Socialism good or bad?

[2018OFPP1?2]

@watisthis re: post 343.

1) @Hack already rebuted this, pointing out that you conveniently leave facts out of your model that are in opposition.

2) I checked three of your ' unbiased' sources, and all were rated left of center. I didn't bother to check anymore.

3) your premise is that it's okay to take rich people's money, because, even though they broke no laws in obtaing it, they don't deserve it, because, disparity?

I've changed my assessment of you. You are a communist.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

@watisthis re: post 343.

1) @Hack already rebuted this, pointing out that you conveniently leave facts out of your model that are in opposition.

2) I checked three of your ' unbiased' sources, and all were rated left of center. I didn't bother to check anymore.

3) your premise is that it's okay to take rich people's money, because, even though they broke no laws in obtaing it, they don't deserve it, because, disparity?

I've changed my assessment of you. You are a communist.

@watisthis just keeps posting the same refuted incorrect information over and over again. I'm a little tired of trying to explain simple things that don't seem to sink in.

We have a really good glimpse of how going more conservative makes things better for poor people with the contrast of record numbers of people on welfare during Obama's presidency versus record low unemployment after Trump implemented his policies. It should be obvious to anyone that especially the poor people in America are better off when conservative policies are implemented.

 

[watisthis]

@watisthis re: post 343.

1) @Hack already rebuted this, pointing out that you conveniently leave facts out of your model that are in opposition.

2) I checked three of your ' unbiased' sources, and all were rated left of center. I didn't bother to check anymore.

3) your premise is that it's okay to take rich people's money, because, even though they broke no laws in obtaing it, they don't deserve it, because, disparity?

I've changed my assessment of you. You are a communist.

1) What?

2) Provide proof?

3) You once again are miss comprehending what I've written. Capitalism requires wealth equality. I literally explained this to you, this is unequivocally known amongst economists, I even linked a conservative hedge fund manager agreeing with me.

You don't even know what the definition of capitalism is let alone socialism or communism.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

1) What?

2) Provide proof?

3) You once again are miss comprehending what I've written. Capitalism requires wealth equality. I literally explained this to you, this is unequivocally known amongst economists, I even linked a conservative hedge fund manager agreeing with me.

You don't even know what the definition of capitalism is let alone socialism or communism.

Um..., Yeah.

It doesn't seem like you have any comrades on this site, so why don't you just move along.

Here's a list of websites where you might find someone who agrees with your views. https://www.radford.edu/~junnever/theory/left2.web.htm

Or maybe you can read up, and see if any of the views expressed feel familiar.

 

[watisthis]

@watisthis just keeps posting the same refuted incorrect information over and over again. I'm a little tired of trying to explain simple things that don't seem to sink in.

We have a really good glimpse of how going more conservative makes things better for poor people with the contrast of record numbers of people on welfare during Obama's presidency versus record low unemployment after Trump implemented his policies. It should be obvious to anyone that especially the poor people in America are better off when conservative policies are implemented.

1) Welfare was redefined by the Trump presidency. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-06/trump-poverty-line-inflation

Trump killing SNAP is Reaganomics. Cut taxes and create record-breaking deficits. Then try to fill the hole by taking money from people who don't have any. This is the only economic policy the Republicans have had since Reagan, and it still doesn't work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#History_and_usage

The idea was that low taxes and trickle-down economics would allow wealthy Americans to live much more luxurious lives and invest more freely and that the result of that would be so many jobs that people were forced to compete over labor, leading to large scale increases in wages for the poor. Arguably, this did happen - the 'New World Order' of George Bush Sr. (as he called it) surrounding international free trade simply made it so that the 'poor' was the third world, not American poor. They have substantially increased wages and access to resources over the past 30 years, pulling themselves from crushing poverty to only regular poverty. However, to an American worker, the privilege of the rich has not to lead to an increase in wages - in fact, since Ronald Reagan's presidency, inflation-adjusted wages have dropped for 99% of Americans.

Large federal deficits and high military spending were the other half of the project. The idea was that instead of using social programs to feed and house the poor directly, the US could stimulate local economies by pumping in extra cash for the wealthy there (see above paragraph) by opening factories in the poorest parts of America. This has succeeded somewhat - unemployment is still high, but these areas appear to rely completely on tank factories and shipyards to survive, so arguably Ronald Reagan saved these communities. However, US deficit spending has recently come under fire. Prior to Ronald Reagan, there was no sovereign US debt - he gave us our first Trillion in debt. The idea is that these investments would create a robust industrial economy that would grow fast enough that the tax cuts would pay for themselves - but it's undeniably the case that they did not, and today the deficit continues to grow out of control.

