Who else thinks Socialism would be better than Predatory Capitalism?

[Ardent15]

I'm sick and tired of the current oligarchy that controls America. Our current economic system is fundamentally broken.

I wish I could say I had faith in Capitalism, but I don't. Anyone else agree?

[PDJane]

1. yes, of course.

A system that rewards fraud fails everyone, and that is what unrestrained capitalism does.

[Ardent15]

2. Only in an unrestrained capitalistic society could someone like Bernie Madoff...

...get away with what he did for so long.

[Nederland]

142. Bullshit

Bernie Madoff operated in one of the most highly regulated sectors of the US economy. What happened with Madoff was nothing more than a failure of government bureaucrats to do their jobs. Officials at the SEC were notified numerous times by private parties that Madoff was running a scam, and yet they did nothing. The problem therefore is one of incompetence, which can occur in any type of system, Socialism, Capitalism or whatever.

The idea that Socialist economies are somehow immune to incompetence is laughable.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

3. Agree.

If I had to choose I would choose full, true socialism over what we have here. My ideal system is a highly regulated free market economy with an extremely strong social safety net ala Scandinavia.

[Ardent15]

6. That's my ideal too

The safety net is critical. Equality of opportunity as well.

[texastoast]

4. We have socialism now

We have socialized the corporations' failures. And does it ever piss me off.

[Ardent15]

5. That's called corporatism

And yes, it is a disgrace to humanity.

[baldguy]

113. Socialism turned on its head.

Fascism.

[blindpig]

50. It ain't socialism if it's for the few.

That is capitalism, it is gangsterism.

[Better Believe It]

98. Not really. It's a capitalist government protecting capitalism

[Hugabear]

7. Does a bear shit in the woods? Of course.

It would be hard to find many systems worse than the current predatory capitalist system we have. I suppose that feudalism wouldn't be very nice, but we practically live under a modern day feudalistic system.

[Ardent15]

9. Well, fascism would be worse, of course...

...but I suppose we have been moving in some ways towards that thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rove, and co.

[defendandprotect]

73. Corporatism is fascism . . .!!!

[stillcool]

8. I'm not sure if it's the system..

of government as much as it is the people. If the laws were not written in favor of conglomerates, and the market was 'fair' where anyone with a product could compete, why wouldn't it work? That whole checks and balances thing needs some re-tooling, and I don't know how Democracy can work without the 'we the people' part.

[Ardent15]

10. The problem is that the people have become lazy corporate consumers

People have become, in practice, slaves to a corporate culture.

[stillcool]

22. I'm not sure if it has been any..

other way in a very long time. The robber-barons have been running the show all along, with some hiccups along the way. I wonder how much the internet has changed our collective psyche.

[blindpig]

51. Always blame the people.

Couldn't possibly be the system in which is our social environment and to which we respond like any other critter. Nope the people must be real stoopid.

That's exactly what our master want us to think.

[stillcool]

53. Absolutely. We are all human...

whether it's the top or the bottom of the social spectrum. There can be no perfect government, because there are no perfect people.

[blindpig]

56. There can be no perfect government,

however, there can be a more just and sustainable economic arrangement. Eliminating the parasite class, returning he means of production to those who do the producing.

Blaming the people, you are the perfect tool for capitalism.

[stillcool]

65. The reason why there are laws..

rules, checks and balances is because we human beings are ...human. "The People" as you seem to think are a certain class, certain sector of society. That is not true. We are all human beings..except maybe for yourself.

[blindpig]

70. Well and good, however,

when you have an economic system based upon exploitation of the vast majority of the people, that tiny minority doing the exploiting have grossly disproportionate wealth and power, rendering the law their pawn.
For the laws to be just capitalism must go.

[stillcool]

74. But..is that capitalism..

or is it the misuse and abuse of the system? If laws were written and meant something, that prevented the robber barons from gaming the system, could it work? Can any system of government work without implementing some kind of barrier to the abuse so common to the nature of man?

