Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

Socialism in this country is all about getting free schidt.

 

If workers were really so satisfied and involved in their work, they wouldn't be feeling like it is drudgery to put in 8 hours, 5 days a week, to end up with medical bills, unaffordable education costs, and very poor retirement prospects for it. But there are other reasons to want a change as well. We hear about them every day. And what Walgreens pays doesn't change it, nor does investing. Just more than half of US households have savings of $1,000 or less to fall back on for emergencies and unforeseen needs. And I am not willing to assume it's because they are very lousy and undisciplined at saving money. The flat real median income and the current level of consumer debt tell me otherwise.

If moving to another job was the answer to worker dissatisfaction, there would be no problem because by now all workers would have moved and found their paradise in capitalism.

Here are two more:

To use something (Me: like labor) in a way that helps you: "We need to make sure that we exploit our resources as fully as possible."

To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents (Me: or workers) .

I will not say workers exploit employers. The worker does not control his employment conditions. The employer does and the whole purpose of business in capitalism is to make a profit off the workers. I feel like you're choosing to overlook these things.

And you're serious? You wrote that with a straight face? You think this government is doing what the people want? I'm not going to go through the list for you. This is ridiculous. Just stay with your comfy life and let co-ops flourish.

You talk like Articles of Incorporation is a brand new idea. Every corporation must file Articles of Incorporation. And they're legal documents, enforceable by law.

No! And that doesn't happen. That would be ridiculous! See how capitalist, anti-Marxist propaganda affects us? You actually, honestly believed that in socialism all workers get paid the same amount! LOL!!!! And there's lots more propaganda in us where that one came from too! LOL!!!!

You mean "for one vote"? LOL!! Workers get NO VOTE as it is. LOL!!
ANSWER: The same way capitalism does it: offer more money!

What if, what if, what if.
Try to get an understanding of the idea such that you can answer your own "what ifs".

Why would such workers want to go through the work, expense, and trouble to start another co-op when one already exists? Can you answer that? There is no restriction of freedom here.

 

wages have not kept up with the cost of living, it's harder today for the young to make it in this country then it was in the past

but the country is majorly in debt from republicans two 10+ year wars and the republicans tax cuts for the rich

the 7 Trillion+ we spent on those wars could of went a long way towards nation building here in America..

 

They see the current system does not work and want to try something different before they become homeless. No doubt when the dems take control take down the borders and people flood in it will be even worse.

 

What about the 10 TRILLION DOLLARS Obama blew with NOTHING to show for it????????????

 

I think most support some Socialist programs, we have to use the best of all systems, if something works, use it

I am not a socialist, but I support some things that are considered Socialist like public schools and health care as well as welfare for those that require it

 

that is happening under Trump too, it's all goes back to Bush, most of that spending is on the wars and tax cuts for the rich, change things back to pre-Bush and debt stops climbing

the fact you can't show where Obama Spent proves that, Obama just continued on with Bush's budget as Congress never passed a new one that changed course

Trump just doubled down, increased military spending and huge tax cuts for the corps, the debt is gonna climb much higher

 

the left thinks things like Public schools help people get better jobs and helps society as a whole - the right thinks only the rich should have access to schools and healthcare

 

Is this speaking from personal experience, or just a projection? How do you know the numbers of workers who aren't satisfied with their jobs? Many are satisfied. Sure, we bitch and complain, but deep inside we get much of our self esteem from our production and being a valuable member of society.

Compared to the average, the American worker does have it good. Again, you are assuming that the lives of American workers suck. They don't. We have it quite good. And even more so when one makes good financial decisions, i.e. don't waste money on crap consumer products that do nothing but depreciate.

You had previously asked me to remove my emotions from the use of the word "exploit." For me, and I think most, the word "exploit" has negative connotations. So I removed my emotions and looked at the word and its definition. Sometimes it is positive, sometimes it is negative. However, you are definitely using it in the negative sense - when you say employers exploit workers, you are obviously using the word in a negative manner, as in "employers gain from workers unfairly." So I'm not sure why are even discussing the emotions or connotations of "exploit" here. When employers exploit workers, that is a bad thing in your opinion, correct?

So if the current government "of, by, and for the people" isn't doing the will of the people, why would we think that a newly established socialist government "of, by and for the people" would do any better?

I thought we were having a profitable discussion, but it is obviously downgrading.

Co-ops are great, I hope they expand and are successful, and I hope that the free market flourishes. I am all for the worker having a voice in the workplace as long as that is done within the free market.

You are contradicting yourself. Look at these two statements:

and

So can Co-op B pay the chemist more shares if they so desire? I felt that they could. But you came back and said they couldn't. But then you said they could. So which is it?

The obvious answer is that yes, the workers of Co-op B can certainly vote to pay the chemist more shares if they feel it is in the best interest of the Co-op. And that leads to another angle, for example, let's say that 51% of the workers realize that they must have a chemist for the business to be successful, so they vote to give the chemist 5 shares to obtain his services. The other 49% think differently, "to hell with the chemist." Now the Co-op is saddled with strife and discord, which could lead to factions and splits. The Co-op would become a miniature society with all the strife and bad politics that exist today. Then the 49% start slacking off and not doing their work because they are unhappy with the 51%.

