Explain Socialism

[N3bu]

Lucky~9~Lives

N3bu

The USSR was a "communist" country not because it was an communist system but because it was run by a communist party, which is a common mistake people make. The USSR used a socialist system.

The USSR was totalitarian - not socialistic - communism; socialism predates Marx.

The USSR was not communism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a planned economy, which falls under the socialist umbrella of social ownership of the means of production and social management of the economy.

Socialism after all has varieties.

[logan the god of candy]

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

1. If you don't have a job in a capitalist market, either your government is ******** everything up and you aren't willing to take a job you can get or by working for yourself, or you are just plain not willing to take what you can get or aren't willing to work for yourself.

Except capitalism requires unemployment to keep wages below cost (and hence derive profit) - as the number of available jobs rise, so does the bargaining power of labour.

logan the god of candy

2. Then your are defining Communism as totalitarianism and thus is a moot point. Would you otherwise like to define Communism without the definitions that I set?

Distribution according to need (as opposed to distribution according to currency a.k.a. market distribution).

In regard to capitalism, this is very untrue. Your argument is an assumption that jobs are finite. Jobs are determined by demand for a service or item.

And the resources to produce said service or item; employment - and hence capitalism - can only be sustained if people cannot freely access productive resources.

Only acts of force against one's person can prevent free access to productive resources. In a free market, anybody without a job could get a shitty maid or butler job. Any woman could be a prostitute. The human resource at our technological and social level will always and forever be wanted and/or needed beyond the amount of human resource that we have.

Disposable income = somebody willing to pay for someone to do something. Because just about everybody has disposable income, jobs will always be available more than humans to do the jobs.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

N3bu

The USSR was not communism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a planned economy, which falls under the socialist umbrella of social ownership of the means of production and social management of the economy.

That falls under the umbrella of communism - distribution by need (determined in this case by a state) - not of socialism.

N3bu

Socialism after all has varieties.

Sure - none of them are compatible with management of the economy being limited to a single class in society (say, a state bureaucracy) as opposed to all members of society, though.

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

1. If you don't have a job in a capitalist market, either your government is ******** everything up and you aren't willing to take a job you can get or by working for yourself, or you are just plain not willing to take what you can get or aren't willing to work for yourself.

Except capitalism requires unemployment to keep wages below cost (and hence derive profit) - as the number of available jobs rise, so does the bargaining power of labour.

logan the god of candy

2. Then your are defining Communism as totalitarianism and thus is a moot point. Would you otherwise like to define Communism without the definitions that I set?

Distribution according to need (as opposed to distribution according to currency a.k.a. market distribution).

In regard to capitalism, this is very untrue. Your argument is an assumption that jobs are finite. Jobs are determined by demand for a service or item.

And the resources to produce said service or item; employment - and hence capitalism - can only be sustained if people cannot freely access productive resources.

Only acts of force against one's person can prevent free access to productive resources.

Which is essentially how capitalism operates.

[logan the god of candy]

Lucky~9~Lives

N3bu

The USSR was not communism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a planned economy, which falls under the socialist umbrella of social ownership of the means of production and social management of the economy.

That falls under the umbrella of communism - distribution by need (determined in this case by a state) - not of socialism.

N3bu

Socialism after all has varieties.

Sure - none of them are compatible with management of the economy being limited to a single class in society (say, a state bureaucracy) as opposed to all members of society, though.

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

Except capitalism requires unemployment to keep wages below cost (and hence derive profit) - as the number of available jobs rise, so does the bargaining power of labour.



Distribution according to need (as opposed to distribution according to currency a.k.a. market distribution).

In regard to capitalism, this is very untrue. Your argument is an assumption that jobs are finite. Jobs are determined by demand for a service or item.

And the resources to produce said service or item; employment - and hence capitalism - can only be sustained if people cannot freely access productive resources.

Only acts of force against one's person can prevent free access to productive resources.

Which is essentially how capitalism operates.

Capitalism is only dependent on trade. Voluntary or otherwise. At no point is force a defining part of capitalism. It may occur, but that is not capitalistic.