[blindpig]

82. They make the rules.

Laws have been written after every bout of capitalist rapacity only to be dodged, circumvented and eventually over ruled. As long as they have their ill-gotten gains and their hands around the throat of the economy it cannot be otherwise.

The barrier of which you speak is to take the means of production away from the few and return them to the many.

[Nederland]

143. It's NOT Capitalism

Anyone who thinks that the US has a Capitalist system doesn't know what Capitalism is.

[defendandprotect]

75. Well, our nation begins in theft and our revolution is followed by dispensing land ....

to the elites -- !!!

Patriarchy was enshrined in the Constitution ---

and when you look at capitalism you realize it's a "ridiculous King-of-the-Hill System"
intended to move the wealth and resources from the many to the few.

FDR "regulated capitalism in order to save it" -- and I believe that's true.
Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

There was only one problem to point to in this current economic fiasco -- DE-REGULATION --
and there is only one cure -- RE-REGULATION --- !!!


In fact, the derivatives are said to be as high as $600 TRILLION which GDP is $15 TRILLION
a year --

Further, the effort made by one agency to regulate derivatives was stopped by Rubin and
Greenspan.

And, the pension funds have been underfunded to decades, based on over-estimation of
of interest on investments and under-policing of the system by government.

Capitalism is only a few hundred years old -- we can live without it --

It is not about competition, it's about killing the competition!!!

Move on to democratic socialism --

[patrice]

11. I have no faith in Capitalism that does not recognize that Labor IS Capital for which

the Worker should receive a return on his/her investment of his/her Labor in the system. And money is NOT a return on the investment of your Labor, because money is nothing but 0s and 1s encoded and stored in privately owned magnetic resources and processed by privately owned computers in privately owned processes. Money has no value but that which it's owners, Banks and various financial entities, SAY it has, ergo it is not a REAL return on the investment of the REAL value of Labor.

Real values in exchange for the Real Value of Labor would be: a complete and appropriate Education, Comprehensive Health Care, Rational National Defense . . . stuff like that, not money and credit cards.

I am FOR Socialism that recognizes that the

group/society OWES each and every one of its members Real Value

in exchange for the REAL Value of each person's cooperation with and participation in the agreed upon systems that constitute the functions of the group/society.

[NoSheep]

12. Nice post.

[patrice]

17. It's been a while since I read it (decades), but the notion that Labor is Capital is from Adam Smith

[patrice]

19. Pardon my manners . . . Thanks!

[NoSheep]

24. You're welcome!

Sanity is so refreshing!

[patrice]

28. I come from a large complicated family and I'm old, so I think often about what makes a group

a group, beyond the chance of birth.

I think it's the agreements amongst people that make a nation a nation. If we don't perceive that there is a "contract" of some sort that we participate in, e.g. Real Value in exchange for Real Value, there can't be something called "America".

[NoSheep]

34. In total agreement here. I'm glad I ran into this tonight. I was despairing a bit.

I always feel better when I know someone is out there who sees these things as I do. It's really quite clear. I don't know how I know...maybe it IS age. Maybe I breathed the last breath of America...we can't be silent.

[defendandprotect]

76. Wonderful post ---

Thank you --

And, just as an aside, wasn't Adam Smith's teachings perverted by PBS in their series?

Further, needless to say, both capitalism and capitalism are hard on the planet and

humanity!!

[Nederland]

145. Response

There are so many thing wrong with your description of money I don't know where to start.

First of all, money doesn't have to be 0's and 1's stored in a bank account. If you so choose you can have all those 0's and 1's deleted from your bank account and converted into cold hard cash to be stuffed under your mattress. You'd be stupid to do that, but you are free to do exactly that.

Second of all, money is not "owned" solely by banks and various financial entities. Money is owned by all the members of an economy: workers, bosses, corporations, banks, state and local governments, etc. Everyone has a bit of it here and there and nobody "owns" all of it. You can complain about its distribution (and I do), but it isn't owned solely by one group.

