Capitalism and Socialism; money and power.

[wellwisher]

Here is an interesting topic political topic that has not been explored. In Western culture, as well as all cultures to some degree, money and power rule. If you have money you can rent power and if you have power you can leverage money. Capitalism and Socialism are two possible path for dealing with the money side. However, these two paths have not been fully addressed, when it comes to dealing with the power side.

Socialism, in terms money and business, will tax and redistributed money to make it fair to all the citizens. If we apply this same schema to power, then Socialism would also tax power and redistribute power to the people. For example, if the corporate tax rate is 30%, then corporation will need to give 30% of their wealth to the common good. If we apply to this tax schema to power at the highest levels, then Congress, for example, would have only 70% vote left and the remaining 30% of their vote should be redistributed to the citizens; redistribution of power and money at the same rates.

Currently power is capitalist, even in socialist countries. Has anyone ever noticed that? Gaining and growing power is often driven based on free market forces; buying and selling via campaign contributions, quid pro quo, and mass marketing to gain market share. However, there is no tax on power in a socialist sense. In the corporate world all this hard work is taxed. But power is not taken away at the same rate, and given to the people; away from all those greedy power mongers. Capitalist Power is why many socialist experiments fail. Those in power will create monopoly control of power, and are not willing to share any power with the people; no tax on power.

In the USA there are three branches of government. They are like three large corporations with competition between them, for checks and balances. This is power capitalism. This requires each do their best in the competitive world, to prevent monopoly in their power industry. But there is no tax on these three power corporations, that directly cycles back to the people, as a way to redistribute this cartel power. They will fortify power as a cartel monopoly, so as to not share any power, like the Democrat corona bill passage.

The citizens should get the fruits of the same tax on power as the corporate tax rate; votes on key issues. Why does socialism not address power the same way they do money? Capitalism is more consistent in terms of accepting capitalism in both power and money.

This is useful to ponder. Computers and internet make a power tax and redistribution more viable then ever.

 

[Colt]

Socialism actually taxes liberty. Socialism often forces the responsible to subsidize the improvident. The responsible don't agree with your claim that Socialism is necessarily "fair" or wise.


"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." ~Alexis de Tocqueville

But to your point, maybe the people who are forced by the jack boots of the IRS to pay other people bills for them should have 2 votes instead of 1?

 

[Audie]

Power is worse than useless in the hands
of people who are ignorant of issues, means,
all of those things...we all know people
who are totally unsuitable to be involved
in any part of ab executive role.

I've been in enough meetings with no clear
leadership, a group like that can't decide on the
colour of the pencil sharpener.
When people vote, they exercise power,
and look at the people they elect.
The citizenry won't even keep track
of what the school board is doing.

FYI, corporations are good at notching
taxes with price increases. Cant
always do that, but the tax always
ends up on the citizenry. (See also
loss of value to retirement investments
or jobs that never materialized)

Corporations seek to grow. New ones have to.
New factory (see "jobs'), new apartments
(See "housing") etc.
Go ahead and tax them completely
out of the ability to grow and innovate.
Tax some more, shrink them!
Confiscate all of it, run them like
Castro ran the hotels in Havana.

Or maybe just slow growth by a third.

Who is that going to help?

Corporatiins dont sit on sacks of money.
They put it to work, ( see employment)

99 % of such wealth as I have is
out there working!
Control it is all I do.

Some popular vote will make
better decisions where it should go?

 

[Stevicus]

Here is an interesting topic political topic that has not been explored. In Western culture, as well as all cultures to some degree, money and power rule. If you have money you can rent power and if you have power you can leverage money. Capitalism and Socialism are two possible path for dealing with the money side. However, these two paths have not been fully addressed, when it comes to dealing with the power side.

Socialism, in terms money and business, will tax and redistributed money to make it fair to all the citizens. If we apply this same schema to power, then Socialism would also tax power and redistribute power to the people. For example, if the corporate tax rate is 30%, then corporation will need to give 30% of their wealth to the common good. If we apply to this tax schema to power at the highest levels, then Congress, for example, would have only 70% vote left and the remaining 30% of their vote should be redistributed to the citizens; redistribution of power and money at the same rates.

