Socialism is a form of slavery

The truth is right in front of everyone, socialism fails because greedy people rise to the top. You will never see socialist leadership in anything less than a mansion, they will not drive old cars, eat from a sack lunch or ration their own power so everyone can share in their nation's wealth. The meme is true, economic slavery is still slavery

Is there a way 20yr old people are chatting about this? Because it all feels like 40+ yr old men yapping about socialism to me.

The Japanese empire, the USSR, North Korea, the Nazis, China under Mao..... just a few

Let's see if this is easy enough to follow:

In capitalism, those with capital own the labor because they purchase said labor, and they do it at wholesale prices, and pretty darn low at that. They have capital. They own everything. Including the government.

Socialism is the opposite of that.
Because math.

Hope this clarifies things.

A good welder or electrician can get a job anywhere. A skilled computer programmer can make crazy bank. All "labor" is not valued the same in the US because of suppy and demand, capitalism. In Cuba, a cab driver can make more money than a doctor. Your "math" does not add up. Modda, you live in a world that does not exist.

Oh, yeah, about Cuba. Their power grid is almost kaput along with their infrastructure.

So what I said then?

A welder or electrician can be found in any Home Depot parking lot. That'll cost less than one found in the Yellow Pages.

Same with computer programmers, citizens being displaced by foreigners with H-1B visas, something Trump would like to expand.

Labor does not have intrinsic value. Its worth is determined by what those with capital wish to pay for it. Market forces can be affected by what the government facilitates.

What government can't change is the definition of socialism, no matter how many executive orders might be lobbed at it.

I'm trying to find folks to work on my house. It is difficult to find someone who is available, competent, and honest. Not sure what you mean, "Labor does not have intrinsic value." Supply and demand determine the value. That is why women's studies majors are underemployed, and building projects are delayed because of a lack of skilled workers.

Shucks, should have hired them before ICE raided the Home Depot.
Oh, wait, wrong country.

When an electrician tells his grandmother not to worry, that he'll fix the kitchen light for her, chances are that it's probably for free, and thus a tad bit less than it would be for a customer.

Labor has no intrinsic value. Because math.

What is anything worth? The amount someone is willing to pay for it. Does anything have an inherent intrinsic value? If I'm dying of thirst, gold is useless; water is priceless.

Good, you're catching on.

Is this going somewhere other than you basically agreeing with me over the course of various comments under the guise of doing otherwise because contrarian because partisan?

We are fighting about language? "Intrinsic value" is a nonsense word. Out of context, it means nothing. Address the original meme. In the US I own my own labor. In North Korea, Kim owns everyone's labor.

Why are you promoting socialism?

Why are you promoting socialism?

The state belongs to the laborers. . .kind of like how the government belongs to We The People. . .except a lot of people in government don't see it that way because they act like We The People belongs to the government. And do you think that can't happen in your brand of socialism?
. . .
. .
.
Sure in the Engel's model of socialism that is true. But the Henri de Saint Simon OG model of socialism isn't like that now is it. Ever wonder why influential people push the Engel mode instead of the Simon model which predate both Engel and Marx by about forty fifty years? Here's a hint - Simon actually cared about the worker because he saw them all as the same regardless of ditch digger or CEO and there was no frickin' class division. Simon's beef with people were with a government(or in France's case, the Crown) that did nothing but looked down on workers regardless of ditch digger or business owner and healthy people that refused to work and he straight up called those people parasites.

Heck, the Simon model can work but there's no way later versions of socialists and communists would ever permit that because what Simon called socialism is what we today call CAPITALISM! But how can that be? Here's the thing. The word capitalism did not exist until about 1872. Also the word socialism did not exist until Simon created and defined it. That original definition has NOTHING to do with what later people like Engel and Marx claimed the word meant.

If it wasn't for Simon, then later people would never know who Marx and Engels were because those two had to rip off and twist an existing economic model which just happed to be Simon socialism.

I stopped reading when you said your brand of socialism.

That's your brand socialism. You claim to live in rural Pennsylvania. Rural Pennsylvania does not exist except for so-called socialism (actually social welfare. I assure you, the rest of us who are supplementing yous have no say in the matter). Your brand of socialism.