Is It Ethical To Use Amazon?

[The Kilted Heathen]

Socialism (ie, eliminating capitalism) has a history. Every country that tried it became authoritarian & economically feckless. But capitalism has exemplar countries where both economic success & liberty flourish.

1. Socialism is not "the elimination of Capitalism".
2. You need to recognize what has happened to those countries (outlined many times throughout) for there to be productive discussion on this.
3. Is that why we're ranked #20th behind many nations that have strong socialist implementations as well as regulated capitalism? Is that why we don't even make the top 10 of most free countries, again beaten out by countries using the Nordic Model? Is that why we have the highest rates of incarceration per capita out of the entire world - the prison system itself being an implementation of capitalism?

Sometimes it seems like socialists view business owners like cartoon super villains, stroking their cat in their swivel chair while plotting how best to torture their victims.

I don't give them that much credit; I think most CEO's are simply selfish morons completely out of touch with their workforce. They have no concept of daily life below a certain dollar figure, and think pizza parties and "Casual Friday" are the ticket to uplifting their stretched-thin and frustrated employees. Obviously not all, but enough to where the ones who want to make their community better are rare, far and few between, and the exception to power.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have no idea whether the Democratic Socialists of America is a socialist organization. Really? Are you American?

No.

DSA Political Platform - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Eh. At a cursory glance they seem to be a bit LARP-y.

So socialists favor nationalization of industry, but nationalization of industry isn't socialist? Okay?

Do I really have to explain this to you again?

Nationalization ALONE does not mean the same thing as socialism.

Socialism is the SOCIAL or COMMUNAL control of the means of production.

This means that nationalization CAN be a tool of socialism, since democratically elected governments CAN represent the will of the people and therefore also represent a degree of SOCIAL control.

BUT

That does not mean that ANY government taking control of the means of production is socialism. For example, if I were a military dictator who nationalized all industries and used them to personally enrich myself, I am NOT doing "socialism".

Therefore, nationalization ALONE is NOT SOCIALISM.

What difficulty are you having understanding this? I've explained it very clearly multiple times.

Again, when you advocate something as a function of your ideology, it's reasonable for people to pair that policy with your ideology. That's not Nazis adopting puppies or drinking orange juice. It's a direct policy outcome of the ideology.

Since I have had to explain to you the basic principles of socialism multiple times and you still have yet to grasp them, I feel like this claim is just an argument from ignorance.

Then please dispense with this whole line of reasoning that I'm just arbitrarily calling things socialist that aren't. That is very obviously not what's happening here.

I never said you were calling things socialist "arbitrarily". I said that you are calling things socialist because they either CLAIM to be socialist or because you have been wrongly informed that they are socialist.

Yes, I would. Much like libertarianism and socialism, pacifism is an ideal with utopian intent that does not actually work out in practice.

Then you entire argument is just obtuse nonsense. You cannot possibly claim anything about any position if you hold the standards of a position to those who don't actually practice it. It is literally just team sports to you. Anybody can call themselves anything, and from that point on whatever it is they CLAIM they are can be blamed for the failings of whatever it is that they do.

It is not a failing of the PRINCIPLES when people DON'T ENACT THEM.

If you're a member of a socialist party that advocates for socialist ideology and policy....yeah, you're a card carrying socialist, by any reasonable account.

I've thoroughly explained that socialism is not a boy's club. It's a political philosophy.

And as we've now covered, government control of industry is not some arbitrary indicator of socialism. It is a directly promoted policy choice that derives from socialist ideology.

I am tired of explaining this and will not be explaining it to you again.

You literally just got done saying that socialism is the ideology of public control of the means of production. How that actually plays out, outside of socialist heads, is that government institutions run by socialists take control of those means. Show me a national example of socialism where that hasn't been the case.

I am tired of explaining this and will not be explaining it to you again.

Okay. I'm an idiot who knows nothing about this topic. If that's the case...no need to reply further to me then. Have a nice day.

There's plenty of reason to explain to people why they are wrong about socialism. Learning is important. But there's no point trying to have a discussion or debate with someone who abjectly refuses the understand the topic they are discussing.