Third, the value of money is not determined by any one group of people. Prices are set by supply and demand, an interaction between buyer and seller in which neither has complete control. If a buyer offers a price that is too low, the seller can refuse to sell. If the seller asks a price that is too high, the buyer can refuse to buy. Buyers that consistently refuse to buy at common prices end up without the goods they need to survive. Sellers that consistently refuse to sell at common prices end up without the money they need to survive. Socialists like to complain that sellers (corporations) always have the upper hand in any transaction. Really? Try walking into a GM showroom right now and tell me who has the upper hand...

Finally, the simplest proof that your whole post is misguided is this: if all those 0's and 1's actually have no REAL value like you claim, feel free to send them all my way. I'll be happy to provide my account and routing number to you for the transaction.


QED

[jimlup]

13. That's an odd way to put it...

Why do you wish you could say that you "had faith in Capitalism".

There is no reason to have faith in capitalism. Capitalism is inherently flawed and the elites have known this for a long time. We don't live under "capitalism". Our system is some sort of bizarre hybridized socialism for the rich, wage slavery for the rest scheme.

The whole "fear of socialism" obsession that the right is fanning is a paper tiger. It is absolutely irrelevant. It is time that we the people take control of what is rightfully ours.

[slay]

32. And that's a great way to put it

"It is time that we the people take control of what is rightfully ours". I totally agree. My main concern is that people have been so brainwashed by those in power that they will cling to this "capitalism" meme until we have the poor dying in the streets. Along with that is the complacency that has been engeneered by our corporate masters - people are pasified with stuff like American Idol and NCAA basketball tournaments while avoiding dealing with the serious problems that face this planet and its people. I sit in hope of a "great awakening" and do my part to get the info out about how our whole capitalist democracy is a sham - but until then, I remain vigilant - mentally at one with the great Metron. ;)

Who is Metron?

[jimlup]

40. My thoughts exactly!

I think you are correct. People have become so indoctrinated that they will be "dying in the streets" before they fight back. Years ago, I spent some time reading literature from an extreme left-wing group who called themselves "Maoists". Anyway, most of their stuff was way over the top but one thing they said stuck in my mind (I'm paraphrasing):

The "revolution" must come from the third world because the western working classes have been bought off with promises of luxury and things like "the American dream". Only the third world workers have the guts, strength and knowledge to do what is needed.

I didn't agree with the Maoists but I have to admit that this seemed absolutely true to me. I suppose if the current crises deepens there could be an awaking of the American working classes. I'm surprised it hasn't already taken a more serious turn in that direction. The current crises is pretty bad and our control system lies naked and exposed for all to see. But this is the evidence of what you said about "dying in the streets".

[defendandprotect]

77. Agree -- and we are rapidly becoming the "GOP's-third-world-America" . . .!!!

[dem mba]

35. are you implying that socialism has no flaws? - nt

[jimlup]

39. I'm implying NOTHING...

I'm STATING that how the elites have redefined "socialism" and "capitalism" is part of their doctrinal control. If you just look at issues like health-care, the banking system, communication and transportation, the answer is obvious. Why the hell shouldn't we take collective control? I guess because: "Oh, I'd rather let rich pigs run my life."

Both "socialism" and "capitalism" are simply dogmatic labels that the elites use to maintain the power structure. For the more sophisticated, they have succeeded by diverting us with intellectual wild goose chases like "is socialism really fair?" (Ayn Rand, et al). For most of the poor ignorant masses (Reagan democrats, etc.) they don't need to be nearly as sophisticated. They only need to establish the "socialism = bad" , "capitalism = good" memes while hiding the fact that our system bears little resemblance to either. Then the truly cynical among the intellectual elites must sit back and laugh hard as the "bewildered herd" attempts to awaken from its stupor.

And as an aside, I'm not saying that any of these elite intellectual "people" actually exist - maybe they do and it is a truly funny picture - some of Tom Tomorrow's cartoon characters come to mind here. These established memes have evolved because they serve the surviving doctrinal and control structure.

