The mentality of socialism versus capitalism

OH for crying ****ing out loud. Please, dear God, make the effort to READ what I'm writing.

The WELFARE STATE is a function of CAPITALISM. It is NOT socialism. I've spent thousands of words explaining this - in multiple different ways - but you still haven't picked it up? Incredible. I don't actually think you're reading my posts at all.

No, the State is not a collective. Not in any way, shape, or form. Japan is, and perhaps Singapore. Scandinavian countries were until fairly recently .. but this small handful of nations are the only States which could loosely be regarded as collectives. And not because of their politics, but because the citizens' RELATIONSHIPS to each other are built upon mutual obligation and social responsibility. Sufficiently aligned in all the important measures, to allow for trust. America, the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, etc ... have all long since lost anything resembling the monoculture (IOW trust) necessary to retain a collective. We are all nations of strangers now, turned away from each other - out purely for ourselves, with no sense of obligation to our own, or even to the State we expect to save us.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with politics. The Welfare State is the brainchild of capitalists (ie, big business).

 

You don't understand reciprocity. It makes us MORE generous, not less. When we know it's safe to give (because that giving will come back if we ever need it), we're far more likely to do it. When you trust your fellows to support you, because you trust them to remain strong enough to do so, you can be a MUCH kinder human being.

Loss of that trust in our fellows, is what makes us mean and selfish.

 

NONE of that stuff is SOCIALISM!

 

No storehouse is a repository for a collective, unless EVERY MEMBER it provides for is CONTRIBUTING to its contents. If even a tenth of them aren't contributing, it's not a collective. It's a group of strangers using the medieval 'aristocrat/serf' model of the Welfare State. IOW, the contributors are the peasants, and the aristocrats the recipients of the contributions.

 

The OP forgot to mention that in a purely capitalist society, with no social safety net or socialist regulation, and a completely free market, that guy who wants that truck can't find a job that pays enough to live on never mind save for the truck, can't compete with the monopolies that dominate the marketplace with their extreme power, etc. He is homeless (no subsidized housing) and starving, or working as a wage slave for the 1% and owes his soul to the company store.

A working society needs a mix and of capitalism and socialism. Either to the extreme is disaster. It is worth pointing out that no western country, not the USA or any other is pure capitalism. That is for good reason.

 

Capitalism is four people riding in a car.
Socialism is two people riding in a car, and two people pushing it.... and seeing nothing wrong.

 

No, Capitalism is one person riding in the car and three people pushing it... and seeing nothing wrong. The man in the car was given money from his daddy you see, and the other three are paid enough from him for lunch so they can push the car for him.

 

So subsidizing is controlling the means of production?

I disagree. I certainly think subsidizing industries or corporations is anti-capitalist. But I don't think that is inherently socialist.

My view, much like China, most companies have government officials embedded who ensure that the actions of business is in the best interest of the State (country).

Private corporations operate with the blessing of government, or not at all.

Disagree?

 

Voluntarily sharing, and mandated sharing by government are wholly and massively different things.

 

So... we have less taxes and less social program spending now than 100 years ago?

 

You're correct. I'm talking state mandated collectivism.

 

They made that choice. Not an authoritarian government mandating the fed and cloth them.

 

Ahhh, but this discusses shared expenses which inherently benefit everybody directly. Why always turn to those types of costs?

Why not turn to Welfare?

Because this line, "everyone pays what they can and everyone benefits from the collective effort.", no matter makes sense.

 

I think you're struggling with the concept of force.

 

So, then, how did this happen?



Why have worker wages only gone up only about 5% in 40 years? Are they lazy? What about you? Did your income follow the blue line or the red line?

 

If you're unhappy with this country you can always move to a socialist one.

Here in the USA there's always a surefire way to increase your income. Make yourself more valuable to your employer make yourself irreplaceable.

 

Simply untrue.


Antibes, France, 2016

They spend money on social programs and are smart enough not to tax corporations to death.

Really wrong. They require manufacturers to make products that last longer.

The times I've done laundry in Europe it didn't take hours.

Democrats aren't socialists. Most Europeans aren't socialists, either.

Italians live an average five years longer than Americans. Something is wrong here.

Way overstated.

Democrats aren't socialists.

 

So what? We're not going to become a socialist country.

 

The Young generation sure is clamoring for its seductive siren call.

 

What about farming cooperatives.

 

Why would an illegal take the chance of getting caught to vote? (They don't.)

 

So if you Google illegal immigrants caught voting.... Right now you won't see any search results that are valid?

 

I didn't use the word force.
I quoted it.
MY reply referred to using communal storehouses when the community decided to.

 

No one is mandating anything.
The Community decides via elections based on voting for manifestos.

 

You have more expensive costs as a community.
ie 100 years ago there were relatively few cars on the roads.
Today we have enormous weights tearing them up, so the state has to spend more on road maintenance.

The burden of your social programme depends on how well your state avoids need. ie how many unemployed you have depends on whether your state encourages industry etc to invest in it.