me at least is absurd and it or something similar probably holds true in many countries. I don't think socialism can or even should make everyone completely equal, but simply reduce the gap and focus on solidarity rather than egoism.


What do you mean by "never deal with reality"? again socialism was "invented" as a response to the failure of capitalism in an attempt to create more equal societies. It would be like saying that capitalism never dealt with reality when it sought to replace/fix feudalism. For some reason, people have been convinced that capitalism is the end of the line and no other system can improve on it, I find that odd.

But having such a little % of people owning so much wealth should be a clear indication that something is clearly not working in a world where people are starving and living in poverty.


Because it wasn't socialism. At the end of the video, he gives an example of Chili and how it went with them when they went down that path, it was greatly improving the lives of the Chilean people until the US decided to interfere and the democratically elected president had to commit suicide. Was it perfect? probably not, but at least it was better for a lot of people in Chile. But it is from 18.20 in the video that you can hear about that.

You've covered well trodden ground.
I've nothing to add.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is not that capitalism is better than your version of socialism, I will grant you that. But which version of capitalism is the best one?

I have no version of socialism.
The only versions are those that exist or existed.
The very best of those pale in comparison to
the best examples of capitalism, eg, the vaunted
Scandinavian countries.

 

[Nimos]

Under socialism, there is only one employer, ie,
"the people" which is necessarily government.
lUnder which socialist regime was it possible for
an entrepreneur to start their own company?

This is a list of the largest 100 companies in the US that are at least 50% to 100% owned by their employees, all those with an (*) are 100% owned by the employees.

The Employee Ownership 100: America's Largest Majority Employee-Owned Companies | NCEO

An annotated list of the 100 largest U.S. companies 50% or more employee-owned through an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) or other means, ranked by the number of employees.

www.nceo.org

If it's possible in the US as the centre of capitalism, I assume it would be possible in other countries as well.

Why not compare the best results under
capitalism with the best results under socialism?

Well, I don't think that is possible, because I don't even think we have "pure" capitalism today with the amount of legislation and political interference etc. And I think it is pointless, because as I said, what is the aim of the economic system? Whether socialism is the solution or part of it, doesn't really matter I think, it's what can achieve the goal.

And to me, one of these goals is an equal society, with equal rights and a high amount of personal freedom etc. And I don't think capitalism delivers that, except for a tiny amount of people.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, we include me and knowledge is also I am subject to.

So yes, we know that Putin want to make Russia an empire again, he has written himself that he want that to happen.

Assuming that's true, why would he want that? Is it just for fun? Is this how he gets his jollies? For those posting in this thread who obviously know so much about Putin's inner thoughts and desires, why not expound further and give us a complete psychoanalysis? Because I'd like to know myself.

I mean, if he really did have dreams of conquest, then why didn't he plan better? Why didn't he prepare better? Why did he start off with such a paltry force to invade a country the size of Ukraine with access to NATO weapons technology? He allowed his own army to be looted and gutted by kleptocrats to the point where they can't do anything. Their military is a paper tiger. (It probably always was, even as US Cold Warriors tried to paint them as the "evil empire.") It's clear that he was only planning a small-scale operation, otherwise he would have had an army ten times the size he started with. He would have been preparing and building up his military forces, not letting them fall apart due to corruption and mass pilferage.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Government (ie, the people) owns the means of production.

The "i.e." doesn't follow. Stateless and anarchist socialism are a thing. So is small-government socialism. In a lot of such frameworks, the people own the means of production through shares or cooperative management, not a centralized, authoritarian state.

Marx himself saw the state as a tool of the elites to control people. His ideal vision of society was stateless and classless.

 

[lukethethird]

I'd rather not see despots and totalitarian regimes aquire the upper hand by good people doing absolutely nothing.

You want to see Russia or China as the new dominant world's policeman?

Couldn't be worse than the US.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Couldn't be worse than the US.

I think it could be a lot worse than the USA.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Assuming that's true, why would he want that? Is it just for fun? Is this how he gets his jollies? For those posting in this thread who obviously know so much about Putin's inner thoughts and desires, why not expound further and give us a complete psychoanalysis? Because I'd like to know myself.

I mean, if he really did have dreams of conquest, then why didn't he plan better? Why didn't he prepare better? Why did he start off with such a paltry force to invade a country the size of Ukraine with access to NATO weapons technology? He allowed his own army to be looted and gutted by kleptocrats to the point where they can't do anything. Their military is a paper tiger. (It probably always was, even as US Cold Warriors tried to paint them as the "evil empire.") It's clear that he was only planning a small-scale operation, otherwise he would have had an army ten times the size he started with. He would have been preparing and building up his military forces, not letting them fall apart due to corruption and mass pilferage.