[dem mba]

58. yea I see what you mean

but like any complicated issue, its never black and white. The answer is an ambiguous and vague gray area that changes based on circumstances. Hybrid capitalism or social democracies are probably the way to go - systems where basic humanitarian needs are met by the state, but the marketplace still pushes efficiencies, innovation and true choice for the consumer. I don't think strict capitalism or socialism would ever work.

[blindpig]

66. You give Capitalism too much credit.

Efficiencies and innovation are not the exclusive domain of the marketplace. Indeed, in the hands of the marketplace these things are often buried, as in the patents that the big boys buy up to suppress competition.

'True choice for the consumer', what a laugh. How relevant is that when these choices are predicated upon cosmetics and advertising, the products being virtually identical?

[dem mba]

97. that's why patents expire

but to take on the larger issue of innovation and efficiency, capitalism simply does it better than any alternative. I don't think you can argue that any truly socialist state has made greater leaps in technology in any industry than any Western country.

I agree that contemporary marketing campaigns obfuscate real value in the eyes of the consumer, but I don't take your larger point. I'm not talking about choice like Coke over Pepsi or TGIFridays over Applebee's. I'm talking choice like a Ford F-150 over a Prius. A Mac over a PC. Ikea over Crate and Barrel. The consumer benefits from being able to choose what they really need to work more efficiently or relax with greater ease. And when millions of people are more relaxed and more productive, society benefits.

[blindpig]

103. You've got to be kidding

The term 'consumer' itself is an admission of thralldom. Those so-called choices are a lame and pathetic reason to endure massive injustice and environmental disaster. You like your toys more than freedom from oppression and a functional biosphere? If so, you are a fool.

You want innovation? Here:


Fact of the matter is that Capitalism has delivered damn little to really improve people's lives since the 60's. Gewgaws, gadgets, electronic pacifiers, that's all that's been delivered to us by Capitalism, and at great cost.

[poboyross]

120. I have been thusly re-educated.

Next time I have an asthma attack, I'll just go become bathed in the glow of Sputnik and be healed. It'll most definitely stop the inflammation in my lungs. Oh, wait minute....that would actually be Ventolin created by GlaxoSmithKlein! I even purchased it with my own low deductable privately paid-for insurance, for only 5 bucks! All of that hard work I put in sure has paid off, I don't know what I'd do if I had to wait in line because everyone could get it for free. I benefit directly from the wages of my labor and by the type of labor that I decided to perform; hence why I have more than many others whom perform other tasks that are much easier to acquire. All of this from a guy who came from a lower-lower-middle class family, and his parents from a poor family before that!

Labor, cunning, and hard-won experience pay off under capitalism in any form. If only people were appropriately punished for violating that trust, sometimes with life in prison with *true* hard labor in excrutiating conditions, then things might even out a bit. Accepting that the human condition will always include a large number of those who will not work to their potential, or perform jobs that are of great importance, true socialism will never work. It destroys the will to work harder and create more. Why should I do all of this work, if my family isn't going to benefit? Maybe it works in Star Trek, but not here. My concern (and a large number of the populous') for their fellow man only goes so far.

There's a point where investment becomes pure, irresponsible gambling. If I'm gambling my money, that's fine...but when it's someone elses, that should land you in the pokey.

The saying maybe cliche, but true: "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day....Teach him how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." Giving people things, on a regular basis, inherently imbues them with the sense that they now deserve it. Everyone should work to the fullest extent of their abilities to achieve the most they can and then enjoy the benefits using those abilities..for themselves. However, that effort by no means guarantees success in your goals, nor should it.

