Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

a reply to: Isurrender73

Show me where the answers are somewhere in your replies??? You're avoiding the questions because you don't have answers. Your plan requires strict enforcement to prevent the accumulation of wealth.

You simply have no answer as to how you would prevent the accumulation of wealth because it would be impossible.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Isurrender73

Show me where the answers are somewhere in your replies??? You're avoiding the questions because you don't have answers. Your plan requires strict enforcement to prevent the accumulation of wealth.

You simply have no answer as to how you would prevent the accumulation of wealth because it would be impossible.

Of course it will take laws that tax wealth generated over the maximum wage. And a tax of privately held money over 50 million.

If that is all you are asking I apologize for not directly answering but I thought that was rather obvious.

I wasn't avoiding your questions, I was avoiding what I thought should be obvious by what I posted.

Add - In the digital age I don't see why that would be impossible. We don't have to allow people to hide wealth in overseas accounts. We could put enough pressure on foreign nations to eliminate this problem and prosecute anyone caught doing it until it stops.

a reply to: Isurrender73

You can't prevent people from parking money overseas. You can require disclosure, which we have now, but telling them they can't move their money would be unconstitutional and a civil rights violation.

Some countries may respond to a U.S. objection, but most would not. Banks all over the world trade the overnight markets, particularly currencies. Having more money in their coffers increases revenue generated every day. There would be huge competition between banks to have this money parked in their banks.

In the final analysis, as I said before, you would need an army of enforcers to make this a viable model for an economy. In fact, you would probably create more billionaires than before simply because the trend would be for anyone who wants to accumulate wealth to take their money to venues where regulation wasn't so tight. The U.S. went down that path with the 90% tax rate years ago. Outcome? More people got wealthy because they moved their money elsewhere (remember the Kennedys), the poor got poorer, and the government collected less revenue. Throughout history this scenario has played out so many times that you would think by now the idea would be in the trashbin of history. Looks like it isn't though.

a reply to: Phantom423

I understand that moving money overseas has been quite profitable for the wealthy.

However, I do think that it is possible to make agreements with foreign nations to aid in the elimination of such practices. Prosecuting those found guilty of hoarding monitary wealth over the cap will deter many. And the digital age will help track money like never before. The average citizens money is currently well tracked digitally. We need to make sure the money of those in the 1% is digitally traceable as well, so far as technology will allow.

Add - In separate thread I proposed three forms of payment. Digital through debit cards, EFT transfers for corporate purchases and hand written checks replacing paper and coin currencies. These changes would aid in the tracking of money, and eliminate counterfeiting of paper currencies.

It might still be possible to counterfeit checks but in the digital age checks now post same day. Individuals would have the ability to see counterfeit activities on their accounts the same day of the counterfeit transaction. Making tracking counterfeit activities easier.

Criminals are likely to continue criminal activity regardless of the system of government. Something that I am not nieve too.

I am not ignorant to the world we live in. It is because I understand the world we live in that I suggest such radical changes that can only take place with revolution.

A peaceful revolution leading to the overthrow of elitists is in my prayers.

I apologize for not understanding your questions. Hopefully I have provided practical answers, even if they are a bit radical.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: makemap

That isn't communism if the government controls everything. It is then Fascism. To be honest China is a mix. At least their not like the US kicking you out of homes for no reason and you have to fend for yourself.

It isn't?... You actually think that a government can exist where millions of people all have a say and are part of a government?... The claims of socialism and communism that "the people will rule" is a lie... The people as a whole can never rule. It would be anarchy...

Communism and socialism can be envisioned in ant nests. They all follow one leader, or a small group of leaders and individualism doesn't matter. All those ants would die for their queen, or queens like socialists and communists would die for their cause and are willing to keep a country in constant war...

Corporations don't thrive on capitalism... They thrive on monopoly, not on a free market where no one has monopoly over resources...

Anarchy isn't Communism. Anarchy doesn't have any laws, it is like cave man style of living.

en.wikipedia.org...