Yeah. You win. That is all there is to this. There is not more to history than US Cold Warriors and the rest you mention.

I will be honest. I am a former Nato soldier under the Cold War. I have my biases. Do you have any?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I don't think that is possible, because I don't even think we have "pure" capitalism today with the amount of legislation and political interference etc. And I think it is pointless, because as I said, what is the aim of the economic system? Whether socialism is the solution or part of it, doesn't really matter I think, it's what can achieve the goal.

And to me, one of these goals is an equal society, with equal rights and a high amount of personal freedom etc. And I don't think capitalism delivers that, except for a tiny amount of people.

How can one argue that socialism is better than capitalism
if something not "pure" can't be compared with something
else not "pure"?
And yet, you argue that personal freedom under capitalism
isn't what it should be, without offering an alternative.

 

[Revoltingest]

The "i.e." doesn't follow. Stateless and anarchist socialism are a thing.

They're a speculative construct, not anything that exists
or existed in reality. So it's bogus to compare an idealized
dream system with the worst features of capitalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How can one argue that socialism is better than capitalism
if something not "pure" can't be compared with something
else not "pure"?
And yet, you argue that personal freedom under capitalism
isn't what it should be, without offering an alternative.

Well, that ends in philosophy as there is free to versus free from. So which one is the correct one?

 

[exchemist]

It is unfortunate that we allow emotions of nationalism cloud our thinking.

Who is “we”?

 

[Debater Slayer]

They're a speculative construct, not anything that exists
or existed in reality. So it's bogus to compare an idealized
dream system with the worst features of capitalism.

When presented with current issues, people need to consider solutions that may not have been tried before, because the current set of circumstances is also unprecedented. No era in history has had this scale of anthropogenic climate change, interconnected global trade, and strong corporate influence, nor this size of a global population and their resultant needs. Being content with the current system of global capitalism is a recipe for continuing down the same path that has led us here. It's utterly unsustainable at this point.

Capitalism also hadn't been tried before when it was first put into practice. The same goes for every economic and government system in existence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that ends in philosophy as there is free to versus free from. So which one is the correct one?

There is no "correct".
There is only "prefer".
And judge based upon real world results, not unrealized dreams.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Liberty of Ukrainian people?

[Runs away fast]

It is possible that some American politicians genuinely desire liberty for Ukrainian people, but overall, I think geopolitical interests drive and have always driven American foreign policy. If the liberty of Ukraine didn't happen to be aligned with American interests—that is, limiting Russian influence and thwarting the threat of Putin's expansionism toward allies of the US—I highly doubt the US would bother aiding Ukraine as much as it does now. The end result is good (i.e., helping people fend off a hostile and imperialist invasion), but history indicates that the motives of the US are most likely pragmatic and perhaps only partially ethical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no "correct".
There is only "prefer".
And judge based upon real world results, not unrealized dreams.

I have never seen the real world. I don't know what it looks like, how to observe it or apply science to it. Are you sure real is not an idea in your mind?

As for prefer there is more than one version of freedom. So which one is the real one?

 

[Revoltingest]

When presented with current issues, people need to consider solutions that may not have been tried before, because the current set of circumstances is also unprecedented.

I don't oppose considering alternatives.
Just advocating for alternatives that have fared poorly.
Don't take a cure that's worse than the disease.

No era in history has had this scale of anthropogenic climate change, interconnected global trade, and strong corporate influence, nor this size of a global population and their resultant needs. Being content with the current system of global capitalism is a recipe for continuing down the same path that has led us here. It's utterly unsustainable at this point.

You're conflating capitalism with climate change, which is
actually caused by government policies, eg, which fuels
are taxed at what level, environmental regulation, population
controls, building codes, emissions regulation, fuel economy
regulation.
Not one of those things is intrinsic to either capitalism or
socialism. There's no reason the problem can't be mitigated
under capitalism, nor is there any reason to believe that
socialism would inherently make it go away.

Capitalism also hadn't been tried before when it was first put into practice. The same goes for every economic and government system in existence.

Both capitalism & socialism have been tried.
Results can be compared. It makes no sense
to propose abandoning a system which has
been shown capable of working well, with one
that's been shown to always work poorly.