Want to take some steps to make healthcare affordable? Try tort reform, try asking the pharmaceutical companies why America has to bear most of the burden for R&D. Make healthcare available to children and the truly physically and mentally handicapped. Help bring down the cost of insurance to doctors and hospitals. I'm not saying those solutions are easy, nor am I saying how to do it. But by doing so and succeeding, you don't take the drive out of people to obtain it. People need to feel driven to achieve and obtain things like cars, homes, and insurance beyond basic care. Tell someone that everyone should get the same, and that all jobs are created equal (a complete lie) only leads them to the conclusion that extra bit of work just isn't worth it if its' fruits will be confiscated for someone else. On an idealistic level, socialism makes sense...in practice, it never does. Only under the iron fist of goverment is it able to survive. Ever wonder why there's a mass exodus of the best and brightest away from the Scandanavian countries? I thought they had the best income equality. Well, those kids are getting their free educations, then escaping to the West...where they can enjoy the fruits of their labor...while the homestead marches on towards an unsustainable govt. program.

Go ask William Bradford how it worked out for him and the rest of the Pilgrims....

[Manifestor_of_Light]

122. Reaganite bullshit.

Tort reform does NOT make healthcare affordable. The ins. cos. pushed tort reform, telling the drs that their insurance premiums would go down. It didn't happen.

Example from Texas:
In 2003, the state of Texas passed a constitutional amendment that restricts medical malpractice claims, capping noneconomic damages at $250,000. This was supposed to make medical insurance more affordable for Texans.

Guess again. Last year the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that Texas ranked third among the states in health insurance premium increases — 40 percent — from 2001 to 2005.

Physicians say that their malpractice premiums are indeed lower. But last year the Texas Academy of Family Physicians was hit with a 23 percent increase in the cost of health insurance for its employees. Not exactly a win/win. END QUOTE.

The state medical boards should do a better job of policing bad doctors. Doctors who get sued for malpractice (justifiably so) don't get their licenses taken away. Instead, they move to another state and then commit malpractice on other people.

To quote from your post:
Everyone should work to the fullest extent of their abilities to achieve the most they can and then enjoy the benefits using those abilities..for themselves. However, that effort by no means guarantees success in your goals, nor should it. END QUOTE.

So if I work my ass off, get stress-related illnesses as a result, burnout, etc., but no steady job, no raises, and no healthcare, I should not expect to be rewarded with higher income???

That's bullshit. I went to college for 12 years and earned three separate college degrees, and and two higher degrees have never impressed a possible employer. They have only made me look overqualified. I'm pretty bitter about the 10 years I spent on the two higher degrees, not to mention the time, the stress, and the money, and those degrees have never been used by me at a job.

Then, down further in your post you say:
Tell someone that everyone should get the same, and that all jobs are created equal (a complete lie) only leads them to the conclusion that extra bit of work just isn't worth it if its' fruits will be confiscated for someone else. END QUOTE.

Well, you just said that it's OK to work hard, and NOT be rewarded for it with more money. Then you say that people shouldn't work hard, because they will be lazy, and their rewards will be confiscated.

So which is it? You think it's OK to work hard and not make more money, and then you think it's a bad thing if people slack off and don't work harder, because they will not be rewarded.

And before that you say "Labor, cunning and hard-won experience pay off under capitalism in any form" as a blanket statement.

You brag about how your labors have been rewarded because you have highly-paid skills, and how you have insurance through your job as a result.

What about the people who work hard and DO NOT get rewarded in the marketplace with ANY job, let alone a well-paid professional job???

I guess you think you're smarter than the rest of us who have job skills.

And you think that if we had universal health care you would have to stand in line to get it? And the line about the "truly physically and mentally handicapped" -- sounds just like the Reagan bullshit about "The truly needy". So who decides this? You? You decide who is TRULY needy?

You sound like a right-winger who wandered here by mistake. I can't tell if you think we have a social contract to provide minimum support and social services to all citizens or not -- you contradict yourself. I think that you believe that our society does NOT have to treat all citizens with respect and provide them with minimum support and social services because of your term "truly physically and mentally handicapped".

I guess you think all those homeless mentally ill people are faking it? You think that everybody with Post-traumatic stress are faking it?? You are not a doctor or a psychiatrist or a social worker.