Ronald Reagan is remembered fondly for his social policies as the godfather of Neoconservatism. But both parties unambiguously denounce some or all of his economic policy, supporting deficit reduction either by ending the tax cuts and failed 'trickle-down' policies or cutting spending in all sectors.

2) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Unemployment has been trending down since 2010, unemployment is a lagging indicator https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/what-are-leading-lagging-and-coincident-indicators/ Thanks, Obama.

3) We keep going in circles here. You both post opinions without providing proof, I comment providing proof and giving analogies as to help you better understand, or help you understand basic economic fundamentals such as how capitalism works, you comment back with biased opinions without proof and then deflect or dodge anything I say that you can't refute.

 

[watisthis]

Um..., Yeah.

It doesn't seem like you have any comrades on this site, so why don't you just move along.

Here's a list of websites where you might find someone who agrees with your views. https://www.radford.edu/~junnever/theory/left2.web.htm

Or maybe you can read up, and see if any of the views expressed feel familiar.

Keep deflecting, yawn.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Yup, back in the post where he said Bernie has pretty good fiscal policies, I was like,

 

[Rover]

Exactly my point. But we must be a fluke, cause it shouldn't be possible acording to our socialist friend.

I know 2 people who have the same opportunity for success. One person does well the other not so well. That's just life.
It is not my responsibility to pay or care for those who have not worked as hard as I have. When you start giving away work's reward everybody works less.
When the overachiever is punished and the underprivileged is rewarded an imbalance is created that results in nobody working to their potential.
Pretty soon nobody is working hard enough to pull the sled.

 

[Southview]

There is no reason to be poor. Other than poor choices!

 

[Hack]

It seems crazy that anyone would even consider arguing that socialism is good, based on history of what happens when it is implemented.

 

[Weather Man]

It seems crazy that anyone would even consider arguing that socialism is good, based on history of what happens when it is implemented.

Somehow the other guys that did socialism always did it wrong. If only they had been in charge, it would have went swell and their wouldn't be a stack of corpses to the sky.

 

[Hack]

Somehow the other guys that did socialism always did it wrong. If only they had been in charge, it would have went swell and their wouldn't be a stack of corpses to the sky.

No matter how many times it doesn't work, people seem to want to try it again.

 

[watisthis]

Do I want common ownership of the means of production? No, therefore I am not Socialist. Maybe the disconnect is that I'm debating things in a thread titled 'socialism good or bad' which is in bad taste since I'm not arguing for socialism, or maybe people just aren't reading what I write.

Socialism is an economic and social system defined by social ownership of the means of production. (Workers democratically own and operate the places in which they work, as opposed to private power aka capitalism)

The means of production are non-human inputs the create economic value, such as factories, workplaces, industrial machinery, etc. The means of production are the means of life. Socialists refer to the means of production as capital, or private property. Private property in the socialist context shouldn't be confused with personal property, such as your home, car, computer, and other possessions.

In a capitalist society the means of production are owned and controlled privately, by those that can afford them (the capitalist aka those with capital). Production is carried out to benefit the capitalist (production for profit). Workers are paid a wage, and receive that amount regardless of how much value they produce. Wage workers are completely dependent on selling their labor power to those in control of production in order to gain access to the necessities of life (money for food, shelter, clothing, etc).

Communism is the highest developed stage of socialism wherein there is no state, no money, no class system. The means of production are owned by all and provide for everyone's needs. There are also presumably high levels of automation so most do not have to work.

Socialism can't exist within a capitalist system, much like capitalism can't exist with a socialist system. There is either private ownership of the means of production or there isn't.

Past and present socialist/anarchist societies include - Revolutionary Catalonia, Anarchist Aragon, Shinmin Province in Korea/Manchuria, Free Territory of Ukraine, The Bavarian Soviet Republic, The Paris Commune, The Zapatista controlled areas of Chiapas (current day), Magonista Baja California, Shanghai People's Commune, Rojava (current day), etc

Private ownership of the means of production was established through force and is only upheld through force. The state is an instrument of class domination which (in capitalist society) exercises a monopoly on violence to forcibly maintain the right to private property. The modern state developed alongside the emergent capitalist system as the bourgeoisie seized political and economic control. It arises from the irreconcilable class antagonisms that exist in society.

 

[watisthis]

No one in 'mainstream' American politics is an actual socialist.

In case you aren't aware, Roosevelt actually proposed a second bill of rights almost 70 years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Only in recent years has everyone completely forgotten what the actual term "socialist" or "communist" means, and it's now used as a largely inaccurate derogatory term to describe anyone who thinks government can be more helpful than it is already through modest reforms or expansion.

Edit: Next thing you're going to tell me is FDR isn't one of the greatest champions the U.S. has ever had, lmao.

Sponsored