The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

I've seen no understanding of basic political economy from you. What you think you are doesn't interest me.

Nope. Reference to political economy, modern economics and empirical evidence means I can critique. You just bluster and it isn't convincing.

 

LOL. And death must be life, or it isn’t temporary.

 

This coming from a guy who claims that the "value of one's labor" (whatever that is!) is property.

 

Or a circle must be a rectangle or it isn’t square.

 

If the only form of Socialism that you are personally aware of is the State version (which is actually just the dictatorial management of capitalist surplus), it follows that you would have trouble with the idea of it being necessarily voluntary.

 

Volunteering to be a masochist doesn’t make one any less a masochist. Same with socialism.

Socialism is immoral because it sacrices the rights of the one to the many—whether it be a hippie commune or a Soviet state, Its still the sacrifice of “I” to “we”.

What being of man extols the virtue of serving humans? The cannibal variety, of course.

 

I'm not discussing politics, I'm discussing Socialism. You are unable to discuss same, since the only kind you know is the 'faux' socialism of Capitalist surplus redistribution.

I understand why you need to call it bluster, IOW.

 

It is not 'sacrifice' when it's voluntary. Obviously. It's willingly and happily engaged in, else people wouldn't do it. And there is no masochism involved, because all benefit from the power of shared labor and resources.

 

Pure drivel..... A large majority of entrepreneurs come up with the idea AND front the money. Generally there is collateral put up. Banks don't take risk. So why is that entrepreneur going to share profit with workers that don't share in the risk? Even CEO's in large Corporations take risk if they don't show a return for stockholders.....that is unless government makes them at the point of a gun and that is SOCIALISM! Profit sharing is often done at the owners discretion.....they are at "liberty" to do that.

If you are a worker, you make yourself valuable. Find an employer that is honest and fair. To H#$% with the collective. You make yourself valuable then seek a fair market trade as an individual. That works time and again! You in the entitlement bracket, go pound sand!
I have had some pretty good workers and I paid them all better than average. When things went wrong....not a one was there to comfort and console me. They find another job and let me lick my wounds. Economy happens. When it is good however, I keep my profits. That is how it works. The risk takers often do better.

 

Actually you're pretending position.

Wrong again, given I'm not referring to any Marxist specific socialism

You continue to type and say nothing. I'm happy for you to attempt critique of my original comment. Refer to economics.

 

Bluster, Red Herring....you can tell when you hear from the elite!

 

Pure drivel? You still haven't said why "the entrepreneur risks" is wrong. Please try or admit your error.

They don't. The entrepreneur is free to innovate and gain from that innovation. They aren't free to use that innovation to rent seek via imperfect property rights.

You show cluelessness here, but let's go with it. Do you understand the difference between exploiting tacit knowledge and expectations?

 

This at least made me laugh. Is Trump elite or non-elite? Just want to get it straight.

 

Being an anarchist, I am frequently is discussion with anarcho-communist regarding this. When discussing it, I've not seen a viable option without some triggered methodology of state control.

 

Fair enough. I can see how that would be so, FTR.

Not sure if you've had much exposure to 'fundamentalist collectivism' (probably the best way to describe essential socialism) - but given your willingness to engage Commies, you probably have. The interesting thing about it is that it almost aligns to libertarian capitalism. Small holdings, self-sufficiency, nil dependence upon 'the system', etc etc. That's why I like it .. it transcends politics.

 

That probably sounds reasonable in your mind.

 

Shame you missed another opportunity to say something. Sure its a blip!

 

Yes, I have and you are correct- ot aligns with libertarian capitalism closely. I just see no way that in any Marxist based system (whether it is old socialism, old communism or the new strain of socialism and communism brought about by those like Richard Wolff) I see that as the issue.

I don't think that the fatal flaw in any particular economic system is the economic system itself, but rather that every system to this point has required the corrupting influence of government. I don't see how a Marxist system can do without it, but capitalism can.

 

Agree entirely. The economic models themselves are not necessarily flawed. And I also agree that Capitalism survives well without overweening Govt. State Socialism will always be a disaster, because no system in which the aristocrat/serf arrangement is compelled can be sustained without revolution. The serfs will always resist (and in this 21stC scenario, the 'rich' are the serfs, because they are the ones working for and funding the indolent).

 

Elitist dribble. Not impressive in the least.

 

If he was "elite" the media would grobble at his feet. They hate his guts.

 

If your mission in life is to serve man, I suggest you watch The Twilight Zone episode titled, To Serve Man. It’s the story of a cookbook. Start cooking.

I, on the other hand, exist to serve no one but my own wants, my own desires, my one needs , my own lives, my own life. That’s because I love life dearly and selfishly. It’s called liberty .

And if you want to see the only commune I would ever join, read Atlas Shrugged and discover Galt’s Valley, Ayn Rand’s Atlantis.

 

Socialism refers to public ownership of the means of production. Given that, many economies are actually mixed, i.e., they combine capitalism and socialism.

 

A man born into wealth fighting the elite? It's a narrative accepted by many in post-truth America. Pure bunkum mind you

 

Wealth only defines "elite" to the collectivist that wants to confiscate. Elite are those that want to use government to tell everyone how they must live.