@zahlanzi saidOK, I had to read it a couple of times, and think you are saying that socialism fights back against those who are a success, to change society, to get money from wherever they can?
no
I can understand approaching the wealthy and asking for charitable assistance, but does not the socialist try to MAKE them support those under socialism?
@averagejoe1 saidCompletely clueless.
OK, I had to read it a couple of times, and think you are saying that socialism fights back against those who are a success, to change society, to get money from wherever they can?
I can understand approaching the wealthy and asking for charitable assistance, but does not the socialist try to MAKE them support those under socialism?
@shavixmir saidI think socialists set up a program where the producers support the rest of the society.
Completely clueless.
Is my statement too simple? How would you write it in simple terms?
@AverageJoe1
Are we not trading opinions? Not reading links?…..which are not even part of a real debate on a stage or sitting in Starbucks. ?
@averagejoe1 saidIn socialism the actual producers are the ones who benefit from their labor.
I think socialists set up a program where the producers support the rest of the society.
Is my statement too simple? How would you write it in simple terms?
@averagejoe1 saidUh no. Capitalism grows into socialism, which grows into communism (depending on definition) and ends up in anarchy (depending on definition).
I think socialists set up a program where the producers support the rest of the society.
Is my statement too simple? How would you write it in simple terms?
Anarchy being a state where no politicians are needed anymore.
It’s a proces of continual change.
@shavixmir saidYes, in that case, maybe a new thread is in order. Here you and marauder et al like socialism, yet you suggest here that it leads to anarchy.
Uh no. Capitalism grows into socialism, which grows into communism (depending on definition) and ends up in anarchy (depending on definition).
Anarchy being a state where no politicians are needed anymore.
It’s a proces of continual change.
We certainly all agree how one society leads in a bad spiral from one to another, you are correct.
So that being said, I am trying to hold onto capitalism. Yet, you and Marauder, et al, have espoused Socialism, which you say above can lead to anarchy. I don’t get your thinking.
@averagejoe1 saidAnarchy, as in how I defined it. Not chaos.
Yes, in that case, maybe a new thread is in order. Here you and marauder et al like socialism, yet you suggest here that it leads to anarchy.
We certainly all agree how one society leads in a bad spiral from one to another, you are correct.
So that being said, I am trying to hold onto capitalism. Yet, you and Marauder, et al, have espoused Socialism, which you say above can lead to anarchy. I don’t get your thinking.
@no1marauder saidIn capitalism the producers benefit otherwise they wouldn't do it.
In socialism the actual producers are the ones who benefit from their labor.
@averagejoe1 saidAnarchy properly defined means "no ruler" or more specifically in political/economic terms "no hierarchy".
Yes, in that case, maybe a new thread is in order. Here you and marauder et al like socialism, yet you suggest here that it leads to anarchy.
We certainly all agree how one society leads in a bad spiral from one to another, you are correct.
So that being said, I am trying to hold onto capitalism. Yet, you and Marauder, et al, have espoused Socialism, which you say above can lead to anarchy. I don’t get your thinking.
@no1marauder saidExactly.
Anarchy properly defined means "no ruler" or more specifically in political/economic terms "no hierarchy".
@averagejoe1 said"OK, I had to read it a couple of times, and think you are saying that socialism fights back against those who are a success, to change society, to get money from wherever they can?"
OK, I had to read it a couple of times, and think you are saying that socialism fights back against those who are a success, to change society, to get money from wherever they can?
I can understand approaching the wealthy and asking for charitable assistance, but does not the socialist try to MAKE them support those under socialism?
i answered no, so you spend some time saying the exact same thing.
guess what my answer this time will be?
nooooo
" I can understand approaching the wealthy and asking for charitable assistance, "
That's not valid governing. If anything, it allows for immense abuse.
"but does not the socialist try to MAKE them support those under socialism"
yes. it's called taxation.
do you understand that there aren't enough yachts, mansions, luxury cars, whatever, that a billionaire could spend their billions on and run out of money? eh, you don't. In your mind it is better for billionaires to keep accumulating wealth instead of improving the lives of the overwhelming majority of the rest of the people living in a society.
So what if schools are underfunded and they are infested with mold? So what if most can't afford to get a routine checkup at a doctor. So what if some children are starving.
All that's important is that a billionaire increased a number.
There shouldn't be billionaires. Ever. For starters. Let's try a few years of a 90% marginal tax rate on every dollar past a billion (which would still not get rid of billionaires but baby steps). See if society collapses and people start eating rats. Oh wait, we know already what would happen because America had such a tax rate and a middle class family could buy a house on one factory floor salary. And they were considered middle class family on one salary income, which is something bordering on fantasy nowadays
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidYour post is saying that billionaires have a duty of care to other people. (I am not speaking morality or charity here, I am speaking law and govt control).
"OK, I had to read it a couple of times, and think you are saying that socialism fights back against those who are a success, to change society, to get money from wherever they can?"
i answered no, so you spend some time saying the exact same thing.
guess what my answer this time will be?
nooooo
" I can understand approaching the wealthy and asking for charitable assi ...[text shortened]... onsidered middle class family on one salary income, which is something bordering on fantasy nowadays
Your post suggests that no one can get wealthy on their own? Wow. You are familiar with govt holding you back, so I can understand your mindset. Come to the USA which is the land of opportunity, or it has been until Biden came along. Our border opening is going to change the entire world, so you may be a little late.
As to taxation, there is already that, so maybe you can come up with what the real problem is. Spending more money than we have, on social problems that are not the biz of the government? But libs make everyone's business the business of the government, which is ruining our country. But you libs do not see that, you only think of one thing, ,,,,,get the rich guys. They create a job for your uncle Mo. So, just get their money? Then where will you get th next money? Where will uncle Mo work? Idiocy.
You say billionaires accumulate wealth. In a normal world, everyone accumulates wealth. I do, Marauder and Mott do. What in hell are you talking about, you ole billionaire-hater you.
And how can billionaires improve anything if you are on their ass? Bernie Sanders wanted to limit their income, that ole socialist. If he had done that 15 years ago, uncle Mo could not find a job.
Schools and starvation could be monitored by the government, but you ought to see a list on what BIDEN is REALLY spending money on. Look it up. Don't you think schools and starvation are more impt than cliiiiiimmmate control? And why should a billionaire watch his money go to climate controls instead of schools and starvation? He will say, naaaaa, I think I will keep my money. Maybe I dont believe in climate control.
Hey, everybody, did you get it that Zahlanzi says there should not be billionaires?
If France is trying to get a lower retirement age, and people like Shav only want to work 11 months a year, what incentive does a billionaire have to contribute to anything??????????
The work force slows down, and lives off the govt, like you do, so why should the billionaire have anything to do with that? Leave him alone to buy his yacht. He is obviously not part of your world. Hey, thou shalt not covet another man's stuff.
@averagejoe1 saidI don't believe the French protests are only about a higher retirement age, they're still going on today after more than a month and many of the protestors are of an age that don't give a hang about retiring. There's more to the French protests. There were protests and rioting in Greece recently the MSM tried to pass it off as being about train safety.
If France is trying to get a lower retirement age, and people like Shav only want to work 11 months a year, what incentive does a billionaire have to contribute to anything??????????
The work force slows down, and lives off the govt, like you do, so why should the billionaire have anything to do with that? Leave him alone to buy his yacht. He is obviously not part of your world. Hey, thou shalt not covet another man's stuff.
If the MSM says something it should be treated with extreme skepticism.