Government regulations against our natural rights that don't otherwise impeded the natural rights of others is immoral and not at all part of capitalism.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

logan the god of candy

Capitalism is only dependent on trade. Voluntary or otherwise. At no point is force a defining part of capitalism. It may occur, but that is not capitalistic.

Government regulations against our natural rights that don't otherwise impeded the natural rights of others is immoral and not at all part of capitalism.

It must just be pure coincidence that the birth of capitalism occurred alongside copious state intervention/force (privatization of the commons in Britain; land grants in America; imperialism in Africa and India); I suppose the events at Columbine and Ludlow were economically insignificant - and the less said about Chile, the better.

[logan the god of candy]

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

Capitalism is only dependent on trade. Voluntary or otherwise. At no point is force a defining part of capitalism. It may occur, but that is not capitalistic.

Government regulations against our natural rights that don't otherwise impeded the natural rights of others is immoral and not at all part of capitalism.

It must just be pure coincidence that the birth of capitalism occurred alongside copious state intervention/force (privatization of the commons in Britain; land grants in America; imperialism in Africa and India); I suppose the events at Columbine and Ludlow were economically insignificant - and the less said about Chile, the better.

You're confusing the monetary trade system that is capitalism with social and religious belief systems of particular times/places and government ******** that was the British Empire.

My parents may have ******** to create me, but my creation has very little to do with who I am. Same with capitalism.

We've been on a path to individual freedoms, rights, and ownership that peaked in the 1960's. s**t was getting ******** up on all sides of capitalism without necessarily having to do with what capitalism is. Capitalism never said Niggers and women can't own votes. The shitty a** government did that.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

It must just be pure coincidence that the birth of capitalism occurred alongside copious state intervention/force (privatization of the commons in Britain; land grants in America; imperialism in Africa and India); I suppose the events at Columbine and Ludlow were economically insignificant - and the less said about Chile, the better.

You're confusing the monetary trade system that is capitalism with social and religious belief systems of particular times/places and government ******** that was the British Empire.

Oh, I am not.
- razz

logan the god of candy

My parents may have ******** to create me, but my creation has very little to do with who I am. Same with capitalism.

Not so - capitalism could not have been sustained without creating a class of people who had to sell their labour i.e. by alienating them from other sources of income, such as by privatizing the commons, or by the privileged granting of land to state-favored companies.

logan the god of candy

Capitalism never said Niggers and women can't own votes.

What a happy coincidence that disenfranchised people make for a pliable labour force.

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

Vladolf Putler

God-The-RapistV2.0

Vladolf Putler

God-The-RapistV2.0

Vladolf Putler

Since you think society should be based on economic "fairness and equality", please do tell: how much do you deserve what somebody else had worked for?

Well, according to Capitalism you owe the majority of what you make to someone else as wages are a pittance to the actual value being created.

No, according to capitalism your employer owes you what you both agreed upon according to your pay to generate a profit.

According to capitalism you're also allowed to open up a business of your own and hire employees if you're willing to take the financial risk of running a business.

Nothing of what you said is disallowed in Socialism.

The first certainly is because the state decides how much you can sell your labor for.

No, it dictates how much a person is required to be paid as a MINIMUM. Of course a Capitalist country would NEVER have something like a Minimum Wage.

But that doesn't matter because in a Socialist state the Government hands out the minimum wage, not the employer.

[Michael Noire]

Drinky Crow IRL

Quote:

We also have the Militia. Private individuals defend their immediate land.

Who can muster more firepower, however?

Militia's will be pretty obsolete when you can't raise the money that Fortune 500 companies can bring to bear.

we need private billionaires to become Batman and Iron Man and build civilian militias armed like War Machine.

or more realistically, we at least need high income people to start investing in local militias and arming them to the teeth with military grade hard ware, at least as good as that available to elementary schools.



last time i investigated militias, they were armed with 1911s, .22 long rifles, and were averaging 60 years of age. I didn't see anything remotely like what you see militias in movies having, and they definitely didn't have cool military theme songs playing in the background, but they did have new fancy discount credit cards with logos. xp

[Drinky Crow IRL]

logan the god of candy

[ Capitalism never said Niggers and women can't own votes. The shitty a** government did that.

