Anyone here consider themselves socialists?

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: JS80
Those "prosperous" nations you speak of are failures and they only stand because they exploit capitalism to achieve their socialist ideals.

But, thats exactly the point. Capitalism, and Socialism work well TOGETHER, and fail by themself for various reasons.

It's in your best interest to use socialism for what it is good for, and capitalism for what it is good for. Socialism to form a base line for everyone and capitalism to promote progress.

As an example:
Public Police. Police are everywhere. Getting promoted means a cop gets more money. To get promoted one has to do better. Having a Public Police Force is socialist, but has capitalism worked into it. In a purly socialist society, all police make the same no matter the position, so there is no incentive to work hard. In a purely capitalistic fashion, they would no longer be public police and you should have your Credit Card handy when you go to call them. Both extremes blow, but a nice little mix seems to be great.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Bitek

Originally posted by: JS80

Socialists are the ones that are pushing their version of morality. In today's economy, by definition and action the poor as a whole are absolutely immoral. They choose to be in the position and use their vote to instill politicians that take from producers and give to them. How is that not stealing?

OK.

The owner of my large company is the great grandson of someone who did something clever when creating the company, so that said grandson can spend his life twittering around the world chasing rare flamingoes, but at least had the good sense to hire (for a penance of what he earns) people far more clever and useful than himself to run the company.

For this all us scientists and engineers etc invent, create, market, distribute and sell these products we create while he sits back and does jack shit. (Tho according to Rand he is the creative producer, and we are the leaches who commute and toll at work all day, apparently with our thumbs up our asses, and exist by his kindness and generosity of allowing us to make him tons of money for very little of it in return.)

However, the masses of old ladies, housewives, immigrants and uneducated people who sit on the packaging endless hours of day stuffing these things in boxes for the measly wage of $7/hr with no healthcare coverage or benefits at all are the immoral ones stealing from said grandson? Really?

And any of us, should misfortune fall and we get laid off or are fired, should lose all of our healthcare coverage and not be able to treat our cancer, and instead decide that we want to vote in a better medical risk distributive model that isn't so susceptible to the tides of the quarterly sales figures and the whims of the managers or twittering trustfund babies or foolish Wall St bankers... that is immoral? ...?
Do you call yourself a Christian by chance?

Good thing we have a fiat money system. You snooze you lose. It's not guaranteed the trust fund baby will retain his wealth indefinitely. He does not have a monopoly on the money supply. But why do you give a shit? If his grandpa set up a great company that's his legacy. What makes you entitled to his property?

You bring up a false example. I'm talking about voters taking people's money by force, not a mutual employment agreement.

You assume once a person is born to a certain class he is stuck there for life. In modern economies people choose their destinies.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JS80
If his grandpa set up a great company that's his legacy. What makes you entitled to his property?

At some point, the rewards for setting up a great company become excessive and detrimental to society - *reducing* opportunity for others to set up great companies.

What if a small number of people owned every house in America, and your only choice was to rent from them?

Good for them - tons of income - bad for you. What's to stop it? What's better for society - a few extremely weatlhy people in a nation of renters, or many homeowners?

You may not realize that it's in the interest of the owners to have monopolies, to prevent opporutnity for others. What's to stop them from pursuing that?

No one is denying the guy who starts a great company from getting nicely rewards - they're attacking when that gets out of balance as it has now.

Our nation has had massive increases in wealth in the last 25 years. Why is it 'fair' for all the wealth after inflation to go to the few at the top and not anyone else who made it?

You don't understand the idea of the well-fueld machine of an economy, where the money is the grease that keeps the machine turning, and putting the grease inn a few places makes the machine run less well. You only understand the basic right-wing talking points to attack anyone who opposes extreme concentrations of wealth.

You think you are defending some principles against the flaws in communist societies, but you are only unwittingly being manipulated to support the radical oligarchy agenda here.

It's not much different from what has happened many places - such as when the democratic promises in the USSR after its breakup and the end of communism were betrayed by the private greed that resulted in only forces of crony capitalism and strogman politics depriving the people of opportunity.

The top one in ten thousand Americans increasing their share of the income of our nation from 1% to 6% over the last 25 years - can you show me the benefits to the nation?

You bring up a false example. I'm talking about voters taking people's money by force, not a mutual employment agreement.

You assume once a person is born to a certain class he is stuck there for life. In modern economies people choose their destinies.[/quote]

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Probably would have been one over a hundred years ago, but not today as capitalism has reformed drastically since then. Currently content being a Conservative Democrat.