Currently power is capitalist, even in socialist countries. Has anyone ever noticed that? Gaining and growing power is often driven based on free market forces; buying and selling via campaign contributions, quid pro quo, and mass marketing to gain market share. However, there is no tax on power in a socialist sense. In the corporate world all this hard work is taxed. But power is not taken away at the same rate, and given to the people; away from all those greedy power mongers. Capitalist Power is why many socialist experiments fail. Those in power will create monopoly control of power, and are not willing to share any power with the people; no tax on power.

In the USA there are three branches of government. They are like three large corporations with competition between them, for checks and balances. This is power capitalism. This requires each do their best in the competitive world, to prevent monopoly in their power industry. But there is no tax on these three power corporations, that directly cycles back to the people, as a way to redistribute this cartel power. They will fortify power as a cartel monopoly, so as to not share any power, like the Democrat corona bill passage.

The citizens should get the fruits of the same tax on power as the corporate tax rate; votes on key issues. Why does socialism not address power the same way they do money? Capitalism is more consistent in terms of accepting capitalism in both power and money.

This is useful to ponder. Computers and internet make a power tax and redistribution more viable then ever.

Some might argue that money is power, or at least a form of power. There's also power in words and rhetoric, although the more money one has, the more likely one's words will be disseminated more widely. Then there's power in faith, which is why religion can become rather powerful in some people's eyes (but that can also turn into a money game). There's also the obvious, primitive power of brute force, which is the expected last resort if all other attempts at power fail.

Regarding that last form of power, money is also key to acquiring more of it, as armies, weapons, and equipment all come with a hefty price tag.

I do agree with the point that political power of the government should be shared more equitably. We fancy ourselves as a democratic-republic, or as Lincoln put it "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." That being the case, I see no reason we shouldn't try to widen our democracy to include electing members of the Cabinet, Supreme Court, and other key government posts. They should not be appointed positions; they should be popularly elected. I also think there should be national-level ballot propositions, just as many states have. If we can elect our county sheriffs, then there should be no problem with making the directors of the CIA, FBI, and NSA electable posts as well.

As the saying goes, "Power to the People!" Or at least, power should be shared with the people as much as possible. In the past, those on the left used to support such notions, although I agree that one doesn't hear as much about it as much as we did when the aforementioned slogan was more prevalent and believed in. Somewhere along the line, the left-wing lost its way.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Here is an interesting topic political topic that has not been explored. In Western culture, as well as all cultures to some degree, money and power rule. If you have money you can rent power and if you have power you can leverage money. Capitalism and Socialism are two possible path for dealing with the money side. However, these two paths have not been fully addressed, when it comes to dealing with the power side.

Socialism, in terms money and business, will tax and redistributed money to make it fair to all the citizens. If we apply this same schema to power, then Socialism would also tax power and redistribute power to the people. For example, if the corporate tax rate is 30%, then corporation will need to give 30% of their wealth to the common good. If we apply to this tax schema to power at the highest levels, then Congress, for example, would have only 70% vote left and the remaining 30% of their vote should be redistributed to the citizens; redistribution of power and money at the same rates.

Currently power is capitalist, even in socialist countries. Has anyone ever noticed that? Gaining and growing power is often driven based on free market forces; buying and selling via campaign contributions, quid pro quo, and mass marketing to gain market share. However, there is no tax on power in a socialist sense. In the corporate world all this hard work is taxed. But power is not taken away at the same rate, and given to the people; away from all those greedy power mongers. Capitalist Power is why many socialist experiments fail. Those in power will create monopoly control of power, and are not willing to share any power with the people; no tax on power.

In the USA there are three branches of government. They are like three large corporations with competition between them, for checks and balances. This is power capitalism. This requires each do their best in the competitive world, to prevent monopoly in their power industry. But there is no tax on these three power corporations, that directly cycles back to the people, as a way to redistribute this cartel power. They will fortify power as a cartel monopoly, so as to not share any power, like the Democrat corona bill passage.

The citizens should get the fruits of the same tax on power as the corporate tax rate; votes on key issues. Why does socialism not address power the same way they do money? Capitalism is more consistent in terms of accepting capitalism in both power and money.