Which government? Remember that the federal government in places went in to ALLOW black children to attend schools while the local government used their forces to stop them. See; George Wallace.

[logan the god of candy]

Lucky~9~Lives

logan the god of candy

Lucky~9~Lives

It must just be pure coincidence that the birth of capitalism occurred alongside copious state intervention/force (privatization of the commons in Britain; land grants in America; imperialism in Africa and India); I suppose the events at Columbine and Ludlow were economically insignificant - and the less said about Chile, the better.

You're confusing the monetary trade system that is capitalism with social and religious belief systems of particular times/places and government ******** that was the British Empire.

Oh, I am not.
- razz

logan the god of candy

My parents may have ******** to create me, but my creation has very little to do with who I am. Same with capitalism.

Not so - capitalism could not have been sustained without creating a class of people who had to sell their labour i.e. by alienating them from other sources of income, such as by privatizing the commons, or by the privileged granting of land to state-favored companies.

logan the god of candy

Capitalism never said Niggers and women can't own votes.

What a happy coincidence that disenfranchised people make for a pliable labour force.

Capitalism has 3 parts and only requires that unwanted force isn't applied to prevent it.

1. personal ownership
2. ability/right to work
3. ability/right to trade

These don't require anything but themselves. If the government doesn't steal your work and your property, you will always have capitalism. All government force and violence is anti-capitalism.

Your disenfranchised, pliable labour force is represented in every inner city black person in the United States. And they usually don't have proper jobs, and turn into criminals and make the world a worse place to be. They will either use capitalism to make their own existences better or they will fall into theft or just plain take handouts that the government steals from working capitalistic individuals.

[logan the god of candy]

Michael Noire

Drinky Crow IRL

Quote:

We also have the Militia. Private individuals defend their immediate land.

Who can muster more firepower, however?

Militia's will be pretty obsolete when you can't raise the money that Fortune 500 companies can bring to bear.

we need private billionaires to become Batman and Iron Man and build civilian militias armed like War Machine.

or more realistically, we at least need high income people to start investing in local militias and arming them to the teeth with military grade hard ware, at least as good as that available to elementary schools.



last time i investigated militias, they were armed with 1911s, .22 long rifles, and were averaging 60 years of age. I didn't see anything remotely like what you see militias in movies having, and they definitely didn't have cool military theme songs playing in the background, but they did have new fancy discount credit cards with logos. xp

I wouldn't expect many people to understand the militia. That would be the you and me. people who are able to and have the means to defend themselves, their homes, and their community. How many hundreds of millions of guns are in the United States? The militia is pretty much any man or women that is old enough to work in a group and knows how to or can learn how to use a firearm. Therefore, the militia is privately owned and is far more armed than our active troops. only real difference is war machines that we are banned from owning.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

logan the god of candy

Capitalism has 3 parts and only requires that unwanted force isn't applied to prevent it.

1. personal ownership
2. ability/right to work
3. ability/right to trade

All of those are compatible with socialism; the defining part of capitalism is wage-labour.

logan the god of candy

Your disenfranchised, pliable labour force is represented in every inner city black person in the United States.

The coincidences just keep piling up.

[God-The-RapistV2.0]

Vladolf Putler

God-The-RapistV2.0

Vladolf Putler

God-The-RapistV2.0

Vladolf Putler

No, according to capitalism your employer owes you what you both agreed upon according to your pay to generate a profit.

According to capitalism you're also allowed to open up a business of your own and hire employees if you're willing to take the financial risk of running a business.

Nothing of what you said is disallowed in Socialism.

The first certainly is because the state decides how much you can sell your labor for.

No, it dictates how much a person is required to be paid as a MINIMUM. Of course a Capitalist country would NEVER have something like a Minimum Wage.

But that doesn't matter because in a Socialist state the Government hands out the minimum wage, not the employer.

Minimum wages drive inflation so no capitalist nation would have them for a pretty good reason.

That is completely incorrect.