Some pseudosocialist things I like and/or agree with, I do not consider them socialist, but I am sure some do:
*Coops
*Employee stock ownership programs
*Labor unions (when they do not get too powerful)
*Government regulation of food, water and drug safety standards with inspections (including false advertising)
*Government ownership and maintenance of major roads and canals
*Domestic monopoly busting
*Tariffs that prevent flooding and protection from foreign monopolies
*Medicare
*Food stamps (with limitations)
*FDIC, bankruptcy and the public / private Federal Reserve System
*Basic education for those that cannot afford private education (either state owned schools or vouchers)
*Grants for promising future college students (that have proven themselves in high school) that cannot afford it

I am also fine with city / state owned or subsidized mass transit systems like trolleys, buses, etc. Probably some other things that I did not think of off the bat.

:thumbsup:

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[PricklyPete]

I think I would consider myself socialist in an ideal world...but with the one that we have...no I'm definitely not.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80
If his grandpa set up a great company that's his legacy. What makes you entitled to his property?

At some point, the rewards for setting up a great company become excessive and detrimental to society - *reducing* opportunity for others to set up great companies.

What if a small number of people owned every house in America, and your only choice was to rent from them?

Good for them - tons of income - bad for you. What's to stop it? What's better for society - a few extremely weatlhy people in a nation of renters, or many homeowners?

You may not realize that it's in the interest of the owners to have monopolies, to prevent opporutnity for others. What's to stop them from pursuing that?

No one is denying the guy who starts a great company from getting nicely rewards - they're attacking when that gets out of balance as it has now.

Our nation has had massive increases in wealth in the last 25 years. Why is it 'fair' for all the wealth after inflation to go to the few at the top and not anyone else who made it?

You don't understand the idea of the well-fueld machine of an economy, where the money is the grease that keeps the machine turning, and putting the grease inn a few places makes the machine run less well. You only understand the basic right-wing talking points to attack anyone who opposes extreme concentrations of wealth.

You think you are defending some principles against the flaws in communist societies, but you are only unwittingly being manipulated to support the radical oligarchy agenda here.

It's not much different from what has happened many places - such as when the democratic promises in the USSR after its breakup and the end of communism were betrayed by the private greed that resulted in only forces of crony capitalism and strogman politics depriving the people of opportunity.

The top one in ten thousand Americans increasing their share of the income of our nation from 1% to 6% over the last 25 years - can you show me the benefits to the nation?

You bring up a false example. I'm talking about voters taking people's money by force, not a mutual employment agreement.

You assume once a person is born to a certain class he is stuck there for life. In modern economies people choose their destinies.

[/quote]

Well said. The vast majority of the wealth is controlled by a small percentage of the population. What happens to this large percentage of wealth is obviously more significant than the small percentage of wealth that is controlled by the masses. Among these ultra rich people the principles of capitalism don't quite work. Is a multi-billionaire really going to work harder because you lower his taxes so he can keep more for himself? If you raise his taxes is he going to say 'screw it, these taxes make being a billionaire more trouble than it's worth. I'm gonna get a day job like everyone else'? No, because it has little bearing on the quality of his life. Wealth to him is like the stats of a WoW player's character. He just likes the game of making the numbers go up.

The basic principle of socialism is that the poor can make much better use of the money than the rich. For the cost of one Bugatti Veyron you can feed an entire village for a year. What many right-wingers forget is this is 100% true. Both Capitalism and Socialism have diminishing returns when pushed to the extremes.

Capitalism: Rewarding hard work makes people work harder
Socialism: The poor can make better use of money then the rich

Both statements are completely 100% true. One is not more true than the other. Using just one as the sole basis of your argument is flawed.

When a government has to make a decision on a policy such as tax rate, it has to find the correct balance between capitalism and socialism for that specific policy. This is really more a question of numbers than basic principles. What percentage change in wealth of rich/poor people will this policy cause? How will their motivation to work be effected, percentage wise? All this needs to be analyzed, and a compromise needs to be found.

Far too many people see the capitalism/socialism debate as a black or white issue, when the truth is a shade of grey.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Bitek

Originally posted by: JS80

Socialists are the ones that are pushing their version of morality. In today's economy, by definition and action the poor as a whole are absolutely immoral. They choose to be in the position and use their vote to instill politicians that take from producers and give to them. How is that not stealing?

OK.
...