Quote: "It originally meant leaderlessness or lawlessness"

Communist state is a lot easier for example. The community of the state implements certain laws in the state together and they all agree to it, just so as long there is no leader/small group in control of everything. It would therefore be Communism. This is what you call a classless system.

If the community can change/elect political entities or leaders, but they have no control over the citizens. It would be a republic system.

Communism is run by a Classless system where there are no governments and everyone follows the Community laws.

Corporations can rise out of Capitalism. I didn't say they would thrive in Capitalism. You need production to survive as a country(this includes farms). Companies can be in Capitalist countries(but, there are usually small) just as long as they don't takeover the free market or peoples private lands(homes, like today). What you said about Monopoly is correct, it is a marketing system. It has no relationship to Capitalism as it is an ideology of how the country should be. Rather than how the market should be run.

"Capitalism can have all kinds of marketing to class systems."
Why I say that? Everyone has their own private right and therefore can create whatever system they want out of their territory.

For example, you can have a small workshop(that is a form of company) with your name in your own private territory working for the country and not bothering other citizens territory. That is Capitalism in effect.

I didn't say what system China is really using. If you read further back I did say China had moved from Communism to Capitalism. The country can be in a mix if there are different groups trying to take control. Therefore Communism wouldn't exist anymore as a whole in the country. You got Companies, Governments, gangs, etc. It is more towards Capitalism for now. Until one group takes total control. It will be one of the direct ideologies.

originally posted by: makemap

Anarchy isn't Communism. Anarchy doesn't have any laws, it is like cave man style of living.
...

First, you should learn to understand what people type. i didn't say that anarchy is communism, but communism as you and other socialists and communists "claim" it is leads to nothing more than anarchism, unless a dictator, or a group of dictators take over, which is what always happens.

originally posted by: makemap
...
Communism is run by a Classless system where there are no governments and everyone follows the Community laws.
...

You keep making stuff up which is simply not true. The state and the few people controlling the state are the ones making all the rules. Under communism people don't follow the "communist laws" because they want to, but because they are forced to. You can't choose to decide to start writing a book about freedom and advertise it, because you will find yourself in a concentration camp/gulag really fast.

There are two classes under communism... The ruling communist elites, and the rest of the people... You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but it always ends the same way because that's the way it was meant to work. The rest are fantasies to get people to believe they are better off under communism. Which is never true.

originally posted by: makemap
...
I didn't say what system China is really using. If you read further back I did say China had moved from Communism to Capitalism. The country can be in a mix if there are different groups trying to take control. Therefore Communism wouldn't exist anymore as a whole in the country. You got Companies, Governments, gangs, etc. It is more towards Capitalism for now. Until one group takes total control. It will be one of the direct ideologies.

Just because a communist country is using capitalism to keep communism afloat doesn't make it a capitalist system, because the state controls the market completely. The state sets all prices, and the state determines how much you can sell if they7 allow you to sell at all. Not to mention that the biggest percentage of what you craft/farm under communism is taken by the state. It's about 75%-80% which goes to the state and the state doesn't even compensate you for that.

A cousin of mine in Cuba loved being a farmer, but he couldn't keep doing it because the state tells him what he should plant, and they always took 75%-80% of his harvest without compensation. Then at any minute the communist state can tell the farmer that they are going to use that land for something else, and you have to leave the land exactly how the government wants you to do it without being compensated.

That's part of true communism, and not all the lies and fantasies that would be communists like to claim.

a reply to: Isurrender73

In your world competition will somehow magically end the control that already exists.

Competition is an economic phenomenon, like gravity is a physical phenomenon.

Control is a political phenomenon. Economics is not politics.

The multinational mega corporations evolve from the political system, not from free markets. A "Free Trade Agreement" will typically have 100s to 1000s of pages, which is not free trade. A real free trade agreement would say " no tariffs or import duties will be assessed on country X", and nothing else.

