Democratic socialism surging in the age of Trump- Associated Press -Really? Propaganda Much?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Isurrender73

But even under socialism, who controls? You have all of the populace/citizens with the ability to claim some type of ownership of the assets and revenue produced. Who runs things? You would still need someone to 'run' things. Who or what would that group be comprised of?

There are still 3 clases of people in Socialism. You still have owners(Entrepreneurs/Investors), management and laborers.

In a 100% Capitalist Marketplace ownership and other competive factors dictate wages. In a 100% Capitalist Marketplace ownership will pay the least amount of wages possible. Marx saw this as a system where the employee took no interest in his work because the worker had little imput on his pay, regardless of productivity.

In a Socialist system and a Capitalist Marketplace the Owners, Management and laborers would be equal partners. This is not elimination of classes but a system that ensures equitable distribution of revenue. If everyone shares an equitable portion of revenue based on risk and expertise the more revenue generated the more everyone takes home.

Marx saw this cooperation amongst the clases to be more motivating to the employee than pure Capitalism. I agree with Marx. If wages were based on a percentage of revenue and not some arbitrary wage set by ownership people would take more pride in production and distribution of goods because they would directly benifit from the profits.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Would you say it could be summed up between two strategies: 1st, freedom above all else, including the freedom to perish. 2nd, taking care of everyone regardless of their input or self determination.

As I understand marx, he was looking for society to reach perfect equilibrium through manipulating the material world (environment) through a series of pendulum moves from thesis to antithesis which would eventually solve the equation of perfection. Isn't that what we have today, trial and error?

But he never proposed a specific economical form to achieve this or am I still missing something here?

a reply to: M5xaz

You are extremely uneducated on what socialism is. It's not black and white you know. The world isn't a straight edge. Society doesn't just work one way or the other way.
You do know universal health care is socialist right? And majority of the developed world has it. Workers rights are socialist as well, pretty much any nation that isn't war torn has them, women's rights, etc. etc.

But hey, you obviously are tunnel visioned to my post I made and picked and choose what i wrote. I said that a healthy middle ground of socialism and capitalism need to be met to make a health society, SHOCK it's called a liberal society.

a reply to: Words

Yes, because Democratic Socialism is basically Capitalism light, think, Capitalism with Free Helth care

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Isurrender73

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Would you say it could be summed up between two strategies: 1st, freedom above all else, including the freedom to perish. 2nd, taking care of everyone regardless of their input or self determination.

As I understand marx, he was looking for society to reach perfect equilibrium through manipulating the material world (environment) through a series of pendulum moves from thesis to antithesis which would eventually solve the equation of perfection. Isn't that what we have today, trial and error?

But he never proposed a specific economical form to achieve this or am I still missing something here?

You are very much on point. Except what I have bolded.

There is a quote from Marx that goes something like you get out what you put in. Sorry for not remembering the exact quote. The ideology suggests that the ownership class will recieve the largest share of revenue sense they take the biggest risk. The management a larger share than laborers because of their expertise. But these wages would be negotiated and equitable. Not 50% of all wealth going to 1%. This is what Marx saw happening and was opposed to.

But I think Marx would have strongly embraced "If you don't work, you don't eat". No where in Marx's words do I think someone could claim Marx would support modern welfare. Welfare is a failed social experiment that Marx had nothing to do with.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Now that was a hell of a good reply.

It almost appears the socialism isn't completely separate from capitalism. Does socialism exists within the structure of capitalism?

I think a lot of the terms of 'ISMs' could be causing the disconnect itself. Maybe we need to rewrite the definitions or pair them down quite a bit.

I had thought I was completely against socialism but if it were to exist within the confines of capitalism, maybe it could be a useful tool in finally figuring this out. Sort of like the pendulum, the oscillation is bouncing between the two extremes until a compromise can be reached between both sides.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TheJesuit

But really without true education on what socialism is

And we can start that education with the anti-socialists here who rail against it daily with no sense that they are believing the propaganda established by the capitalist system .

And if you ask me, one of the reasons it is surging is the representative that capitalism has put forward to run the country. Donald Trump. He is not a capitalist, he is a disaster capitalist, a cut and run capitalist. Long ago his daddy gave him a couple of million bucks...

It's hard to know what he inherited but his dad Fred left $20 million in his will, to be split between the kids, and between $250m and $300m in assets. So Rubio's claims he inherited $200m are off, and Trump's claims he started with $1m are also off. Between cash and assets it is estimated he started with less than $100m but somewhere around there.

And that $100m is like inheriting a billion today. If he hadn't had 6 bankruptcies and was more savvy with his money, he could have a 100 times what he has now. Especially since he followed in the same business his dad was in and already had all the connections in the right places.

a reply to: Isurrender73

This is exactly it. People don't understand what Marx wanted. And those who took advantage of his most famous publication clouds what he really wanted out of a working society.

The communist manifesto was written for the times of that age. But it needed to be kick started with redistribution of wealth and sort of reset because of the run away capitalism and greed that was going on back then. You have people working nearly slave hours and wages while the fat cats took in almost 95% of the profits.
In today's world Marx's visions would work out much more efficiently. Forget the manifesto, it's an age old book for the library and history to not repeat. Marx wanted a working class to thrive, and have input, not suffer and be oppressed. And that's exactly what most of the western world has adopted.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Isurrender73

Marx wanted a working class to thrive, and have input, not suffer and be oppressed. And that's exactly what most of the western world has adopted.

Do you actually believe we have accomplished that in today's age?

I know we have a standard of living today that kings and royalty would be envious of even a century ago, but could we be doing better?

