Socialist Bernie Sanders won't even pay his own staff a 'living' wage.

[Stevicus]

Lack of agreement is not a ground to get involved by the state. That is the problem.

Not just the lack of agreement, but the violence which has sometimes resulted from such. The state has to get involved because they have an obligation to keep the peace and restore public order.

If they end up having to do it too much, then they might feel political pressure to enact more proactive legislation which leads to even greater involvement in the private sector. Some of this may be necessary, even in a capitalist economy.

 

[Shad]

Not just the lack of agreement, but the violence which has sometimes resulted from such. The state has to get involved because they have an obligation to keep the peace and restore public order.

How does violence become involved in such a negotiation? Your point is far too vague.

If they end up having to do it too much, then they might feel political pressure to enact more proactive legislation which leads to even greater involvement in the private sector. Some of this may be necessary, even in a capitalist economy.

I am not talking about government involvement in that manner.

 

[Stevicus]

How does violence become involved in such a negotiation? Your point is far too vague.

Anti-union violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Union violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Labor Wars in the U.S. | American Experience | PBS

All of these events are fairly well-documented and a part of American history.

I am not talking about government involvement in that manner.

It's still government involvement either way. I took your point to be that the less government involvement, the better, but my point is that government involvement doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It's usually due to some pressing societal need, which can often come about due to disputes and disagreements within the private sector.

So, it would seem to me that if the capitalists in the private sector truly wish to avoid socialism, it would behoove them to be nice, agreeable, cooperative, and willing to compromise. It's when they get stubborn and decide they want to play their game of "hard ball" that bad things start to happen.

It's not the socialists' fault if capitalists can't restrain themselves and learn to play nice.

 

[Shad]

Anti-union violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Union violence in the United States - Wikipedia
Labor Wars in the U.S. | American Experience | PBS

I was not talking about unions nor are unions unique to socialism. You are conflating things here. You are injecting any employer/employee violence as if all were about socialism. You a gave vague answer to a request to be specific. Give me an example related to the specific topic.

It's still government involvement either way. I took your point to be that the less government involvement, the better, but my point is that government involvement doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It's usually due to some pressing societal need, which can often come about due to disputes and disagreements within the private sector.

As per the above you are conflating issues nor did I say anything about less government. Stop the script and focus on what I said.

It's not the socialists' fault if capitalists can't restrain themselves and learn to play nice.

Ideological babble. See above.

 

[Stevicus]

I was not talking about unions nor are unions unique to socialism. You are conflating things here. You are injecting any employer/employee violence as if all were about socialism. You a gave vague answer to a request to be specific. Give me an example related to the specific topic.

It was focusing on a specific point you made - "if all parties agree." But the historical reality is that, very often, all parties do not agree, which lead to the kind of disputes which lead to government intervention and which (in some countries) has led to the formation of a socialist government. The connection is very clear, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

If the topic we're discussing is socialism, then it seems reasonable to address certain causative factors, such as the relationship between workers and their employers.

 

[Shad]

It was focusing on a specific point you made - "if all parties agree." But the historical reality is that, very often, all parties do not agree, which lead to the kind of disputes which lead to government intervention and which (in some countries) has led to the formation of a socialist government. The connection is very clear, so I'm not sure what your problem is.

In the context of socialism at a company level

If the topic we're discussing is socialism, then it seems reasonable to address certain causative factors, such as the relationship between workers and their employers.

You used a generalization not a specific. A wage increase is not the same as a share increase.

 

[Stevicus]

In the context of socialism at a company level



You used a generalization not a specific. A wage increase is not the same as a share increase.

They're not the same, but both would involve taking money from the owner's pockets and into the hands of the workers.

 

[Shad]

They're not the same, but both would involve taking money from the owner's pockets and into the hands of the workers.

Yes but the grounding is different. Shares are different than wages.