Competition tends to keep companies small and flexible, because the consumer's demand can change, become sated, or new technology can make production costs lower. Companies subject to competition need to be responsive to market changes and so usually would remain much smaller than the cartels that result from our current regulatory environment.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Criminals are likely to continue criminal activity regardless of the system of government. Something that I am not nieve too.

And there's the heart of it. The criminalization of wealth. Total control over production. What makes you think that you're not creating another group of elites? The people who are elected to carry out the plan will become an ultra-elite because they alone will maintain oversight on enforcement and, more importantly, the distribution of revenue.

You can't possibly think that this is feasible without an all-out revolution, a revolution which will be very bloody and violent. If you were serious about this (and I hate to think you are), the first thing you would have to do is take over the entire military and expand it because you're going to need it - domestically!

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'll say it again, you can't insure freedom to compete in a system where people are free to associate in any way they want.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The people who are elected to carry out the plan will become an ultra-elite because they alone will maintain oversight on enforcement and, more importantly, the distribution of revenue.

That sounds like every version of representative government ever put in place. Yes, even the US back in 1776.

Seems to me that what Isurrender73 is proposing is getting away from elected representatives.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The people who are elected to carry out the plan will become an ultra-elite because they alone will maintain oversight on enforcement and, more importantly, the distribution of revenue.

originally posted by: daskakik
That sounds like every version of representative government ever put in place. Yes, even the US back in 1776.

Seems to me that what Isurrender73 is proposing is getting away from elected representatives.

I think we still need elected representatives, but their power needs to be greatly reduced.

I envision a world were we elect leaders to guide us. The elected representatives would propse laws to the general population and then debate the pros and cons. But ultimately law creation would be determined by a majority vote of the general population.

My vision is a much more informed and educated populace able to make rational decisions through a pure democracy. Contining to have our Civil Liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights will prevent theocratic views from encroaching on Civil Liberties.

Without protecting Civil Liberties through the Bill of Rights a pure democracy could end in a theocratic type of mob rule. Protecting Civil Liberties will ensure that law creation remains just for all including minorities.

I do believe that we must give our central government the ability to enact emergency laws. But that each election cycle any emergency actions made by our elected officials would be debated and the decision to continue, modify or simply veto the emergency action would return to the general population through a pure democratic vote.

Imagine the Patriot Act. It may have been right for a few years. But ultimately the people should have the power over the government, but the Patriot Act gives the government power over the people.

The people may have even agreed to a modified form of the Patriot Act, if all components were laid out and thoroughly explained to the general populace. In a modified version the people may have agreed to certain provisions that we decided were not directly violating our civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

As of now the government has completely circumvented the 4th amendment, which has granted the government authority that was not given to them by the people.

The system I envision would have granted the people the right to modify or veto the Patriot Act at the next election cycle. This would ensure 100% transparency.

Trade agreements such as the TPP should also be vetted by a pure democratic vote. The people are the government and the only way for the people to gain control is 100% transparency and an educated populace.

Our central government has gone rogue and needs to be reshaped to end the type of corruption that has brought down all governments of the past.

Technology has given us the ability to make radical changes. I think it is time for our system of government to enter the technological age, including surveillance of our elected officials to help prevent corruption.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Sorry about that, of course a body left to handle day to day business would be needed.

I actually like the idea of a 4th branch of government, the people. This is probably closer to what you are describing. Everything else is left intact but people have to pass or veto laws after the president does.

If something doesn't meet quorum then it passes by default. If enough people get together to strike it down then it is vetoed.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Isurrender73

Sorry about that, of course a body left to handle day to day business would be needed.

I actually like the idea of a 4th branch of government, the people. This is probably closer to what you are describing. Everything else is left intact but people have to pass or veto laws after the president does.

If something doesn't meet quorum then it passes by default. If enough people get together to strike it down then it is vetoed.

Exactly, thank you for putting the ideology into simpler terms than I have been able to come up with.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: makemap

Anarchy isn't Communism. Anarchy doesn't have any laws, it is like cave man style of living.
...

