Public infrastructure Is Not The Same As Socialism

a reply to: nwtrucker

That is not an indealic scenario.. it is the websters dictionary definition and has been long before the word SJW was o invented..

The US government spent decades demonizing Russia through MacArthyism and honestly lazy propaganda ..

They trained (back then) 90% of the country that a neutral economic system was evil and must be destroyed...

Capitalism nor socialism, monarchies nor democracies are inherently good or evil..

It all depends on who is in charge.. and always has..


I monarchy led by king author would be a utopia and we all saw what happens when a democracy elects a hitler..


I agree that for differing technology levels and society sizes make some systems more effective than others.. but that's not good or evil.. that's more ore less effective..


Every economic system is forced... if you doubt that decide you don't want to pay taxes anymore.. lol

Even in the most capitalistic system on earth they will throw you in jail.

Imho for hunter gather culture 10@% socialism worked best.. then capitalism was VERY slowly added until the Industrial Age where a 50/50 socialism/capitalism system worked best..

Human labor was in high demand and innovation was booming.

But for our next few tech jumps, with human labor being less and less needed.. good luck banking on capitalism..

In our life times we will watch human labor become obsolete..

How exactly do you run a capitalist economy when you lose money by employing humans???

When you only need a Max of 20% of the population to work, and ALL the rest are a liability??

And there is no way around it.. it was always going to reach that point, since the day we sharpened the first stick.

a reply to: seasonal

That's the only 2 options...

Trust the government who is beholden to us through the voting process, or trust big buisness who is beholden only to profits...

How peole think the insurance company board of directors are any less buearicratic than or politicians I have no idea..

a reply to: nwtrucker

I will also never understand the reverence for the state government either...

It's the same politicians either way.. both just as prone to corruption..


From my pov the states are who is killing us.

When you get pulled over for no tag light.. that's the state..

The states seem to only take, while at least the Feds provide some services for all the money we give them..

Most importantly corruption has ALWAYS been the problem.. reguardless of economic or political system.

The thing is we have the tech now to track every dollar to its source.. we can totally eliminate corruption .. or eliminate 98% of it..

I really just take offense to the propaganda that one system is inherently good and one evil..

When it has always been about what is most effective for your present system.

I think you include health care with military , fire, police , roads and social security .

Everything else works just fine for profit.

But when talking about the things we can't afford to have fail due to profitability, public always works better..

All that money that goes to the paper pushers gets cycled back into services.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That's the only 2 options...

Trust the government who is beholden to us through the voting process, or trust big buisness who is beholden only to profits...

How peole think the insurance company board of directors are any less buearicratic than or politicians I have no idea..

Corporations MUST increase profits-decrease costs to increase stock price every quarter. This may be good or bad (race to the bottom) for making tires. Buttttt.....
Medical care has suffered over the last 40 years. One of the main reasons is that the productivity gains in many industries are not being shared with the workers. A very large portion is going to the top. This is one of the reasons you can't afford medical care.
Unions used to bargain for the workers or employees. CEO's have a contract with the corp they work for, wonder why they don't want the average worker?

Very good points thank you.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Metallicus

All societies are a mix...

Socialism by definition is ANYTIME tax dollars are used for the benefit of all, rather than the benefit of ONLY those who are paying.

What your talking about is a cartoon socialism that is not the definition..

Just because you have been trained to instantly hate anything said after people say socialism.doesnt change the definition.

From what I know, socialism refers to public control of the means of production.

Also, the use of tax dollars to benefit all is logical because taxes are paid to the state, and the public embodies that.

a reply to: seasonal

More than that the GOP has convienced people the CONCEPT of unions is evil and corrupt...

They do it with everything..

Some thugged out black kids commit an atrocity and it is a problem with the whole black community ...

A union does something corrupt and all unions are evil and must be destroyed..

Really it is all about donations and the dems do it too..


Unions vote dem, so to the GOP unions are evil..

The corporations vote GOP so to the dems all corps are evil..

When EVERYTHING has to be judged on a case by case basis to even hope to get it right.

a reply to: Metallicus

It almost appears that they are intentionally confusing a 'public goods' with socialism. Public goods would include roads and city services such as police and fire rescue. These public goods do not generate wealth, the government does not make money off of people utilizing public roads. The use of these roads does not diminish the availability of the service. The government does not control the means of production in creating and maintaining these roads. That is all handled by private institutions usually based on a bidding process to prevent favoritism.

Roads and other public goods are not created on a socialistic system. They are simple public necessities that people try and label socialist to further their own goals of getting people to accept that morally bankrupt and soul destroying notion.

That is the beauty of the separate and independent states theory, if you don't like the noose of local government, you can move and find a noose that fits better.

As for unions, I see no issues with them if they are completely private. Unions should be completely BANNED for employees of any public institution where the tax payer are picking up the tab. The tax payers have no bargaining power against these public unions. If you want to know which states are going to fail first, look for the ones with the largest public unions, like Illinois.