I see people today with a lower standard of living that has significantly decreased from even 10 years ago. I see oceans and oceans of debt slaves. They may have a lot of material possessions, but do they own them free and clear? Or are they indebted up to their eyeballs?

Can anyone in the states even own their house or land? True allodial ownership?

a reply to: ClovenSky

Unions are the closets that I think we should get to Socialism in the Marketplace. I think we need to redefine unions as legal entities that negotiate on behlalf of the workers and eliminate the bureaucratic politcal unions we have today.

I believe in a two tierd form of Governance in most areas.

Public/Private schools. Where each shcool student recieves X dollars per student. Then the public and private sector compete for students. This is the system we have in place. Outside of low income areas where the problems are much larger than education the system works quite well.

Public/Private helathcare. Where each facility recieves X dollars per procedure. Then the single payer system would compete with private practice.

Public/Private housing or a Living wage adjusted for inflation. People need to have the abilty to support themselves on minimum wage either through a living wage or rent controlled housing. We already have section 8 housing but the program is completely mismanaged and failing to provide shelter to the low income worker.

We need to abolish welfare for eveyone except the disabled or single parent until the child is 2, at which point I think that public preschool programs be available starting at 2.

I like the idea of Social Security but we need to go back to the drawing board and make sure we create a retirement system that keeps up with inflation.

And completely unrelated but how to pay for it. End the Fed and stop paying private bankers intrest to use our money. Stop paying interest to the Fed and we would have more than enough money to fix the programs that IMO should be considered inalienable rights in a civilized society.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Debt isn't a socialist problem. It's capitalist one. People are forced into it.
But at the end of the day, if you are working a steady job you can't be fired without cause, and you can't be not paid a fair wage for your labor or skill. You have rights. And it's up to you to be responsible with your money.

It seems capitalism is more of a problem than socialism, especially in the states. Remember the 2008 housing crisis?

a reply to: ClovenSky

Actually no one in the states truly owns anything. It's an allusion of ownership.

However those without debt are closer to ownership than those with debt. The whole idea of dept is opposed to ownership, but many people make claims that something belongs to them while they are still indebted for there possessions.

a reply to: strongfp

Do you see any potential issues with that thought path. I had thought we were going down the thought path that socialism isn't a system in itself, but a subsystem of something greater.

The main problem I see with some of the isms the guaranteeing of stuff. As soon as you guarantee a job, what incentive is there for the worker to produce? If you guarantee an income, what happens when enough people don't produce? You need some type of allowed failure for those who have no motivation or ethics.

Edit to add:
And are people really forced to take upon debt? How do you support that idea?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: M5xaz

You are extremely uneducated on what socialism is. It's not black and white you know. The world isn't a straight edge. Society doesn't just work one way or the other way.
You do know universal health care is socialist right? And majority of the developed world has it. Workers rights are socialist as well, pretty much any nation that isn't war torn has them, women's rights, etc. etc.

But hey, you obviously are tunnel visioned to my post I made and picked and choose what i wrote. I said that a healthy middle ground of socialism and capitalism need to be met to make a health society, SHOCK it's called a liberal society.

Projecting your own ignorance issues on others.

Socialism is not gee -whiz-I-wanna-be-cool-can be anything I want it to be.

I will give you, again, the definition of socialism, as you were clearly unable to grasp it the first time I gave it to you:

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal
distribution of goods and pay according to work done

The ABOVE is socialism.
Tremendous human misery has followed wherever it has appeared in history - see Venezuela/Zimbabwe for recent examples.

Capitalism is what invented and supplied the computer and Internet you type your misinformation on.

Government programs, whether schools, hospitals or roads are not socialism; they predate socialism by centuries and are not related.

a reply to: infolurker

They are gasping for air.

a reply to: strongfp

Hmmm, only four countries in the world do not have external debt. Makes ya wonder who really owes what to whom?
Regardless, it seems that every type of government structure operates in debt.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Isurrender73

I can see where you are coming from, but man it feels so wrong, so dirty.

I can agree with the notion that we have a massive problem with wealth distribution. I hate the idea of unions though, especially public unions.

What we really need is transparency. Complete and full transparency. Maybe even at the corporate level. Everyone should be able to see everyone's pay scale or compensation (just imagine the fun of that). Everyone should be able to see the companies full balance sheet on both liabilities and assets.

I think we need to define what we are actually fighting against here, fraud. Pure fraud that makes the majority of the citizens struggle for survival. Fraud embedded within the lowest business level size, up to the large conglomerates. Fraud with our state, local and national governments. The structures and methods of those that don't produce anything, sucking off of the productivity of others. Vampires that are thought to be heroes in our society, but would be seen for who they truly are with the disinfectant of full transparency.

Just throwing out some thoughts here.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Great link. Interesting how all the lower nations are either undocumented or are Caribbean, off shore banking!

a reply to: lakenheath24

Can you imagine what this world would be like if racking up that amount of debt at the state or national level was prohibited? If governments actually had to operate on a budget and couldn't spend more than they take in?

My god that would be glorious. MIC would be 1/1000th of its size because there simply wouldn't be the budget to support its quest of world terror anymore. If they did continue with their current size and scope, the black budget would be exposed within a year. The welfare state would implode overnight.

Then we could come up with real and fair systems. Since debt wouldn't be allowed anymore for state or national governments, feedback would be immediate on piss poor programs. Our ISMs would then be forced to comply with reality and I bet a whole new and possibly fair system would birth.

a reply to: strongfp

Debt isn't a socialist problem.

Because they ignore it.