 

[Revoltingest]

1. Socialism is not "the elimination of Capitalism".

If, as defined, socialism is "the people" owning
the means of production, as opposed to allowing
private ownership, then capitalism is scuppered.

2. You need to recognize what has happened to those countries (outlined many times throughout) for there to be productive discussion on this.

I do recognize what happened in every socialist
(ie, non-capitalist) country...they became very
authoritarian & economically weak.
This is without exception

3. Is that why we're ranked #20th behind many nations that have strong socialist implementations as well as regulated capitalism?

We have regulated capitalism too.
Were you in business here, you'd see the
tremendous micro-regulation we endure.
Most of the time socialists call for more
regulation, it's to confiscate wealth that
they find too much for one person.
The politics of envy & greed, eh.

The issue shouldn't be capitalism vs socialism.
But rather how we spend the tax money taken
from us. That's the best way known to
finance the social programs socialists want.
Alas....they're blinded by hatred of capitalism.

Is that why we don't even make the top 10 of most free countries, again beaten out by countries using the Nordic Model? Is that why we have the highest rates of incarceration per capita out of the entire world - the prison system itself being an implementation of capitalism?

The Nordic Model has capitalism.

I don't give them that much credit; I think most CEO's are simply selfish morons completely out of touch with their workforce. They have no concept of daily life below a certain dollar figure, and think pizza parties and "Casual Friday" are the ticket to uplifting their stretched-thin and frustrated employees. Obviously not all, but enough to where the ones who want to make their community better are rare, far and few between, and the exception to power.

Compare it to treatment of citizens in socialist
countries, eg, N Korea, Cuba. Or historically
socialist countries, eg, USSR, PRC.

Many countries have strict border security.
But in socialist countries, it's to keep people
in the country. That empirical observation
should tell you much about quality of life there.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If, as defined, socialism is "the people" owning the means of production, as opposed to allowing private ownership, then capitalism is scuppered.

Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

That does not "scupper" Capitalism. That takes total and unfettered control from capitalists to where they are unable to exploit their workers, but it does not abolish private ownership like the caricature that is so prone to being employed.

I do recognize what happened in every socialist (ie, non-capitalist) country...

No, you do not. Because you persist - despite clear and given evidence to the contrary - in the opinion that the countries you identify as "Socialist" (even if they are not) became authoritarian all on their own, flatly ignoring the outside influence and actions of capitalism; e.g. the private army of the United Fruit Company overthrowing socialist economies to protect their profits.

We have regulated capitalism too. Were you in business here,

Barely, and daily that is under threat from corporate interests. Stop acting like I've never held a job before, Rev, I'm not a new buck to the world of labor and business and I see (and feel) very clearly what is going on in America. Which includes more than is in reports and statistics, and we are very clearly not doing fine. We have regulation, yes. How many of those are actually followed by the people they are meant to regulate?

Most of the time socialists call for more regulation, it's to confiscate wealth that they find too much for one person. The politics of envy & greed, eh.

Speaking of envy and greed, I would like for you to explain to me why Jeff Bezos needs $148.1 billion. Why does Elon Musk need $153 billion? Do you understand that is more money than anyone can rationally spend in their entire lifetime? Why should that money, taken from the labor of others, not go toward the people who actually worked for it? People who are rubbing two pennies together for warmth while their CEO goes on his fifth vacation to Aruba?

The issue shouldn't be capitalism vs socialism. But rather how we spend the tax money taken from us.

Can you understand that has always been a part of it? You like to caricature us as cartoonishly "blinded by hatred of capitalism" so much so that we don't have a clue what we're living in daily, yet it frustratingly seems as though you are not actually listening to what is being said, waving it away as excuses or emotional outbursts because a small minority are obscenely rich.

The Nordic Model has capitalism.

And it is strictly regulated to where the capitalists of those nations do not have a chokehold on the economy and the work force. The working class has more rights and a measurably better living condition than we do.

Many countries have strict border security. But in socialist countries, it's to keep people in the country. That empirical observation should tell you much about quality of life there.