This is useful to ponder. Computers and internet make a power tax and redistribution more viable then ever.

It does not sound like you are talking about actual socialism, defined as a system in which the means of production are owned by the people and/or government.

What you are talking about is just regulated capitalism, so of course money is always going to have a corrosive effect on society because in that system money does translate into power.

 

[Audie]

It does not sound like you are talking about actual socialism, defined as a system in which the means of production are owned by the people and/or government.

What you are talking about is just regulated capitalism, so of course money is always going to have a corrosive effect on society because in that system money does translate into power.

Only corrosive?

 

[Nakosis]

Here is an interesting topic political topic that has not been explored. In Western culture, as well as all cultures to some degree, money and power rule. If you have money you can rent power and if you have power you can leverage money. Capitalism and Socialism are two possible path for dealing with the money side. However, these two paths have not been fully addressed, when it comes to dealing with the power side.

Socialism, in terms money and business, will tax and redistributed money to make it fair to all the citizens. If we apply this same schema to power, then Socialism would also tax power and redistribute power to the people. For example, if the corporate tax rate is 30%, then corporation will need to give 30% of their wealth to the common good. If we apply to this tax schema to power at the highest levels, then Congress, for example, would have only 70% vote left and the remaining 30% of their vote should be redistributed to the citizens; redistribution of power and money at the same rates.

Currently power is capitalist, even in socialist countries. Has anyone ever noticed that? Gaining and growing power is often driven based on free market forces; buying and selling via campaign contributions, quid pro quo, and mass marketing to gain market share. However, there is no tax on power in a socialist sense. In the corporate world all this hard work is taxed. But power is not taken away at the same rate, and given to the people; away from all those greedy power mongers. Capitalist Power is why many socialist experiments fail. Those in power will create monopoly control of power, and are not willing to share any power with the people; no tax on power.

In the USA there are three branches of government. They are like three large corporations with competition between them, for checks and balances. This is power capitalism. This requires each do their best in the competitive world, to prevent monopoly in their power industry. But there is no tax on these three power corporations, that directly cycles back to the people, as a way to redistribute this cartel power. They will fortify power as a cartel monopoly, so as to not share any power, like the Democrat corona bill passage.

The citizens should get the fruits of the same tax on power as the corporate tax rate; votes on key issues. Why does socialism not address power the same way they do money? Capitalism is more consistent in terms of accepting capitalism in both power and money.

This is useful to ponder. Computers and internet make a power tax and redistribution more viable then ever.

I think maybe you are conflating capitalism and socialism with fascism and libertarianism.

Power held by the few is fascism. Power shared by the many is libertarianism.

Socialism can fall in the spectrum of fascism or libertarianism. Same for capitalism.

Generally with fascism, folks start trading liberties for security.
With libertarianism, folks give up security for liberty.

Folks seeking security and socialism usually end up with a fascist version of it. Folks seeking liberty and socialism end up with a more libertarian version.

 

[sun rise]

It does not sound like you are talking about actual socialism, defined as a system in which the means of production are owned by the people and/or government.

What you are talking about is just regulated capitalism, so of course money is always going to have a corrosive effect on society because in that system money does translate into power.

Yes: "pure" socialism has the means of production owned either by the government at which point it often becomes state capitalism or by the workers in the business.

Social democracy is often called "socialism" by those who are focused on themselves alone and don't care about others or those who worship money (and greed).

We see the extreme today of those who believe that they can do whatever selfish urge comes into their minds and who reject government in all its forms: "sovereign citizen"

But to try, probably to not avail, to respond to the OP, there is a tight bond between money and the power that flows from money. We see it in the use of money to buy votes (indirectly) here in CA when it comes to propositions. Uncounted vast sums of money are deployed through shell organizations with high sounding names to in effect buy an outcome through spreading fear and lies.

In the minds of some, tax cuts for the rich, socialism for the rich and major corporations and farms is just hunky-dory but heaven forbid that a few pennies get spent on those on the bottom. And it's perfectly OK to manipulate everything so the super rich get even richer as long as you slap "capitalism is good/Godly" on it first.

