PureX
Veteran Member
Mort Downey Jr. was a lot of things, but "intellectual" was not one of them.
-
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!
Socialism is as American as apple pie. Yes, really
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
Heyo
Veteran Member
And where is the motivation to do anything without a monetary incentive? That's only possible with regulation. The most "capitalistic" regulation would be to say "You are using a common good (air), you have to pay for it." (Carbon trade) And air is a global common good, so it has to be a global regulation.
Believe it or not, @Revoltingest thinks that the crash was the result of 9/11 and over regulation.
We've talked about this before. He thinks that the real estate market started tanking in 2002.
Tom
While ideally, one would find a common good through democracy, that's not the way it normally works out. After all, here we are.
Capitalism OTOH needs the support of the people. We have to buy the goods, we have to perform the work. A capitalist who doesn't support their market doesn't survive long. No one is forcing people to go out and buy the latest Iphone. However the government does force people to go out and purchase health insurance.
In capitalism people decide for themselves the common good. With government, a minority decide the common good and have the power to enforce their idea of the common good whether you agree with them or not.
The government is just a large monopoly with the power to enforce the market as it sees fit. While you may agree with what the government is currently enforcing there is likely to come a time when you don't. Capitalism comes with no penalty to choice. Socialism penalizes choice.
I'm more optimistic.We have maybe one year before we know effectively that we failed politically speaking.
We're either going to have to wipe out the fossil industry in ten years and replace it with alternatives, or we are going to watch civilisation unravel. Anything less than a Green New Deal from 2020 that eliminates emissions 90-100% in the next ten years and it's game over. there is basically no way we can do it in less time and still have a "functioning" economy. We need sanders for that, but he is the last and only shot we've got. I'm not brimming with confidence to say the least.
Even if I conceded the benefits of capitalism over the past three hundred years, and the evidence IS overwhelming, Capitalism can't handle that kind of transformation. It's not designed to. Competition resists central control and planning and Saving the world is "too expensive" and hurts profit margins. Capitalism has screwed up our priorities that much.
It's far from certain that a planned economy would do it better as the history of communist countries environmental record is very poor given they focused on heavy industry. but you definitely need the central co-ordination to transform the economy in such a short space of time.
I just despair at this point. We've wasted decades when we could have got this sorted by now.
It's not based upon analysis....I'm just naturally that way.
About planned economies....
They're great in theory, if one assumes that they plan well.
But history convinced me that command economies aren't
run by people any better than our leaders in Ameristan.
I think humans are doomed to face problems only when
the wolves are at the door...nay...coming thru the door.
I lament the loss of natural environment & critters.
Down boy!
Down!
Don't bite.
There's no conflation going on.
I simply cited the countries which actually are socialist as examples of socialism.
The fact that they've turned out to be awful is related to socialism.
1) Socialism requires a more authoritarian government to enforce it.
2) Socialism endures more famines because economic power tends
to get centralized in the hands of those least able to recognize changing
conditions, & then cope with them.
As for what AOC wants, she does indeed to be far more of a socialist
vector than others in her party. How far does she want to go with it?
I've made my evidenced argument.Believe it or not, @Revoltingest thinks that the crash was the result of 9/11 and over regulation.
We've talked about this before. He thinks that the real estate market started tanking in 2002.
Tom
You've objected, offering only pix of yourself in yoga pants.
Btw, you're summarizing my position inaccurately.
9/11 was the trigger, but only one of several causes.
Read my post with the spoiler hiding the long screed.
I was a licensed real estate broker, property manager, & investor back then.
Wasn't your business selling whoopee cushions & balloons?
You didn't evidence your argument. You posted a bunch of weak links.
I knew that my own house, that of my parents, and the commercial property I rented all soared in value during the middle of the Bush administration. And I knew that all the magazines were featuring articles about how to benefit from the real estate boom, from 2001 to 2006. After that, the trade mags started running articles about how to survive the recession.
Your response was "Well you're just an artist. You wouldn't know anything important."
Oh yeah. I do remember our exchanges quite well.
Tom
Heyo
Veteran Member
So, if I and a few friends choose to walk into the next Walmart with baseball bats and take what we like, capitalism wouldn't punish our choice?
Actually, I cited observations in preference to links.
But you didn't read it anyway.
No, the government would.
The difference.....
Socialism:
Government needs the power to prevent emergence
of capitalism between individuals, lest it such free
economic activity become rampant.
Capitalism:
Government doesn't need to prevent emergence of
socialism between individuals. It never gets very
far, & it's no threat (as long as it's voluntary.
Your arguments are inconsistent. First you say that the word 'socialist' is too vague and then you use one particular form of socialism and conflate that with all forms. And you also react negatively when that is pointed out to you. Noam Chomsky for one described himself as a libertarian socialist. But presumably you'll next pull out the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy by saying he's not a true socialist?
Heyo
Veteran Member
So the government would keep me stealing from the business, why couldn't it keep the business stealing from me?
If you voluntarily give them your money, it's not really stealing. I suppose if you just can't help yourself...
Finding Help for Shopping Addiction
Heyo
Veteran Member
I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about air. Isn't air a common good? Don't I own my share of it? Isn't someone who is burning fossil fuel using my air, stealing it? I should be payed!
Don't purchase goods from polluters. The Market in only providing people with what they want. Folks have decided that new Iphone is more important than air. We really only have ourselves to blame for the air that we breath.
With socialism, you'd really have no choice were you get your goods from. Polluter or environmentally friendly, I'd be up to whomever was currently in power.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Even if I don't buy the next IPhone, I don't get paid for my air.
Your excuse is as if I built a factory on your land and told you "you don't have to buy my goods if you don't like it".
If these are examples of socialism, then what would you consider to be "communist"?
For purposes of comparison, I would say yes. Especially when people choose to criticize communism based on the alleged "body count" which occurred under ostensibly "communist" regimes. So, if they want to play those games, then it's perfectly fair to look at the body counts of every non-communist regime since at least Ancient Egypt. Add in the body counts of the Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire, then the body count of capitalism is much higher, and therefore capitalism is worse than communism.
That is, if we use the same logic that capitalists use when criticizing communism. Fair is fair.