Good thing we have a fiat money system. You snooze you lose. It's not guaranteed the trust fund baby will retain his wealth indefinitely. He does not have a monopoly on the money supply. But why do you give a shit? If his grandpa set up a great company that's his legacy. What makes you entitled to his property?

You bring up a false example. I'm talking about voters taking people's money by force, not a mutual employment agreement.

You assume once a person is born to a certain class he is stuck there for life. In modern economies people choose their destinies.

Its a $100B+ company, and the family owns more than 50%. They'll be fine for quite a while.

But anyway... My point is that its not all just his success and we the useless leaches Randists would have you believe. We are all in it together. Its only his property so much as the buildings and the patents, but all the work that is done is the result of everyone there. He can't do anything w/o the rest of us. Which means we are a stakeholder as well.

I am not advocating he's not entitled to his wealth. I'd expect the same if I ventured out and built my own company. That's not the point.

However.. He benefits greatly from all sorts of socialist programs. The state educates and trains future workers for him at a fraction of the taxes it would cost him to do it alone. His workers pay for their own (or sometimes state) universities for the privilege to work there. Taxes pays for research there, which he can buy out later for a fraction of the cost of in-house work. The workers commute to work, paying gas taxes to build highways he can also move his goods around on, again at a fraction of cost were he to do it alone. Taxpayer funded police and fire provides safe and stable environments for factories and a reliable workforce.

Workers pay for all sorts of things both sides gain benefit from. Employers contribute to the system as well, (but have far more leverage to access tax dodges...) but become far more wealthy than they could have if none of these things were there. To say socialism is of no value, let alone immoral, makes no sense.

 

[ZeGermans]

sup

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: rchiu


If you take some history lesson or read about other countries and civilization in the past, you'd see that countries and civilization fall most often not because lack of freedom and liberty, but too much poverty and income gap.

Examples? You mean like the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union?

Yeah exactly. Keep in mind that most of the time the perceived lack of freedom and liberty comes from large income gaps and poverty. Love to drive down the open road? Gotta have money to buy car first. Love to eat that favorite dish, gotta have money first. And please don't give me it's all about choices, let's see your choices when you are disabled, sick. Some people unfortunately just have lower IQ's, grew up with a disadvantaged background and don't know the options out there.

No social safty net, not government help, all these people feels they lack freedom and liberty and not given equal share as the others.

Too much give aways, you got lazy people take advantage of the system. You just gotta have a government that's smart enough to have a balanced policy.

But please don't treat everyone as lazy and choose to take a free ride. There are many unfortunate people in unfortunate circumstances, and even you who are all confidant may need help just one time at some point in your life. Without a safety net, that one time you need help but cannot get any can destroy the rest of your life.

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, either JS80 actually believes what he says... and so he's too crazed by ideology and/or stupidity to be reasoned with, or he's just trolling you all. Either way, he's not worth talking to.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I am a pure socialist- ALL resources are shared equally among all. Star Trek solialism although appealing Gives rank which is fine. But it also gives privelige which is not exceptable . There for its a dream or there is the living Word one. Or is impossiable dream . Some MAN will always want privilge

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I am a pure socialist- ALL resources are shared equally among all. Star Trek solialism although appealing Gives rank which is fine. But it also gives privelige which is not exceptable . There for its a dream or there is the living Word one. Or is impossiable dream . Some MAN will always want privilge

Lulz.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I am a pure socialist- ALL resources are shared equally among all. Star Trek solialism although appealing Gives rank which is fine. But it also gives privelige which is not exceptable . There for its a dream or there is the living Word one. Or is impossiable dream . Some MAN will always want privilge

Ok. I'll be over later today to pick your - I mean, our - computer. I need it for a few hours.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, either JS80 actually believes what he says... and so he's too crazed by ideology and/or stupidity to be reasoned with, or he's just trolling you all. Either way, he's not worth talking to.

Same is said about you, Fuckus, sandumbski, etc.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, either JS80 actually believes what he says... and so he's too crazed by ideology and/or stupidity to be reasoned with, or he's just trolling you all. Either way, he's not worth talking to.

Same is said about you, Fuckus, sandumbski, etc.

:laugh: That's cute.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, either JS80 actually believes what he says... and so he's too crazed by ideology and/or stupidity to be reasoned with, or he's just trolling you all. Either way, he's not worth talking to.

Same is said about you, Fuckus, sandumbski, etc.

Said the guy who interpreted a poll indicating dems were trusted more to prove his point that reps were trusted more. I can't let that one go, it's one of my favorite posts evar.

