What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

quoting your earlier post, “my knowledge of Marx says you're the one who is wrong here.”

this was right before you stated emphatically, and for a second time, “He said socialism is characterized by the guideline of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work"

and now you tell me “I have to concede that you are most likely correct that Marx didn't say or write that.”

this was all after, of course, you chastised “you wouldn't logically be "qualified" to discuss the subject due to the probability of spreading falsehoods,” referring to me and my inferior knowledge of marx (according to you) because i misquoted him by one word, a word which consequently did not alter the meaning of the quote. yet here you are attributing to him something you now concede he never said.

seems it’s time now to for you consider my suggestion to ask the moderators to close this thread, for as unqualified as i am to discuss this topic based on a single word error, i am practically a phd on the topic when compared to you, emphatically attributing quotes to the man he never said. seems your concern for the potential of spreading flasehoods is indeed well founded.

 

the right wing is fake news.

even the dollar menu won't double.

 

You were wrong on the first one and I wanted to make you had no other questions. I am a guy.

Employment is at will in our at-will employment States.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Labor should have equal protection of the law regarding compensation for Capitalism's Institutional rate of unemployment.

 

i remember when gas was $0.50/gal., a candy bar was a quarter and a new house in a nice neighborhood was $25,000. oh, coffee was a dime. please explain.

 

You still haven't answered the question.

WHO WILL QUALIFY ?

 

apples and oranges. this specific policy won't do that.

And, right wingers, why whine about price inflation for Labor in public venues, but there is no outrage over price inflation for fuel due merely to Administrative policies.

Supply and demand are economic laws, not right wing whim.

 

My comments were valid, except for the attribution. Knowledgeable Marxists have, as I showed, characterized socialism as I said. Marx meant it as well if we examine his words and then faithfully paraphrase or characterize them. And that is a very long way from arguing that socialism is about "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" because it is VERY untrue in its meaning and implications since it would mean that under socialism people would be provided everything they need. That may be true, but it is not the spirit of the quote which makes the proper point when "need" is replaced by "work". Socialism is not a give-away program.

You don't take winning a point very well at all. You're still not happy and seem to need to find ways to rub it in. Why is that? I haven't ever seen you concede one point on anything, ever.

 

I answered you several times.

Simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

So the guy who's been on $350k per year for 20 years, gets into an argument with his boss and is fired, he qualifies? How is that fair and equitable?

SPELL IT OUT, PLEASE.

 

His boss didn't need to fire him. Stop whining.

 

Answer the question, please. WILL HE QUALIFY? Will he be entitled to the same 'compensation' as the guy who was on $30k a year and was fired without cause 3 years ago, has 4 kids and a wife, and can no longer pay his rent?

 

you argued “dollar menus won’t double.”

i have demonstrated you are wrong.

 

You only need to be unemployed to qualify for unemployment compensation.

How much, usually depends on wages.

With recourse to an basic income, guaranteed; aftermarket financial products could provide more options, for a market friendly price.

 

No, you haven't. Supply and demand are economic laws.

 

you represented yourself as an expert on marx. then you wrongly attribute a quote to him as you are literally trying to use your “superior knowledge” to discredit me because i got one word wrong in a quote. the irony alone is worth the price of admission. i got it wrong, which i immediately took responsibility for. you took this as an opportunity to establish the premise that i had lost all credibility to discuss the topic. “logically qualified” was the phrase you turned. well sir, let me teach one of my favorite latin phrases: quid pro quo. any further posts by you in this thread should be subject to the absolute highest level of scrutiny, and you can rest assured they will be by at least one forum member.

ffs i’ve been here for two weeks! i think this is actually our first encounter on this board! that said, i took immediate responsibility for my error in this thread and you excoriated me for it. instead of offering a superior argument, you’ve only tried to discredit me and in a very condescending fashion. is sexism part of socialism too? no thanks!

 

then tell me why the dollar menu won’t double.

 

Because Capital has to seek gains from efficiency, not cheap labor.

Supply and demand, does the rest.

 

nonsense. you raise the wage floor and eventually the rest of the economy will catch up. the bottom is always the bottpm. please explain why a new house was $25,000 40 years ago and is now at least 12x higher.

 

Give it up! I presented myself as knowledgeable on MARXISM.

Look, there's no point. You just seem to want to fight. I'm done with your dodging and spinning. And judging from your bio you've got something going on that I'm not qualified to help you with. BYE

 

supply and demand don't work in right wing fantasy?

your Competition, may disagree.

 

i will graciously accept your concession of the thread.

 

i see getting you to answer a simple question is like pulling teeth. i will graciously accept your concession.

 

Concession to what? Your lousy capitalism. Why should your competition take you very seriously, if you Can't be a better capitalist.

 

Feminism does have common ground with heterodox labour theory, given a focus on power and hierarchical relations.

 

Because you cited RW talking BS near word for word. Getting wrong what socialism in this country is about.
It's flamebait.