First, you should learn to understand what people type. i didn't say that anarchy is communism, but communism as you and other socialists and communists "claim" it is leads to nothing more than anarchism, unless a dictator, or a group of dictators take over, which is what always happens.

originally posted by: makemap
...
Communism is run by a Classless system where there are no governments and everyone follows the Community laws.
...

You keep making stuff up which is simply not true. The state and the few people controlling the state are the ones making all the rules. Under communism people don't follow the "communist laws" because they want to, but because they are forced to. You can't choose to decide to start writing a book about freedom and advertise it, because you will find yourself in a concentration camp/gulag really fast.

There are two classes under communism... The ruling communist elites, and the rest of the people... You can try to sugar coat it all you want, but it always ends the same way because that's the way it was meant to work. The rest are fantasies to get people to believe they are better off under communism. Which is never true.

originally posted by: makemap
...
I didn't say what system China is really using. If you read further back I did say China had moved from Communism to Capitalism. The country can be in a mix if there are different groups trying to take control. Therefore Communism wouldn't exist anymore as a whole in the country. You got Companies, Governments, gangs, etc. It is more towards Capitalism for now. Until one group takes total control. It will be one of the direct ideologies.

Just because a communist country is using capitalism to keep communism afloat doesn't make it a capitalist system, because the state controls the market completely. The state sets all prices, and the state determines how much you can sell if they7 allow you to sell at all. Not to mention that the biggest percentage of what you craft/farm under communism is taken by the state. It's about 75%-80% which goes to the state and the state doesn't even compensate you for that.

A cousin of mine in Cuba loved being a farmer, but he couldn't keep doing it because the state tells him what he should plant, and they always took 75%-80% of his harvest without compensation. Then at any minute the communist state can tell the farmer that they are going to use that land for something else, and you have to leave the land exactly how the government wants you to do it without being compensated.

That's part of true communism, and not all the lies and fantasies that would be communists like to claim.

How many times do I have to tell you, there is no Communist country today. In communism you are suppose to know your neighbors. There can be a constitution for the citizens as long as it doesn't have a control power scheme for a group or 1 person. There should be lands for everyone to live in or live with(you should be able to live with your neighbors).

If there are a few people in control it isn't Communism. It would therefore be Fascism using Communism as a lie.
There can be safety laws by the citizens in communism. Everyone works as a community together. Cuba isn't even Communist anymore. It is more either Imperialist or Fascist because you have a leader who is in control. Both system can be a disaster to greed and lies because unlike fascism or imperialism. You don't have a group or leader telling everyone what to do and how to do it.

You can take a look at other countries, USA specifically with all their gangs and how they control the territories(US used to be pure Capitalist). It is like tiny countries rising out of America who doesn't even work much for the country itself.

Look further back into history like how separated provinces/state lose their main controller and becomes their own City-state/Empire. Therefore creating multiple wars. This is exactly what gangs do in US.

In Communism, everyone learns the laws and knows the laws without leader or government.

Capitalism you are on your own, but not to be bothered with by others. More so private. The government doesn't have more control over Citizens. Most capitalist countries would be using Republic system where People > Government. Citizens can create their own private laws.

Fascism, a group control everything including land, tells all the citizens what to do and how to do it.

Imperialism is just 1 person who does what fascists do.

Never ever call an Imperialist/ Fascist country communist. You are just asking for Slavery / Tyranny.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'll say it again, you can't insure freedom to compete in a system where people are free to associate in any way they want.

You mean if some people decide to be the government?

A free society would look out for that, but competition keeps groups small. Somebody always gets the short end of the stick in coerced associations, if for no other reason than circumstances or information flow.

Voluntary association lets groups break up just as soon anybody gets shorted.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You mean if some people decide to be the government?

A free society would look out for that, but competition keeps groups small.

You talk like it is all organic but obviously competition didn't keep groups small in this timeline.

Somebody always gets the short end of the stick in coerced associations, if for no other reason than circumstances or information flow.

Voluntary association lets groups break up just as soon anybody gets shorted.

You missed the point. They get together to short everyone else.

Soon you have bands, which, in the long run, turn into what we have now.