 

[gingermeggs]

A good ship maintains an even keel, from an external perspective the USA politically has been listing to the starboard side for quite some time and now needs a lot of port rudder to get back on course to be a progressive and just society.
Your *skipper* tries to malign socialistic ideas in such a way as to blind the crew of the telltales that let them know which gunnel they should sit on, as he tries to run her on to the rocks so his buccaneer buddy's can legally salvage the cargo.
HAHAAAARRRRRH!

I am not red or blue, and consider Justice and social order to be the best heading for my goodship, lollypops!

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Bitek

Originally posted by: JS80

Socialists are the ones that are pushing their version of morality. In today's economy, by definition and action the poor as a whole are absolutely immoral. They choose to be in the position and use their vote to instill politicians that take from producers and give to them. How is that not stealing?

OK.

The owner of my large company is the great grandson of someone who did something clever when creating the company, so that said grandson can spend his life twittering around the world chasing rare flamingoes, but at least had the good sense to hire (for a penance of what he earns) people far more clever and useful than himself to run the company.

For this all us scientists and engineers etc invent, create, market, distribute and sell these products we create while he sits back and does jack shit. (Tho according to Rand he is the creative producer, and we are the leaches who commute and toll at work all day, apparently with our thumbs up our asses, and exist by his kindness and generosity of allowing us to make him tons of money for very little of it in return.)

However, the masses of old ladies, housewives, immigrants and uneducated people who sit on the packaging endless hours of day stuffing these things in boxes for the measly wage of $7/hr with no healthcare coverage or benefits at all are the immoral ones stealing from said grandson? Really?

And any of us, should misfortune fall and we get laid off or are fired, should lose all of our healthcare coverage and not be able to treat our cancer, and instead decide that we want to vote in a better medical risk distributive model that isn't so susceptible to the tides of the quarterly sales figures and the whims of the managers or twittering trustfund babies or foolish Wall St bankers... that is immoral? ...?
Do you call yourself a Christian by chance?

Good thing we have a fiat money system. You snooze you lose. It's not guaranteed the trust fund baby will retain his wealth indefinitely. He does not have a monopoly on the money supply. But why do you give a shit? If his grandpa set up a great company that's his legacy. What makes you entitled to his property?

You bring up a false example. I'm talking about voters taking people's money by force, not a mutual employment agreement.

You assume once a person is born to a certain class he is stuck there for life. In modern economies people choose their destinies.

Depends on who's holding the pen over that chequebook and what name is being written.
Print money at your own international peril!
Never seen cheaper flights to the Usa in my lifetime, but fuck it' I'm going to Canada for my holiday this year.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, either JS80 actually believes what he says... and so he's too crazed by ideology and/or stupidity to be reasoned with, or he's just trolling you all. Either way, he's not worth talking to.

That's pretty wild coming from the likes of you. But... I was thinking about posting something similar about craig321. Man, that guy is whacked out - FAR more than you.

/compliment?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, either JS80 actually believes what he says... and so he's too crazed by ideology and/or stupidity to be reasoned with, or he's just trolling you all. Either way, he's not worth talking to.

Same is said about you, Fuckus, sandumbski, etc.

Said the guy who interpreted a poll indicating dems were trusted more to prove his point that reps were trusted more. I can't let that one go, it's one of my favorite posts evar.

I forgot about junks and Craig666.

 

[Vic]

Which govt institution is more socialist? The DMV or the police dept?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic
Which govt institution is more socialist? The DMV or the police dept?

The library (Communist bookstore)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
Which govt institution is more socialist? The DMV or the police dept?

The library (Communist bookstore)

The library is as much a 'communist bookstore' as the military is a 'fascist make-work program.' :roll:

Answer my question above. Why is it that socialism is those govt programs that don't meet your ideological approval, while those govt programs that do meet your ideological approval are somehow not socialism? How -exactly- does that work?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
Which govt institution is more socialist? The DMV or the police dept?

The library (Communist bookstore)

The library is as much a 'communist bookstore' as the military is a 'fascist make-work program.' :roll:

Answer my question above. Why is it that socialism is those govt programs that don't meet your ideological approval, while those govt programs that do meet your ideological approval are somehow not socialism? How -exactly- does that work?

Stick up your ass again today? I'm sorry the humor of the library is lost on you. Sheesh.

 

[ZeGermans]

Obviously only what's specifically listed in the constitution isn't socialism. We should honor and follow the opinions of a bunch of pot head white supremacists with barely a high school education (founding fathers)