When life is too good but you still hate it, you just might be a Socialist.

But, the best that we have got right now is capitalism. Venturing from this always leads to disaster.

Um. You’re leaning reeeeeeaaaallly hard into an either/or fallacy here. There’s a whole bunch of middle ground between capitalism and socialism, and the US has never been either extreme, because neither extreme is compatible with a functioning government.

So we’re on the same page, what do you mean when you use the terms? I assume the following (please clarify how your definitions differ):

Capitalism = no governmental controls over economic activity or business practices

Socialism = total governmental control over economic activity and business practices

Government should be totally inocuous.

People should be allowed to thrive or fail according to their work ethic.

Those that cannot make it on their own should be helped by their neighbors, volenterally.

When the government takes over they take $100 and pay someone to give $ 25 to someone in need.

Notice the equasion never balances.

Pretty sure that you’re willfully ignoring where the $75 goes. Yes, government workers get paid for the work they do, as well they should. However, there are things that the government provides that don’t go directly back into the pockets of those “in need” but benefit the nation as a whole (see: services rendered by the Department of Defense).

Do you realize that more than 50% of jobs are held bu Government workers at all levels?

That is unsubstainable.

He watched Glen neck for three hours and had a fifth of scotch and tattooed it on his own arm in a blackout.

Where did you get that statistic?

My apoligies, I read that some where and thought the person was stating it from knowledge. I made the mistake of accepting the source without checking it thoroughly.
This map shows a good estimate of the actual numbers.

No worries, we’re all guilty of that on occasion :)

I’m surprised the numbers in DC are that low, but I suppose a lot of people who work there live in the neighboring states. Interesting map.

what's up with Montana though. Wouldn't expect so many feds there. Then again, population to basic city/state government and police etc. is probably really high since it is so rural.

Add in all employees of state universities, and the ratio trends higher in lower-population states. Makes sense.

Yeah

I am glad to say that I live in Indiana, 10.2% omnly beaten by Michigan 10.1%.

We have a ballanced budget and a surplus account which is emotied ocaisionally by giving a refund to all tax payers. The last refund canceled out a years State Income Tax for us.

Neat!

I know that America does not use complete capitalism, nor should we. Laws to prevent monopolies and such are very important.

I would define capitalism as the system of no government involvement in major industries or involvement in the economy.

I would define socialism as a system where the government redistributes wealth among everyone and has influence or control major industries.

I believe that an economic systems success depends on two factors: human greed and govern corruption/greed.

Nobody is perfect, so nobody can be trusted to make decisions for others. The

Whoops hit post on accident
I'll continue here

The more the government is involved in anything, the more at risk you are of losing it. If the government can move around your money at will, what power do you have to stop them from robbing you of it all? That is why I believe in a free market with minimal government involvement.

Human greed and laziness is what really brings down socialism, though. If everything you need is provided for you by the government, what motivation is there to contribute and work?

In capitalism, the government lacks the power to rob it's citizens for its own gain. On top of that, it benefits from human greed, at least to a point. Everyone wants more money, and is therefore led to innovate. However, the downside is that not everyone is successful, and the lack of a safety net will negatively affect many people. Monopolies would also form and take advantage of many people.

These ideas will lead into my next reply, which I might have to add later on.

I follow this logic, and it’s exactly why there will always be a debate about this. Believe it or not, I agree with most of what you’ve said, but come to a different conclusion.

“Nobody is perfect, so nobody can be trusted to make decisions for others” is why neither extreme is feasible; in both, the average individual is at the mercy of a boss ( be it governmental or economic). This is why the idea of a representative government is both brilliant and problematic. It still limits the individual’s own options, but allows that individual to have a say in whether their representative keeps their position. There are no laws that are unable to be changed to better suit the needs of the individual, but those needs must be weighed against the needs of the nation as a whole to get passed because representatives must gain support from others who represent individuals with different needs and officials who are responsible for the nation as a whole.

If the pandemic has taught us anything in the US, it’s that there must be leadership with a long view willing to make decisions that won’t be popular but are the right thing to do for the health of the country, but also that the representatives must do their part to keep those decisions from destroying the lives of individuals through compromise and cooperation. We have neither at present for a multitude of reasons, but it can be remedied. Very few people are interested in either extreme, and any in government that are won’t hold those ideals for long once they get into the job.

Government isn’t bad. It’s slow, and clunky, and can devolve for a time. It’s fixable, though.

I agree that we shouldn't be absolutely capitalist or socialist. I do believe capitalism has major downside, but I believe socialism is worse because the government has too much power. That's why I would advocate for a reformed capitalism system. It would leave the government out in most cases, but when needed, it could step in to protect a citizen from being taken advantage of. Anti-trust laws that we already have are an example of a good reform to capitalism that I absolutely support.

I’d add anti-discrimination laws, environmental regulations, child labor laws, worker protections...all of these things happened because the haves do not deal fairly with the have nots, and the free market does not correct itself towards them. A nation that values individual freedom cannot last without an entity that holds significant power that is not profit-driven.

