The difference is that I've been clear.
You just don't understand my argument,
nor even your own.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
You just don't understand my argument,
nor even your own.
Oh I understand your argument all too well. I've heard it far better expressed by people actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to those who have been duped by McCarthyites and Birchers. In fact, if I wanted to, *I* could argue better for the capitalist side than you have done.
If it does not allow private ownership of enterprise, it is not a mixed economy. How are Socialist economies mixed?
No, if you did, you'd display comprehension.
I did display comprehension. You just didn't comprehend.
You imagined doing so.
You're talking about your own imagination, not mine. I know what I wrote, and I know what you wrote. I've comprehended every argument you've made, from beginning to end, and I refuted each and every one of them. That's usually when you bail from the discussion, then a while later, you pretend like you never read it and claim that all your arguments are being "ignored." Or else you just handwave any argument you find inconvenient as "irrelevant," as if you have some God-given right to make such declarations. I can see through you and your bad faith tactics, and I understand quite well. You're not as clever as you apparently imagine yourself to be.
One who comprehended, & wanted to mount an argument
that socialism is better than capitalism at delivering liberty
& prosperity would use outcome based evidence. Your
posts don't have that.
That's not what I was arguing. The only argument I've made is that socialism improves the situation in countries over what they had before socialism. I've provided ample evidence to support that argument. You keep wanting to change the argument to something else of your own imagining, but that was the never the argument.
And even that irrelevant counter failed due to
the lack of a before-vs-after comparison for
various countries.
Moreover, it ignored improvements in the
ones that reverted to capitalism.
How would you know? What makes you believe that you're capable of making these judgments in the first place? I notice that you never bothered to answer most of the arguments I've made and just declare them to be irrelevant. It would be better if you just admitted that you didn't understand, or that the subject matter is out of your league, rather than going on playing these games as you do. Doesn't all this meaningless posturing get tiresome?
Examining the records of each for the consequences of choices.
You should try it.
I have. Maybe you should try relaxing a bit. After all, no one is in any danger of a socialist revolution happening anytime soon, so what are you really worried about? This "Red Scare" stuff you keep pushing is out of the 1950s.
Meanwhile, capitalism is happening right now, here in the USA, and that relates to the original topic that started this thread, about poverty in America and what causes it. That's what this topic is actually about - on possible remedies for what ails the United States at present.
You're the one who keeps reciting the same refrain and bringing us back to the bad old days of the USSR, PRC, NK, etc,, as if that's all you need to say to win the argument.
But in any case, in a discussion about the economic and political system of the United States, you and perhaps one or two others can always be counted on to rail against socialism and the USSR, PRC, NK, etc. At that point, the discussion shifts away from the United States currently and more on the implied claim that socialism, if implemented here, would bring about the same grisly and atrocious events and level of misery as what happened in those other countries. This is the claim that I challenge, and in order to challenge it, I feel it's necessary to look at the events of what happened in those other countries and compare it with what happened in the United States from 1776 to the present. The historical circumstances faced by those other countries were vastly different than what the U.S. is facing now - or what it has faced in living memory. Therefore, the factors which may have caused failures in the systems in those countries are not present in the U.S.
So, I submit that your claim that, if socialism were implemented in the United States it would lead to failure, is not well-founded, and only based on highly speculative and circumstantial evidence.
If the type of Socialism you speak of were implemented in the United States,
*Who funds the initial expense of starting the business?
*Who decides who gets hired?
*Who makes the decisions on how the business is run?
*Who gets left unpaid when the company does not make a profit?
Please be as specific as possible.
I should point out that the type of socialism I advocate is one that would be implemented slowly, incrementally, democratically, and peacefully, not the violent revolutions and post-revolutionary chaos and bloodlust which characterized previous regimes. I would really prefer that people simply vote for socialist candidates with socialist ideals, so that such a system could be implemented peacefully and democratically. However, I recognize that the chances of that happening are nil. I also don't think there's any chance of a socialist revolution happening in the U.S. I seriously doubt that any major upheaval will befall us anytime soon, although if anything, it would more likely come from the right-wing than anyone on the left.
As for your questions:
"Who funds the initial expense of starting the business?"
I imagine it could come from any number of possible sources - private or public. I suppose it would depend on the type of business. I never said I wanted to eliminate capitalism entirely, although my general philosophy is that when it comes to the basic human necessities, it should be socialism, and capitalism can be for luxuries and fluff.
"Who decides who gets hired?"
Well, as with any organization, private or public, there's usually some sort of HR department or personnel director to handle those things.
"Who makes the decisions on how the business is run?"
It may not be a matter of who as much as how. One aspect of socialism which has been often criticized is that process of centralization which took place. When they said "all power to the Soviets," it originally meant to give power to the local councils which had formed up in local jurisdictions around the country. They weren't supposed to have centralized power as it later became.
So, as far as who makes the decisions on how the business is run, it should be someone local to where the business operates.
As a socialist, I would advocate for universal basic income, at least for the basic necessities of life.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I get more and more the impression that you are not a socialist.
If we'd stop using unclear labels, I think we would agree on more things than we disagree.
E.g.: UBI. That is something you and @Revoltingest can agree upon.
E.g.: "Money is speech, corporations are people." My guess is that @Revoltingest would agree that that is nonsense.
E.g.: Taxation of income from capital. (@Revoltingest has a conflict of interest here but if he could stop thinking about himself even he could agree.)
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You haven't. None of your questions pertain to anything I was explaining - and they obviously aren't specific to me and what I was saying because you asked the exact same set of questions to other posters.
Where on earth have you heard to me talk about business management? And do you understand that managing a business and owning a business are two different things?
PureX
Veteran Member
I assume you are looking for some sort of socialist model, here.
The owner/investors do. These can be a private individual or a whole public community.
That depends on who the investors are, and what the business is. But they wouldn't necessarily be "hiring" someone so much as they would be looking for partners to oprate the business enterprise.
Ideally, everyone involved in running the business, with some input from the community being served by it.
Everyone. When the business fails, it fails. Until it fails everyone involved will see the books and decide who gets paid how much.
Socialism is an ideaology, not a specific process. The specifics of process would be tailored to the specific business enterprise in question.
Other than expressing skepticism,
I've nothing to add.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I already said why they all fail in my opinion. They are made of flawed humans who are enforcing or sustaining them.