Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

He is not asking for examples he is asking for your definition.

 

So you incorrectly use the word "monopolist" when what you really mean is "owner". So your initial post should be corrected to say, "Land titles allow the ownership of land."

 

I would suggest slightly deeper thinking.

Both capitalism and socialism, as defined, are dependent upon the labor of the person creating wealth. Even the "natural (inalienable right of property" as established in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government (Chapter 5) is based upon the physical labor of the person.

Artificial Intelligence and Technology (AI&T) are rendering human labor absolete. We've seen that in manufacturing since the 1970's where the production of goods per capital worldwide has increased while the number of manufacturing jobs per capita have decreased by about 40%. Based upon projections AI will exceed all human knowledge by around 2045 and with that knowledge robotics will be able to replace virtually all human labor. Within the next 100 years everything from mowing a lawn to brain surgery will be performed by robots and computers.

The very foundation of both capitalism and socialism disappears because we won't need workers anymore.

The question for us today is what economic system will replace socialism and capitalism in the future and how do we make the transition to that new economic system? The change is coming and we have a choice of either addressing this as a peaceful transition or by violent revolution because when human labor becomes obsolete there still has to be a means of survival for the people.

 

Ahh, but the "wealth" doesn't have to be dependent upon the labor of a person. Any ideals regarding socialism require labor of a person because AI is not considered as a possible option... at least not in the past. "Ownership" doesn't default to "workers" in the AI model, because nobody works. Instead it just defaults to "everyone".

Daniel De Leon:

 

The foundation of capitalism is capital.

 

No, I'm correct in my usage of the word monopolist, everyone else who disagrees is wrong. In fact, the word landowner should be stricken from the English language and replaced with the word land monopolist … why have two words that mean the exact same thing, and land monopolist is more accurately descriptive.

Anyway, I thought of a better hypothetical example to give you:

I have designed and perfected the manufacturing process to build an economical space elevator. When completed, this space elevator will cut the cost of lifting material into space to one hundredth of the current costs. In order to work, this space elevator must be tethered to the earth at a specific location, within a three foot diameter zone from [X];[Y];[Z].

Now, through the entire design and manufacturing of component parts phase of development, I have always used the business model of taking competitive bids, and whoever offered the best quality for the best price got the job. But now, when it comes to building the tether point, that business model is about to be rendered useless … because now I will be dealing with a monopolist, a land monopolist.

There will be no competitive bidding for location [X];[Y];[Z] … I will have to pay the land monopolist whatever he demands, and his demands will not be based upon his costs. No, the land monopolists demands will be based off the same rationale that all monopolistic demands are made. He will try to guesstimate how much profit my efforts will yield, and he will set his demands at a level which transfer the profits of my efforts to himself, without any consideration of his costs or any fear of competition.

 

A monopolist is a person or business that has a monopoly. A monopoly is the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. Being an owner of a particular parcel of land does not make a person a monopolist. A couple who owns a house and a quarter acre lot don't have a monopoly on anything.

Get your terms right if you want to communicate accurately.

 

So, what is the economic system of Sweden?

 

Intelligently regulated capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

So, how come collective bargaining rights considered socialist?

 

You mean like the average taxpayer paying $4000 a year in taxes to subsidize big business?

Because we can trust Corporate America to look out for our best interests.

 

Why not?

 

Like "intruding" on the "rights" of big business to write our laws through organizations like ALEC.

 

Nope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRbxmQv8Iyk

 

The US has modified capitalism. What is it modified by? Socialistic programs and institutions designed to moderate some of the sharper edges of pure capitalism.

 

Haven't you heard? Collective bargaining rights are "socialist"?

 

Clearly that is working so well for us.
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/blog/40-americans-now-make-less-1968-minimum-wage-news-day
40% Of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage: News of the Day

 

Are you aware that most of your tax dollars go to subsidize big business?
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...-family-pays-6000-year-subsidies-big-business
Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business

 

Unless we're talking about one which is democratically elected to protect us all from profiteering.

 

So, a democratic socialist nation is not socialist?

 

I have a question for you. Are you studying people's attitudes towards socialism, or are you studying socialism? If you are studying socialism; can you say what you've learned from the schools you've attended, and up to what grade level?

I am more curious about people's attitudes towards socialism. I wonder how an adult, or even a high school senior, can question why socialism is bad. It's a reflection of an obviously very flawed educational system. I don't mean that as a personal insult to you. I don't even know your perspective.

