Why is socialism becoming increasingly popular in the United States?

Governments are "ran"(sic) by private individuals too, so then governments including "socialist" governments are capitalist. Right?

And by your definition, wrong as it is, the US Army is socialism. So is the VA.

 

Depends what the socio-economic system of the country is.

 

You're not addressing my questions. I take it you don't have answers.

Capitalism (of sorts) has existed since people have had private property.

The guy misses the point. He can't accept people don't share his opinion and make economic decisions with different objectives.

???

I don't know what you think you have here, but these two videos can be picked apart as nonsense.

 

No. The difficulty is that there are 18 ways from Sunday for the definition of socialism. I subscribe to the classic (and true) definition, government ownership of production and distribution, not "collective ownership", which can occur in perfectly free private enterprise capitalism, ya know like a partnership, farm co-op, or electric co-op.

 

Some governments are partially run by the people (individuals), others not at all.

Probably. In a free private enterprise capitalistic system there are things the government has to do one way or another. Our democratic republic government was given constitutional authority and obligation for the common defense of the country. From a readily apparent practical standpoint, the government cannot wait around for some capitalist to make an enormous investment in a military in hopes of making a profit. Most capitalists would see that as at least a decades wait for any return, if any, and not have a good idea where any return might come from. Ergo no private investment in military. But the government has to be ready to defend the country so they own the military -- production and distribution.

 

There is much evidence that it is not socialism that is on the rise in America (and elsewhere), but authoritarianism.

Trump keeps praising dictators like Hitler and Kim Jong Un. Will Republicans ever care?​

 

No, capitalism by definition requires private ownership of land as well as producer goods, and while producer goods have been private property for at least tens of thousands of years, land has only been private property for a few thousand years.

More specifically, capitalism as generally understood first emerged in the UK and Netherlands after the remaining commons were privatized by law in the 18th century. This forcible conversion of people's individual rights to liberty into the private property of landowners created the effectively enslaved landless working class who had no choice but to seek employment in the towns or be starved to death by landowners. Of course, landowners starved millions of landless working people to death in the early years of capitalism in Europe, and continue to starve millions of people to death every year in less advanced capitalist countries.

 

It looks to me like you didn't like my answers because they didn't give you what you preferred. I said life, economies, laws, processes, . . . . . they all develop over time as a society ages, and therefore just like Alexander Hamilton wasn't able to foresee how capitalism would advance, so too are we unable to foresee details of how the next system will advance as it consolidates and needs change.

Your answer that "capitalism has existed since people have had private property" doesn't answer my question. So now YOU are not addressing MY questions. Maybe YOU don't have answers. I asked about national capitalist economies, not whether a feudal blacksmith exchanged his work for food or goods.

You have opinions about the videos but you haven't offered any actual comment about their contents.

 

I have. I conclusively demolished all the arguments in all videos that tout brain-dead Marxist anti-economics or the Labor Theory of Value. You have not responded. If you do respond, I will conclusively demolish that response, too, just as I have all previous attempts to defend Marxism-socialism and the Labor Theory of Value. That is certain. Perhaps you are aware of that fact, which is why you do not respond.

 

We were referring to our US government. But the point is that workers' co-ops are an arrangement/structure that has features of both capitalism and socialism. Certainly no features can make any business structure either one or the other, but the workers' relations to production characteristic of a WSDE is more consistent with socialism than capitalism since there is no class-based employer/employee relationship and no private profits that are owned by a few individuals who control the enterprise among all those who work there.

So by your own statements here, you seem to agree that there are features of our capitalist system that are socialistic in nature, yet you don't see our system as being socialism. I agree. But then why do you criticize any utilization of capitalist features in any proposed socialist system?

 

It is true that authoritarianism is on the rise in the US as well as around the world. But we can also see that in response to that there is a counter-development of interest in socialism. I believe that could be expected.

 

There most certainly is a class based society with socialism. You said yourself socialism needs a CEO (read authoritarian dictator) to run things. That CEO and his cohorts are clearly a class above the regular workers, and I assure you he/they earn far more money.

A socialistic system with scatterings of capitalism thrown about is still a totalitarian system that passes out peanut shells to keep some of the people partially happy by allowing them to run and own pissant highly regulated businesses, like China. A capitalistic system with a few elements of necessary socialism (liked the military) is still primarily capitalistic with all of its people benefits and satisfaction.

 

I think this is probably true. I believe many socialists are using socialism to fight back against the authoritarian systems being pushed. The irony is of course a successful socialism must eventually transform into authoritarianism even though the originators of socialism abhored authoritarianism.

 

LOL! You posted some youtubes. That's got to be the lowest level of discourse available. Congrats on your huge "victory".

 

Where are all of these, uh, "socialists", Rod?

 

Where Kode said they are.

 

You quite simply don't understand what economics is all about. Economics is used by business and government, and in a capitalist society that means some of economics training will involved in areas business uses economics. At the heart of economics, however, is the study of human behavior in whatever economic system exists. My criticism of socialist government is that they typically try to ignore basic human behavior. Socialist enterprises (collective production) work well in some circumstances, better than private production.

Did we study collective production? Yes, of course. I was trying to get you to engage on how we might run a socialist society.

The so-called "counter-revoltionaries" are the experts revolutionary governments call on precisely because "local committees" and the general public are desperate for help.

Of course. Your point is what?

How will individual workers buy into a capital intensive industry like oil refining?

Mao and Stalin killed a lot of people while searching for answers.

 

Early economists got so much right it's hard to believe the Labor Theory of Value ever gained as much support as it had at one time. I remember looking at the LTV when I was first studying economics and thinking it was a rather absurd formulation.

 

I didn't say learning about you, but instead mentioned learning from you.[/QUOTE]

That kind of cheap shot would get you kicked to the curb in a lot of forums.

When you don't have answers, go into attack mode?

 

I look at the whole picture when talking to socialists like @Kode because government ownership is the only way socialists ever put together enough capital to get anything done. The disaster of socialist countries (USSR, Mao's China) is typically sidestepped by socialists who claim the revolution lost its way because of capitalist roaders.

 

You're getting quite technical for the intended audience on the forum and why I added "sort of" to my explanation about human nature being compatible with capitalism.

Yes, the natural genius of the joint-stock company.

Land, of course, was an early source of wealth.

Ever thus. Life changed in America with the close of the frontier. My wife's relatives from Germany settled in Missouri on free land; my relatives who came later from the UK and Norway worked in mines.

 

I didn't like your answers because they don't work, failing every time they're tried.

Capitalism as we know it is a more recent development. Private production vs. collective production is what I'm talking about.

If you want to quote some of what they said, I might spend my time replying. I'm not interested first identifying parts of videos then commenting on them.

 

Well, not to worry....



"Bridge" is Pete's middle name!

 

Well framed. I paid $400 for a cream that kills skin cancer before it gets started (very effectively, too) that you can buy for about $5 in India.

 

He's better than Trump's SoT.