Of course we need that stuff. I was just giving a single example.

Likewise :)

Sorry, I misunderstood

No problem :) I really like having good debates/discussions like this.

lmao. It's not a good system of govt if it ruins the environment, used child labor, and avoided worker protections. The fact you have to make it illegal for capitalism to do those things means it is a terrible system of govt.

no. those are both wrong

This is usually the part where you give the right definitions.

I agree

Y'all need Marx, and it shows.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

you unironically believe in marxism, lol?

Well it's a more modern interpretation of leftist texts, but Marxism if still largely foundational. He sort of crystalized the underlying economic and political theory. The interpretation changes with political conditions.

are you a marxist or not, that's my question.

I guess I don't object to that label.

communism has been tried multiple times and has never worked.

Sounds like you're totally ignorant of history but okay. recapitulating mccarthyist vomit doesn't make you a smart person it just means that you haven't actually looked at any of the things that you're talking about and are just repeating what you've heard on the news..

Cuba, Cape Verde, Kerala state in India, China (kinda), and NK are all still around. Those countries are socialist/communist. Vietnam is still partially communist. Bruh your ignorance is hanging out. This is not to mention the pink tide movement in latin america with their strategy of democratic socialism on the way to communism and socialism.

Please educate yourself

most of those are socialist, not communist. NK is a totalitarian dictatorship. China isn't really communist or socialist. bernie sanders is practically more far-left than them.

i don't even watch news lol

More proof you do not know what you are talking about, Marx did not care to differentiate socialism from communism, so this point is irrelevant regardless. I do not care at all if you watch the news. I mostly follow investigative journalists and economists. "I don't even watch the news lol" bruh you seem proud to be ignorant. wouldn't want any of those nasty facts in that perfectly smooth brain. No sir. not a wrinkle and no room for facts or understanding what you pretend to critique. clearly you are very smart.

Oh heck no

Bro you need help.

I bet you don't even know what communism is.

No, please expound, is it good, bad, or what?

Communism is worker control of the means of production and the profits of industry. Wages are paid not on the basis of value to a company but on how little they can get away with. It's why my friend who makes his job $400 an hour and gets payed $12 is upset. The recognition that profit is merely the stolen wage of the worker. It's a reordering of class power that aims to ensure food and housing, and eliminate abject poverty. Capitalism seeks to privatize industry and profits. capitalists can tolerate private industry if it's held by the workers, but not a private industry with private owners who pay starvation wages and cut benefits. For example, if all Apple employees collectively owned their company, they would each earn a 400K bonus on top of their wages instead of paying out stock dividends and buybacks. Communism and socialism destroy that kind of fake profiteering. When a stock buyback is purchased or a dividend is payed, nothing real is created, but money that is purely financial appears out of thin air. There are contradictions of this nature everywhere. We have massive hunger and poverty and throw away tons of food. We have housing markets where there is a larger stock of housing held back than there is a homelessness problem. We allow everything to be destroyed and exploited so some jerk can make extra $$. Communism is an antithetical to capitalism and an antidote to the absurd poverty and misery it creates.

Believe me, I do. I know Marx's end plan to make everyone altruistic and for the state to eventually dissolve. If that would happen, though, North Korea, China, and Russia wouldn't have dictators. Marx had noble ideas, but he thought that people are way better than they actually are.

Clearly you haven't read marx at all.

But don't we all lol

So your criticizing a book you haven't read and acting like you're smart for doing it. Curious. In most circles, this is called lying, and considered bad and wrong.

clearly you do are have a lot of stupid.

Not believing in Communism doesn't make you stupid lol

Moving down here.

You're not listening to me. I'm not criticizing Marx. I believe he had good intentions with his system of Communism. It would work great if people as a whole weren't greedy. But the reality is that it just won't work because of selfish human nature.

Yeah you clearly didn't read marx at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKNqemlRdv4

Perfection

Doof, Marx asserts that human nature is a function of the material conditions of life. Human nature is not immutable, that's Neoliberal hooey.

That's where I disagree with Marx

that's where you're wrong bud. You can't see outside of how terrible Murica is. You got a failure of imagination.

Anywhere in the world you go, people as a whole are greedy. That's not just for America

the most vague of generalizations.

Because it is a basic fact of human nature.

you're asserting an axiomatic statement I do not accept.

Moving down here.

Yes, that is the definition of disagreement. You believe human nature is different than I believe it to be.

I think "human nature" is a ridiculous canard employed by RW economists when they can't justify their expectations of behavior on a rational level.

the thing is, lot's of people tend to let passion overturn rational judgement when making decisions. There is no real way to change that in the general population.

bruh you are speaking in generalities. please make a specific point

?
My point is that human nature is irrational and selfish, and therefore a system like communism, which relies on altruism, simply cannot work on a large scale.

it doesn't rely on altruism.

it relies on the workers organizing in their own self interests.