Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

So where are those contradictions you say exist?

What you're doing is just nonsense, dude. I provided a very simple logical argument that is the cornerstone of all logic. Any course on logic 101 starts with that familiar socrates is a man, men are mortals, therefore socrates is mortal argument.

I provided a similarly easy argument that you can decide to accept or argue against. You can (as I have pointed out numerous times now) argue against the premises such as that socrates is a man, or that men are mortal, and you can even argue against the logic used which is that socrates is mortal.

You don't seem to understand basic logic, if I'm honest. Sounds more like you came across a few latin terms and are throwing them out there and hoping I will wither under your obvious incompetence.

Try again?

 

LoL! I just proved your contradictions so where is your proof? You are projecting your failures onto others. We are waiting....Dude.

 

Does anybody understand what this guy is on about?

 

I know what you mean, look at too big to fail and how big business gets welfare..

 

Yet it is done every day when workers help support a business owner.

 

That whole too big to fail argument is ridiculous from the outset. We have monopoly laws because we don't want businesses getting too big that they can't fail.

 

Yet in a logical sense,intervention.. those not too big to fail do so without govt. intervention

 

So why worry about businesses being too big to fail? Restaurants go out all the time, but as soon as a bank is looking to close its doors and tell their depositors that they'll just have to make do without whatever they can sue the bank for, the socialists start complaining that some businesses are really really really important.

It's because they're socialists, of course. If it's a business they don't like, then they're totally cool with the failure. If it's a bank they have money in, they howl like they're being boiled in oil.

 

Maybe because you haven't explained why the distinction between socialism and communism is a natural impediment? I dunno. You want social welfare, but you don't want communism? What's the principle you're working from? I mean, if you were forced to explain what you want to where it's going to be something you'll be in favor of, no matter where it leads?

A principle is something that is both scalable and universal, so if you say "don't steal from people", then we could apply it to all manner of situations and you would always say "yeah, I'm still cool with it".

Are there any principles in your handbook?

 

Thing is most people don't want socialism, they want a better social democracy. With this last election Bernie Sanders came in calling himself a democratic socialist (he really is just a somewhat far left social democrat, centrist) and started jumbling up the meaning of terms. Now there are even more politicians calling themselves democratic socialists who are really social democrats, following up on the Bernie train. The problem is both that people care way too much about labels and language has changed (not really a problem).

It's great that Bernie started the movement but I blame him for the confusion here.

 

What's the difference between socialism and social democracy?

oh, and yes, you won't answer, but I felt that kinda needed asking nonetheless.

 

Much better to have government employees living off working people.

 

What I want is what we have now. A capitalist democracy with social programs. Society must be a mix of social programs and capitalism. The extremes don’t work.

Pure socialism stagnates the economy and stifles innovation. Everyone gets an equal share out of a pot that inevitably is not full enough and society never takes any steps forward because nobody has any reason to excel.

Pure capitalism has successful people walking steeets paved with the corpses of those who couldn’t make it.

Social programs allow people to be unsuccessful without losing everything. To conservatives this always means that lazy people get taken care of at the expense of hard workers. The reality is that there is a cornucopia of external factors that make people fail in a capitalist society through no real fault of their own. Social programs ensure those people don’t just die on the streets alone and suffering.

It also ensures that all the children pro lifers want to force to be born won’t just die of poverty. And finally it ensures that people don’t have to work at the age of 85 when the market fails and they lose everything.

The rewards of capitalism are limitless but it is very, very easy for individuals to fail and it is not always their own fault either.

So wanting social programs does not equal communism. Social programs temper the pitfalls of capitalism and take care of the people who have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but simply cannot afford them.

 

Wrong. Business owners and corporations work their arse off.

 

So did I, yet no bailout welfare monies were made available for my company..

 

When the drive is over a cowpoke and the chuck wagon cook have to get another job. No damn guarantees in this world and there shouldn't be any guarantees.

 

I like your post--you hit the key important topics. I respect that.

• Nordic socialism is doing fine--they actually live like real human beings.
• The Ricardian "scarcity" argument is so 18th century.
• Marx rejected socialism because it wasn't scientific, too piecemeal, and really doesn't take the oligarch out of power. Marx wrote in the Manifesto,"...Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech. Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.(page 32.). Oh, did he mention dogs rescue services for the middle class?
• Taking care of people during the enviable bust cycle is only by the good graces of the Capitalists--we saw what happen ten years ago...9 million home foreclosures...etc.. and Wall Street gets $29 Trillion dollars--yes, they were taken care of very well.
• Once you fall out of the labor market there is go getting back. The Theory of Labor Compensation is total bulls**t. Read Marx's Capital Vol. 1, in Section 6: The Theory of Compensation as Regards the Workpeople Displaced by Machinery." They want everyone living on a bubble so there is no security.
• The Right isn't against abortion, they just want to exploit the new born's labor first--and then abort them.

 

Duplicate post, please delete.

 

Ones socialism one is regulated capitalism, more on the side of regulations in support if workers, capitalism nonetheless. Centre left. Can you not just look it up? You have to go really far left to rid of any form of the market.

Most of Scandinavia has a far left social democracy sometimes even going as far as requiring workers to own a portion of their employers corporate shares or having a vote on at least a portion of company board members, in certain cases. That is social democracy.

I don't agree with either extreme capitalism or extreme socialism. People have morals, feel empathy and are also too individualistic and tribal for one or the other.