 

[sun rise]

I think maybe you are conflating capitalism and socialism with fascism and libertarianism.

Power held by the few is fascism. Power shared by the many is libertarianism.

Socialism can fall in the spectrum of fascism or libertarianism. Same for capitalism.

Generally with fascism, folks start trading liberties for security.
With libertarianism, folks give up security for liberty.

Folks seeking security and socialism usually end up with a fascist version of it. Folks seeking liberty and socialism end up with a more libertarian version.

Great point.

Some people refuse to believe that there are libertarian socialists and deploy a "no true Scotsman" argument against that idea Libertarian socialism

 

[Regiomontanus]

Only corrosive?

Always. Good can be done with it too, obviously, in a system where everything is commodified.

 

[metis]

Currently power is capitalist, even in socialist countries. Has anyone ever noticed that? Gaining and growing power is often driven based on free market forces; buying and selling via campaign contributions, quid pro quo, and mass marketing to gain market share. However, there is no tax on power in a socialist sense. In the corporate world all this hard work is taxed. But power is not taken away at the same rate, and given to the people; away from all those greedy power mongers. Capitalist Power is why many socialist experiments fail. Those in power will create monopoly control of power, and are not willing to share any power with the people; no tax on power.

All countries today are what we call "mixed economies", thus mixtures of capitalistic and socialistic programs. The scenario in your OP no longer exists.

 

[PureX]

We should probably clear up a few misconceptions, here.

Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a system of governance. If capitalism were a system of governance, the natural expression of it's ideology would be oligarchy. And as capitalism dominates any society's commerce, that society's government inevitably becomes an oligarchy. The U.S. is an excellent contemporary example of this.

Socialism, on the other hand, is primarily a form of governance that may then be applied to commercial enterprise, if we so choose. But it encompasses a very broad spectrum of methodologies to determine and attain it's social goals. Some of which could be reasonably applied to commercial enterprise, and some of which could not.

Also, regarding wealth and power: I think the determining factor is commercial specialization. The more the members of any society have to engage in commerce to gain what they need to survive and thrive, the more empowered those who control the flow of wealth in that economy become, as they may and often do literally control life and death.

 

[Audie]

We should probably clear up a few misconceptions, here.

Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a system of governance. If capitalism were a system of governance, the natural expression of it's ideology would be oligarchy. And as capitalism dominates any society's commerce, that society's government inevitably becomes an oligarchy. The U.S. is an excellent contemporary example of this.

Socialism, on the other hand, is primarily a form of governance that may then be applied to commercial enterprise, if we so choose. But it encompasses a very broad spectrum of methodologies to determine and attain it's social goals. Some of which could be reasonably applied to commercial enterprise, and some of which could not.

Also, regarding wealth and power: I think the determining factor is commercial specialization. The more the members of any society have to engage in commerce to gain what they need to survive and thrive, the more empowered those who control the flow of wealth in that economy become, as they may and often do literally control life and death.

Good post

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism, in terms money and business, will tax and redistributed money to make it fair to all the citizens.

Socialism: "The people" own the means of production.
In practice, this means representatives, ie, the government
own it. How does government tax itself?

Redistribution isn't inherent in socialism. This is a feature
applicable under either socialist or capitalist systems.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think maybe you are conflating capitalism and socialism with fascism and libertarianism.

Power held by the few is fascism. Power shared by the many is libertarianism.

Socialism can fall in the spectrum of fascism or libertarianism. Same for capitalism.

Generally with fascism, folks start trading liberties for security.
With libertarianism, folks give up security for liberty.

Folks seeking security and socialism usually end up with a fascist version of it. Folks seeking liberty and socialism end up with a more libertarian version.

Just as a note, fascism is specifically a right wing government philosophy.

Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum.[4][5] Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing opposing egalitarianism.[53][54]

Fascism

Totalitarianism is the word I would use for maximal power placed in smallest of hands, and also crosses the left right spectrum.

Libertarianism is also across left-right spectrum but the most extreme opposite of fascism on the compass is anarcho-communism which is both socialist and extremely libertarian.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...fascism is specifically a right wing government philosophy...