The devil is in the details. Grandiose, cultural-changing plans deserve deep scrutiny. "What-ifs" are a wonderful method of discovering the hidden details and flaws of a plan. It has been said before, "We must pass the bill so we can find out what is in it." Well, that isn't a very smart route. Think deeply about things before determining their merit. I am not completely convinced that socialism is a fail, but the evidence is certainly leaning that way.

The question isn't "Why would they?", the question is "Why wouldn't they?"

But yes, I can answer that. Perhaps the workers feel they can make a better baseball at a cheaper price than what currently exists. Who is to tell them they can't? So would you object to these workers forming the new Co-op if they did decide to go through the expense and trouble? Would they need to be prevented from doing so?

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the following: If only one Co-op makes baseball bats, how is it determined how much a bat costs?

Worker owned companies certainly have merit. But it seems that your ideas would require a planning authority to determine what products a Co-op could produce and when new Co-ops could be formed. So far, that looks like an usurpation of freedom.

The consumer certainly stands better when there is a multitude of companies competing against each other for the consumer dollar. Your system seems to negate this. That can't be good. The devil is in the details.

 

social security is not much, but it helps them in their old age, I can't believe the right still wants to take that away from them

 

There is more to it than "take that away" from them. The right believes in being responsible for oneself. That includes planning for one's retirement. The right promotes the idea of personal responsibility and maximal freedom consistent with a functioning society.

I doubt that many on the right want to simply abolish Social Security overnight. I think the plan would be to let it play out over the years and slowly convert to private retirement. I suppose it would be prudent to help those in dire need, but too many abuse the system and take advantage of the taxpayers' largess. Too much of the funding is diverted to those who do not deserve it. A person who does not take care of himself cannot have self esteem and is missing out on something that builds self respect and self worth. That is very sad. And it is a real shame that some in this country actively promote such a lifestyle.

 

Socialistic social security is a good thing.

RW fantasies. Sort of like their "pray you don't get sick" health plans.

 

The only thing i disagree with is that Congress should get a raised. They haven't done sh*t to get a raise. The whole lot of them need to be replaced.

 

Why don't you support a real flat tax where everyone pays the same dollar amount of tax?

 

Why can liberal see there is no difference.

 

You certainly did. Weren't you crying about a lack of a "raise" from SS?

 

Honest question, do you support that?

 

The fallacy of communism is that the state will whither away and all citizens will voluntarily act in the interest of the collective rather than in their own interest.

This goes against human nature, and some means of compelling obedience to the collective has to arise. Thus a "state" comes into being.

 

Unless you happen to be disabled, Slavic or a Jew.
Or Ukrainian or indeed anyone who votes for the wrong party.

Anyone out of fashion with the party or indeed just another one that needs to be sacrificed for the greater good.

White male. Smoker. Right winger. Banker. Gas chamber.

I'll look after my own health thanks. Safer.

 

Do *I*? Of course not.

 

Does this incoherent babble have something to do with my post?

 

They don't want people to have more than them.

Think about the "haves" and the "have nots." Now the haves aren't really wealthy they may in fact be far from it but they think of the things that they have and strive for things that they don't have but someday would want to have.

Then you have the "have nots" even if they are wealthy they think only of the things they don't have. You couple this with the extraordinarily wealthy elites that mirror this sentiment and you get these people that grew up never having to work and not wanting to in order to make their living.

Socialism appeals to them because they get the same as anybody that works hard. So they feel their value is increased even though they are simply parasites.

 

Not true at all. I don't care if people have more than me.

But at what point is enough enough?

Before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the richest 1% were getting almost 10% of the gross national income. Which translates into an average of well more than 10x the average working schmoe.

Today the top 1% are getting over 20% of the gross national income.

Meanwhile, the share of the national income going to the bottom 90% of Americans has fallen from about 65% to 50%.

Just how much of a bigger share of the national income do you think should go to the richest 1%?.

 

Than you wouldn't support socialism.

Whenever they think it is. Why would you even ask that question of you didn't care if people had more than you?

So what? You are Absolutly complaining about people having more than you, or the average person. People that gain wealth don't do so at the expense of the working class. That isn't how it works.

Again you are paying attention to what others have and you do not.

That isn't because of the heavy tax burden placed on them?

I think about what I have and what I make. I don't obsess about the top 1% and moan about how much they have and try to think of ways to take it.

I am of the "have" mentality, you are of the "have not" mentality.

 

Wrong again. I like living in a society where we don't have hordes of old aged and disable folks living under freeways begging at stoplights.

To see what he says.

Completely false. I haven't claimed about people having more than me one iota. Do you have to make things up to try to make an argument?

Nope.

Why did you dodge the question?
.

You don't know anything about me. Do you always make conclusions and claims based on things you know nothing about?

It shows.