 

• I think the last 30 years have demonstrated that there is no effective anti-trust laws that have worked--they are just not enforced. Glass-Steagall was killed by big finance resulting is a massive melt down of the world markets, not just the US, as failing mortgage backed securities blew up in Europe causing a world wide depression. Big business just buys political power to leverage monopoly capital, then more power, then more monopoly capital. Once monopoly capital takes power, it will be decades before monopolies a broken up, but success is not guarantee. They shifts take almost an entire human lifetime to change--and I have only one.
• Your wrote,"I don't agree with either extreme capitalism or extreme socialism." Do I hear a Argumentum ad Temperantiam fallacy(Argument to moderation) which assumes that compromise between two positions is always correct?
• But doesn't capitalism encourage competition, self-interest, and not empathy which is the foundation of ethical behavior (Adam Smith and moral sentiment)? Remember "Buyer beware," only price matters, the Hobbesian hyper-truck and barter possessive individualism that libertarianism presents as the foundation of human nature. Hobbes characterized Capitalism as the following:

• Ever since Aristotle there has been recognition that human beings have two natures: the first nature one is born with, and the second nature is created by culture.

 

I see your points about big business constantly fighting against semi-socialist laws like anti trust Glass Steagall, but I really don't see the alternative at this point, than just the constant struggle as it always has been. I do lean left and would love to live in a Utopian socialist society like that of star trek, but I'm a pragmatist at heart. It just won't work. As you said people have two different natures that are constantly fighting one another, the empathetic/idealist/semi tribalist and the individual. Until we have virtually limitless resources, pure socialism without a form of competitive individualist economy, ie capitalism just can't and won't work. Not to mention the power vacuum it always creates. Someone is always going to lead and assume themselves better than everyone else and the socialist democratic system will collapse back into either a semi capitalist one or a dictatorship.

Never been accused of this one but in this case I've already explained why a compromise is best. Nothing is assumed. Probably over simplistically put: Extreme capitalism abuses and exploits, extreme socialism corrupts.

 

Sorry, for that badly edited section--I thought it was cleaned up: “it will be decades before monopolies are broken up..." and "...but success in not guaranteed..."and "...The shift will take almost an entire human lifetime to change--and I have only one lifetime for it to happen..."

• The kind of government I want will not become a reality in my lifetime. Yes, "constant struggle" is where I am now, and is the reason socialism looks better than communism.
• The Left/Right terms are almost meaningless to me.
• "Utopia," in Greek means "u," means "no;" and "topos" means "place." So, utopia means "no place." That is a pretty easy argument to make. It is like saying, "All bachelors are unmarried males." You can't argue “no place is some place” without contradiction. And let’s watch out for Nirvana fallacy or the perfect-solution fallacy – alternative systems are rejected because they are not perfect.
• Pragmatism is an idealistic philosophy also. We really do have some idea of what will work (The New Deal). We cannot assume what is Utopian, and what will not work; this certainly isn't the way the Republicans think (packed supreme court, negated anti-trust laws, voter suppression). Hell, they rolled back the entire constitution by judicial fiat. That’s the problem with the Democrats: no energy, no imagination, and no guts!
• The two-nature thesis according to Aristotle's, Politics, is that persons have an in born social being, and that social being is then formed by civil society. In other words, conflict is not necessarily an attribute of human nature--like wearing jeans.
• A limitless resource is not the problem (Ricardo's scarcity theory). In fact, the problem plaguing Capitalism is OVER-PRODUCTION: the absurd condition of Capitalism falling into depression at the same time surplus commodities are dumped to create artificial aggregate demand while holding a massive hoard of idle unproductive money on Wall Street.
• "Pure Socialism" here means ‘pure half measures at reform.’ I got to think about that.
• There is nothing more communistic than a modern corporation. In fact, economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues in "The Age of Uncertainty" and "The Economics & The Public Purpose," that the modern corporation structure is pretty much indistinguishable from full-fledged communist organization!

 

Pure capitalism does present problems, but your analogy of rich people walking on sidewalks paved with the corpses of the poor is basically what we have now in many cities, and that's with social programs. They're still breathing, but the quality of life is so bad that it might actually be a blessing if they weren't.

I do agree to a certain extent that there are problems with capitalism for the terminally useless. You want a safety net for those people, and think that the government is a better tool for that purpose than charity. I'm sorry, but I think government creates those people. In fact, you've just explained the incentive. Government is necessary to the unemployable, so the more of that particular problem you have, the more government you will need.

That's just one problem I see with your idea. So the next time you walk past some dude sleeping on the sidewalk, realize that a lot of conservatives blame his plight on progressives. You probably blame it on capitalism, but there had to be a lot of things gone wrong for a man to end up sleeping on a urine soaked sidewalk. He had to lose the support of his family, his friends. He had to have been given a completely useless education (another thing progressives are responsible for), and he obviously doesn't have any incentive to get up, brush the bird poo off out of his hair and find a job pushing a shovel. Why should he do that? It's hard work compared to a short life of never ending sundays in the park.

 

"Free". You wrote "free". Wow. That says a lot.
An economic is a trade-off. The study of economics is the study of trade-offs. Nothing is free. There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.

 

Why is it that some people are so utterly brainwashed as to think there is any significant percentage of American citizens desiring Socialism, Marxism, or Globalism replacing their nation state Federal Republic?