That was the belief system that came from Stalin after Hitler invaded Russia. Prior to the invasion National Socialism was a leftist worker's paradise --in fact fifth column French communists had subverted the established government and aided Hitlers invasion there.

Faux posturing aside, there's no way we can seriously say that national socialism is anything but a leftist power grab.

 

[metis]

Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a system of governance.

True, but only with laissez-faire capitalism, which no country has today.

The U.S. is an excellent contemporary example of this.

Not really, as ours is a "mixed-economy".

Socialism, on the other hand, is primarily a form of governance that may then be applied to commercial enterprise, if we so choose.

"Governance" becomes part of that process, and all countries today have this as an integral factor.

But it encompasses a very broad spectrum of methodologies to determine and attain it's social goals.

True.

The more the members of any society have to engage in commerce to gain what they need to survive and thrive, the more empowered those who control the flow of wealth in that economy become, as they may and often do literally control life and death.

Depends on how it's set up. For example, Neo-Marxism is set up very differently than conventional Marxism, with the former being bottoms up and the latter being top down. Sorta sounds like a porn movie, eh?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That was the belief system that came from Stalin after Hitler invaded Russia. Prior to the invasion National Socialism was a leftist worker's paradise --in fact fifth column French communists had subverted the established government and aided Hitlers invasion there.

Faux posturing aside, there's no way we can seriously say that national socialism is anything but a leftist power grab.

Those Frenchman aided Hitler because of dissatisfaction with the French socialist leader Blum. They knew that despite empty platitudes to working class, Nazi were no more socialist than North Korea are democratic. Both were out to use racially exclusionary language to set up nationalist traditionalists, and preserving private property of the favored race to do so.
During Hitler's political ride to power the most fervent opposition was German communists and the German socialist party. The NSDAP working with the GSP even caused Hitler to leave the party until the NSDAP supplanted it.
Hitler was anti union and refused to cap or redistribute German wealth away from aristocrats and industrialists, which led to a split in the party where his former retinue said that there was nothing socialist about national socialism. The emphasis was squarely on nationalism. But really, facism, which is right wing nationalistic authoritarianism.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...nothing socialist about national socialism. The emphasis was squarely on nationalism. But really, facism, which is right wing nationalistic authoritarianism.

The fact that there were many different inter-squabbling socialist factions can't hide the fact they did all call themselves well, socialist. Whether someone else wants to sniff & say they weren't true socialists leaves us w/ saying they were ok, the bad socialists.

fwiw, (& I'm not sure if it makes any difference) Fascism was Italian. The big mantra of both National Socialism and Fascism was that they were not capitalist, they were not Communist, they were the third way between the two. Bottom line it's still hard to somehow say they were conservative right wingers. Lots of folks, even today, call themselves the "third way" between capitalism & communism --and they're no way around it left of center.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The fact that there were many different inter-squabbling socialist factions can't hide the fact they did all call themselves well, socialist. Whether someone else wants to sniff & say they weren't true socialists leaves us w/ saying they were ok, the bad socialists.

fwiw, (& I'm not sure if it makes any difference) Fascism was Italian. The big mantra of both National Socialism and Fascism was that they were not capitalist, they were not Communist, they were the third way between the two. Bottom line it's still hard to somehow say they were conservative right wingers. Lots of folks, even today, call themselves the "third way" between capitalism & communism --and they're no way around it left of center.

Again though, NK propagandists will call themselves democratic. Should we call them such just because they claim to be them, when it doesn't fit any reasonable description of the political theory or underlying philosophy? Certainly many people are quick to remind that many Scandamavisns are after all not real socialists, even when plenty of then call themselves such. Though with the frequency of times things which just general centrist policy globally is called socialist I can scarcely fault some heavy sighing at colloquial use of the term.

In any case, I do not view political theory as just a left right spectrum but the oft referred to quadrant system, with an x and y axis, with many ways. Communism is a lot more diverse than capitalism, existing in three of the four if not all four quadrants, being that it's not just an economic but also philosophical and social framework. But there's also a lot in the y axis that isn't about either capitalism or communism.