Pardon me. I looked up EPQ, and I see now the educational level.

 

Right. And there are no corresponding organizations on the progressive side that write laws for their benefit. Like, well, teacher's unions who get laws passed to provide for outsized pensions and benefits, tenure rules that prevent firing of incompetents and mandatory union membership funded by confiscation of taxpayer's money?

Look at this list. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php Its' pretty typical of every election cycle for who gives the most money to what politicians. See the name "Soros Fund Management"? Billionaire leftist George Soros organization. See who his donations go to?

Don't be naive and swallow the lie and think that ALEC and Koch Brothers are dominating elections with their contributions to Republicans. The top six donors are contributors almost 100% to Democrats

 

Unfortunately, many like the guy you just responded to, already buy the LIES, LIES, LIES.

 

Why does socialism fail? Besides the worldwide experience of its failures and its proven degrading of economies into poverty and misery? See Venezuela for a recent example. A relatively prosperous economy before Hugo Chavez institution of a socialist form of government, Venezuela can't now even provide toilet paper to its citizens.

If you think socialism will work, please consider why you thing some will work, innovate, take risk and produce if the fruits of their labors will be confiscated to benefit those they do not know? Alternatively, why would someone who is guaranteed a decent living paid for by the sweat of the brow of strangers who have had their earnings and wealth confiscated have any incentive to produce anything into the common economy at all?

Socialism fails because people on both sides of that equation decide it is not in their best interest to work and produce, thus adding to the downward spiral of the economy as a whole.

 

Look at Perry Homes wholly owned by Bob Perry and his family. Who is Bob Perry you ask?
In the 2004 election cycle, Perry gave $4.45 million to Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), a 527 group founded by 200 Vietnam veterans; he was the largest single donor. The group held press conferences, ran ads and endorsed a book questioning Kerry's service record and his military awards. The group included several members of Kerry's unit, such as Larry Thurlow, who commanded a swift boat alongside of Kerry's, and Stephen Gardner, who served on Kerry's boat. Chris McGreal of the left-leaning newspaper The Guardian wrote that Perry was the "leading financier" of the group, and alleged the group "smeared the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Kerry with accusations he made false claims about his service in Vietnam."

In that cycle, Perry also donated $3 million to Progress for America Voter Fund. In all, he donated almost $8.1 million to 527 groups in 2003-2004.

In mid-2006, Perry donated $5 million to found a new 527 group, the Economic Freedom Fund. The $5 million makes the group one of the top ten in the 2006 election cycle.[7] He also appears to be the sole donor to Americans for Honesty on Issues. These groups have primarily paid for negative advertisements targeting Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 United States general election.

In 2010, Perry donated $7 million to the 527 group American Crossroads, making it the largest single donation that the organization has received to date. American Crossroads primarily works to elect Republican and conservative legislators. The super PAC Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney) received $3 million from Perry in February 2011. Perry also donated to the Super PAC Congressional Leadership Fund, making his total contributions to Super PACs nearly $8 million.

In 2011, Perry donated $2,531,799 to Texas Governor and United States Presidential Candidate Rick Perry (R, TX) toward his Presidential campaign.

Between 2011 and 2012 Perry donated another $10 million to the Mitt Romney affiliated Restore our Future and another $6.5 million to American Crossroads.Perry is the biggest contributor to SuperPACs in the 2012 election cycle with a total of $18.5 million as of September 2012. He was a 2012 donor to Christi Craddick, a Republican elected to the Texas Railroad Commission, and a daughter of former Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives Tom Craddick of Midland, Texas.
No the Koch Brothers are not the only plutocrats in town.

 

From your source. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...14-mega-donors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections/
"In the 2014 elections, 31,976 donors — equal to roughly one percent of one percent of the total population of the United States — accounted for an astounding $1.18 billion in disclosed political contributions at the federal level. Those big givers — what we have termed the Political One Percent of the One Percent — have a massively outsized impact on federal campaigns.
(snip)
Though both parties depend on these donors, the GOP received more from them than Democrats, based on the contributions we could conclusively attribute to helping one party or the other. Mirroring the overall trend of the election, in which conservatives edged their liberal opponents in fundraising, Republican committees and conservative groups that support them pulled in about $553 million from the donors on our list, more than the $505 million that Democratic and liberal political groups received. The donors themselves, however, aren’t interested in hedging their bets — most of the contributors’ giving patterns heavily favored one party."

Plutocrats abound on both sides of the aisle, this is a serious and dangerous trend.