General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 63

Everyone keeps saying I don't understand the point, but no one gives me real answers back. How would you implement this sort of gov? Dom said by force to make sure no one has more than others. How do people own a company but none of the capital? They have no risk to fail.. basically they just keep getting bailed out. How do you interact with countries that may take advantage of your country running out of a resource? All the answers I get are "well you're a terrible person for not wanting to gather all of our resources and spread them across the world. Someone please answer these in a way that's not look how poor other countries are, and real examples of how you provide the basic things for all people without ever having a problem of possibly running out of resources. I'm tired of getting answers that don't answer my question, that'w why I sound like a broken record.

 

Ok so. Companies fail all the time because people didn't end up wanting it. That's the beauty of capitalism, if they don't want it, it was the person who lost their investment. Also explain to me how you give everyone the resources they need that a government doesn't manage. They have to. You have nothing of your own.. you chopping down the trees if you need wood? You need a government to do this. Everyone won't just play nice.

 

You redistribute the ownership rights between the managers and the labor.

And when you say that that's not possible: Chobani workers get ownership stake that could make them millionaires

Don't interact with those countries? Or do like China does with the US and only interact with them at a fiscal level.

Also, you're asking for examples of things that I legitimately think have not happened in the world. You're asking for proof that the global economy can function under socialist policy...but...the global economy has always been driven by capital. You're asking for answers we literally cannot provide because those circumstances have never arisen.

 

Dom has said many times that you don't necessarily need a centralized power to oversee all of this. And like you're implicating, doing that generates a hierarchy, thus leading to the dissolution of the socialism you're trying to instill. Empowering the workers at the production level is one very good alternative. Basically, let worker unions dictate economics.

 

Ya they get ownership stake.. like if they do good they get a cut of the profits. But socialist hate profits, so your ownership means nothing. Who is paying you if you don't have profits?

 

But how do you stop them from making a profit? If they do then you get inequality. They have to just always operate at break even.

 

and none of this is outside of the socialism were talking about, but you continue being too thick to listen. And apparently you only hear us saying that no one can have possessions, which is more and more nonsense. Get it together dude

 

Socialists don't hate profits...they hate the aggregation of profit into the hands of a generally undeserving few. People will still have money to spend on things. Unnecessary profits can be redistributed into social programs or even into other industries, research, development, and technology. The point is to not live beyond unnecessary means at the expense of others.

 

Ok you have different definitions of socialism on this site. Some say no profit, some say you can. Some say some people can earn more, some say you can't. See how this is hard to argue.

 

Is the argument really now that socialism is against making profits? This has to be trolling

 

Dom does trust me.

 

What I'm saying is that I don't think people enjoy making or creating products or providing services that others don't want or use, and therefore instances of that in a socialist society would be minimal. I see no example of that. To your point I say that businesses fail, in large part, because the market demands blood. It's why every town has a Walmart. Providing the service or product isn't what is important, you need to make money. And the money isn't shared with you if you're a worker, it goes to the people who own the facility and the equipment and the deed to the land. You keep applying attributes of the current system to the one we're discussing when they are incompatible.

Also, why don't you think people will play nice? Most of the ways in which people are terrible to each other are driven either by capitalism or the narratives necessary to promote capitalism, i.e. individualism (not to be confused with individuality! be yourself, own the shirts and records you like, you're good bro!), competition, self-determination, etc. Eliminate class structures and I think it becomes a lot easier for individuals to engage as a part of a society than what we currently have.

 

See how learning about something helps you argue? Instead of just saying inaccurate stuff blindly? Seriously, go do some research before you post again dude, this is painful

 

"As I wrote before, socialism abolishes profit, along with all other unearned income (rent and interest). Thus, it must also abolish the market economy and private companies" yes it is guys.

 

I mean, he's a communist and in that situation, there can be no profit. Every dollar made is redistributed into other parts of life. Ideally, there should be no monetary system governing economics.

 

You guys can't even agree what it is dude.. that is painful.

 

I'm just thinking about that scene now in Parks and Rec, where Ron eats that little girl's lunch as an example of big government.

That's what we're seeing here.

 

Yes basically you can start a business and can make a profit.. but don't make too much profit

 

There would be no government, everyone would be happy and share! You guys hear yourselves?

 

Well, it's that no individual can make too much profit...or any profit. It's on the spectrum of things.

 

Aaaaaaand we're back to the straw man arguments.

 

Even tho this isn't what anyone is saying, this is better than a handful of people hoarding all of the wealth at the expense of workers

 

So can they make profit or nah?

 

I feel like your questions have been answered. Whether you understand them or not, that is a different story.

Capital is a social relation. It only exists because of the society in which we live, so when you make allusions to capital or conditions that only exist within the capitalist framework, you're not actually making sense. To your point about implementation, there are various approaches. Some prefer erosion, wherein we continually make inroads into the wealth and capital of the capitalist class, and piece by piece replace the old system with the new; others prefer the revolutionary rupture, in which we fight for reforms with the ultimate end being the socialization of the means of production by force or otherwise. It has and can be an international struggle. We've seen successes before, like the global movement against apartheid. Activists around the world were working in solidarity to topple a racist regime. As for resources, the market is anarchic. It does not allow for planning, it is driven solely by profit and creates destructive trends as we see with climate change. I say this to say that socialism is the opposite, in which we take into account our material conditions and produce accordingly. There are innumerable workers in logistics, farming, manufacturing, technology, etc., all of whom could contribute to this sort of planned economy. So fossil fuels, rather than continuing on for another century or so, could be acttally eliminated over a shorter period of time because we'd be able to plan out mass transit systems and alternative energy sources that will allow our planet to survive and for us to achieve an ecological equilibrium. To your last point about countries taking advantage, what do you mean? If the bases is self-interest that is rooted in solidarity, there would actually be no reason to do so. The other good thing about a workers democracy is that there is accountability and that would also be a factor in addressing "taking advantage" or whatever you're on about.

Now if you're saying you want me to provide a road map with every single detour and circumstance, I can't do that. These situations are based on class struggle and there may be different developments towards the goal, I can only sketch out some of the benefits of ridding ourselves of capitalism. I'm sure the same was true when the early merchants during the feudal era were arguing in favor of a market-oriented system. Similarly, we can make our way through to the solution. Yes, there will be mistakes, but ultimately, I think we can press on, learn from them and create a better society where money and capital accumulation aren't the nexus of human relationships.

 

Why does that difference matter at all in the overall discussion. The common point we're all expressing is that profits made are redistributed to the working class, further empowering the laborers and allowing for a normalization of peoples. It works to destroy class. How that's done and to what extent are extraneous details that you keep focusing on. For no reason.