This is a free country, if you don't like your current environment, MOVE!!! You do not have the right to extort the local tax payers for your inability to manage your life, which seems to be the battle cry of socialist.

Great topic.

No; tax-payer funded services are not socialist. But socialists like to pretend they are to convince others of socialism.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Agreed on the who runs it and their motivations.

I won't put a percentile on an optimum split. That is pure gray area and is subjective. Hence, my basic problem with the current impositions of socialism. Freely chosen? Fair enough. Enforced? Lock and load.

I couldn't be bothered with Lexicon definitions beyond the Oxford English. All are manipulated when referenced on line.

Individual liberty is my basic building block. We currently are losing that liberty to both 'Isms'. If I'm forced into a 'one or the other' debate, I will take capitalism...soley, SOLEY due to the fact that they couldn't care less what I do at home. how I view things, my culture or personal oddities as long as they profit from my labors.

I can deal with that. This cluster-F**k? I pass thanks.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No; tax-payer funded services are not socialist. But socialists like to pretend they are to convince others of socialism.

Best comment yet (other than mine that is)

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Metallicus

It almost appears that they are intentionally confusing a 'public goods' with socialism. Public goods would include roads and city services such as police and fire rescue. These public goods do not generate wealth, the government does not make money off of people utilizing public roads. The use of these roads does not diminish the availability of the service. The government does not control the means of production in creating and maintaining these roads. That is all handled by private institutions usually based on a bidding process to prevent favoritism.

Roads and other public goods are not created on a socialistic system. They are simple public necessities that people try and label socialist to further their own goals of getting people to accept that morally bankrupt and soul destroying notion.

That is the beauty of the separate and independent states theory, if you don't like the noose of local government, you can move and find a noose that fits better.

As for unions, I see no issues with them if they are completely private. Unions should be completely BANNED for employees of any public institution where the tax payer are picking up the tab. The tax payers have no bargaining power against these public unions. If you want to know which states are going to fail first, look for the ones with the largest public unions, like Illinois.

This is a free country, if you don't like your current environment, MOVE!!! You do not have the right to extort the local tax payers for your inability to manage your life, which seems to be the battle cry of socialist.

Great topic.

'Move' applies to those that define/change/expand the definition of public good, as well.. Apparently, you miss the fact that not 'all' public good is viewed by many as public good.

Many of us would have self-determination in defining 'public good'.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth


Except socialism is the tried and true system used for the vast majority of history..

Right wing talking heads take 2 worst case scenario examples..

The conviently never reference.. Sweden, Norway or Switzerland..

Forgetting that capitalism is the new (very successful) experiment..

Now I have to jump in. In recent history, maybe throughout most of 'recorded' history, humanity has operated under a 'capitalist' society where the means of production are held by the 'wealthy'. This is still true mostly today. Communism states that the 'means of production' are owned by the State - which doesn't seem to me the case anywhere today - except perhaps Cuba to a large extent.

That said - the ideal of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. But Democratic Socialism stradles private and collective ownership - which is more or less (and becoming ever less common) the rule in developed countries.

Now the issue of resources is where the battle is being waged now - all across the globe. Who owns the resources? Who decides how to use those resources? I would posit that we all hold all the resources of the planet in trust - to use wisely but capitalists see these public resosurces as their right to use as they see fit to increase private profit at the cost of the public welfare. That was what colonialism was all about - stealing from the 'native' to enrich the few.

So it's about more then 'ownership' of the means of production, which does require a capital investment, it's about the whole supply line, the system of production of which 'capital' only plays a small part. Any system of production that only focuses on 'shareholder value' or 'increasing capital' is theft of the commons and exploitation of labor - intellectual and physical.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No; tax-payer funded services are not socialist. But socialists like to pretend they are to convince others of socialism.

While having some validity, your oversimplification, diverts frin and belittles socialism:

From a socialist publication, that makes your point and points out how this diverts from the true issues that are at stake in this discussion:

www.jacobinmag.com...

The idea that any government activity is synonymous with socialism has major political and strategic implications. After all, if our country was already at least partly socialist, then all we would have to do is keep gradually expanding government. We wouldn’t have to change the purpose of any existing programs, nor would we have to reform the administrative structures of government agencies.

THe underlying issue that gets buried and confused by the 'capital uber alles' political systems:

And because all of those purportedly socialist programs have been won without fundamentally challenging private property, there would be no need for a decisive confrontation with the owners of capital and their political allies. All we would have to do is elect sympathetic politicians to office and let them legislate their way to even more socialism.

In the absence of popular organization and militancy, government action will do little to shift the balance of power away from capital and toward labor, or to undermine market discipline instead of deepening it. So long as the fundamental structures of the economy remain unchanged, state action will disproportionately benefit capitalist interests at the expense of everything else.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It's true. Taxes and tax-funded projects have been occurring long before socialism was a fart in someone's mind. But that doesn't take away from the criticism of giant bureaucracy and collectivism, which is always one of the consequences of any vain attempt at socialism.