And how's our quality of life? First, you need to provide some evidence for this practice in "socialist countries", but let's take a look at the Good and Free USA. I want to go to Mexico for a vacation. Well, I need a passport, so that's $160 right there. $200 after the "execution fee". I'll have to travel; that's an additional $500 at minimum if I'm flying, $670 if driving (and that's if the capitalists are kind and gas stays at the same price). Booking a hotel is an average of $40 a night, depending on what's available, and what's a trip without a good weekend? $120 for lodging. Figure in $500 for food and leisure, and the trip's going to be a grand total of $1,480 - $1,650.

Well after bills, groceries and rent I have somewhere around $70 on a good month. Oh, and I have to have the time off available, because here in America we're not afforded or guaranteed leave. We have to earn time off, and then it has to be approved by management. And we're made to feel guilty about it all the while.

America keeps our people in country, just in a more invisible way. And with the cost of basic foods exploding (eggs +59%, milk +12%, bread +15%) it is not getting any better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

I don't see a source for this definition.
But capitalism always involves regulation, yet it is still
"capitalism". So your definition appears overly broad.
I've nothing to add.

Oh, one thing to add....
Socialists should stop applying the double standard:
They view socialism as embodying their highest ideals,
but not how it's actually practiced in the real world.
But they view capitalism by the worst they see in it,
but give no credit when it turns out well.

 

[Left Coast]

No.


Eh. At a cursory glance they seem to be a bit LARP-y.


Do I really have to explain this to you again?

Nationalization ALONE does not mean the same thing as socialism.

Socialism is the SOCIAL or COMMUNAL control of the means of production.

This means that nationalization CAN be a tool of socialism, since democratically elected governments CAN represent the will of the people and therefore also represent a degree of SOCIAL control.

BUT

That does not mean that ANY government taking control of the means of production is socialism. For example, if I were a military dictator who nationalized all industries and used them to personally enrich myself, I am NOT doing "socialism".

Therefore, nationalization ALONE is NOT SOCIALISM.

What difficulty are you having understanding this? I've explained it very clearly multiple times.


Since I have had to explain to you the basic principles of socialism multiple times and you still have yet to grasp them, I feel like this claim is just an argument from ignorance.


I never said you were calling things socialist "arbitrarily". I said that you are calling things socialist because they either CLAIM to be socialist or because you have been wrongly informed that they are socialist.

Then you entire argument is just obtuse nonsense. You cannot possibly claim anything about any position if you hold the standards of a position to those who don't actually practice it. It is literally just team sports to you. Anybody can call themselves anything, and from that point on whatever it is they CLAIM they are can be blamed for the failings of whatever it is that they do.

It is not a failing of the PRINCIPLES when people DON'T ENACT THEM.


I've thoroughly explained that socialism is not a boy's club. It's a political philosophy.


I am tired of explaining this and will not be explaining it to you again.


I am tired of explaining this and will not be explaining it to you again.


There's plenty of reason to explain to people why they are wrong about socialism. Learning is important. But there's no point trying to have a discussion or debate with someone who abjectly refuses the understand the topic they are discussing.

There's a difference between not understanding you and not agreeing with you.

While socialism purports ideologically to be a democratic philosophy, when it is actually enacted in society it time and time again emerges as authoritarian. And time and time again it ends in government ownership and control of industry. So while those may not be technically required in the dictionary definition, and may even be contradictory to the intent of the philosophy (newsflash: ideologies can contradict themselves when actually applied, because ethics and governance are complicated and people are irrational), they are common, non-incidental features of the philosophy when actually practiced outside of socialist heads. And while it might be plausible that some people who claim the title "socialist" are not "real socialists," it reaches absurdity to disavow all national examples, unless you're going to also concede that your philosophy is unobtainable in real life at more than a local level, which is what I said many posts ago.

That explanation is not an "obtuse refusal to understand" what you said. And continuing to insist it's such is rather insulting. I've engaged this conversation in good faith.

This exchange has nothing to do with me not understanding socialism. It has to do with you insisting that socialism is defined solely by what it is imagined to be in abstract, without looking at what happens when people actually attempt to apply these ideas.

At this point, I'm not going to go further round and round with you. You may have the last word here if you'd like it.