It's not your job to judge who deserves to be supported in our society or not.



You just contradicted yourself, bub.

[poboyross]

123. Nope.....responsibility backed with know-how (foul language not included)

Your idea that I have somehow contradicted myself is only framed by your belief that a reward is a necessity for showing up, let alone doing the hard work.

Do I think you should be rewarded with a job for your education? No. Getting a job is not a right. The opportunity to do so is the only one afforded in the Constitution.

Does the fact that you got those maladies by pursuing your degrees merit any form of reward? Nope. I've go a list longer than yours of the maladies that I have, and will always have.

I have re-quoted your quote so I can just restate what I said above:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE} To quote from your post:
Everyone should work to the fullest extent of their abilities to achieve the most they can and then enjoy the benefits using those abilities..for themselves. However, that effort by no means guarantees success in your goals, nor should it. END QUOTE.

So if I work my ass off, get stress-related illnesses as a result, burnout, etc., but no steady job, no raises, and no healthcare, I should not expect to be rewarded with higher income???
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You are absolutely correct. Hard work is not a guarantee of success, only a positive modification of your chances. There are many more people in this world who have faced adversity time after time for years on end, who never expected that 1+1=2 in a random environment like the world we live in. As I mentioned before, my list of stress acquired illnesses is very long and expensive. So expensive that I can pay for it with the job I got after double majoring and trying for 6 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE} That's bullshit. I went to college for 12 years and earned three separate college degrees, and and two higher degrees have never impressed a possible employer. They have only made me look overqualified. I'm pretty bitter about the 10 years I spent on the two higher degrees, not to mention the time, the stress, and the money, and those degrees have never been used by me at a job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows, I don't know what your degrees were in, nor if they were in demand or applicable to the jobs you were applying so I can't comment further on that aspect. That bitterness shows, and doesn't do anything but show that you feel entitled to something. That something is a job in this case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}Then, down further in your post you say:
Tell someone that everyone should get the same, and that all jobs are created equal (a complete lie) only leads them to the conclusion that extra bit of work just isn't worth it if its' fruits will be confiscated for someone else. END QUOTE.

Well, you just said that it's OK to work hard, and NOT be rewarded for it with more money. Then you say that people shouldn't work hard, because they will be lazy, and their rewards will be confiscated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read my post and actually understood it, that was in reference to what would happen if a socialist system were to be implemented. In a socialist system, people are rewarded for work that isn't of the same value as if it were, and people are punished for doing more work than they are able to benefit from. Hard work only has the chance to be beneficial inside of a system which acknowledges this. No benefit in system=No hard(er) work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}So which is it? You think it's OK to work hard and not make more money, and then you think it's a bad thing if people slack off and don't work harder, because they will not be rewarded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct on both counts. You're free to add to your chances of success by working hard, making wise decisions, and furthering your education. However, that is no guarantee. but should not be ignored for it's ability to increase your chances to move up that ladder. Why should someone pay big bucks for a Nerf Herder, if there aren't any Nerfs to herd or herding Nerfs isn't in demand?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to the rest of your post:

{QUOTE}And before that you say "Labor, cunning and hard-won experience pay off under capitalism in any form" as a blanket statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes....it allows me the unfettered chances to succeed to the extent that I can then buy out the business owned by the guy that treats everyone like crap...then fire him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}You brag about how your labors have been rewarded because you have highly-paid skills, and how you have insurance through your job as a result.

What about the people who work hard and DO NOT get rewarded in the marketplace with ANY job, let alone a well-paid professional job???

I guess you think you're smarter than the rest of us who have job skills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragging is only your perception because of your bitterness over another's success. That and your view that you're more deserving because you say you have about 6 more years of education that I do. The desire for a socialistic system can be rooted in two things....1)the idea that if given a chance, everyone will work hard, equally or 2)Since the world isn't fair naturally, it needs to be made fair...and since you cannot regulate, conform, or control time, chance, and fortune, you *can* control the fruits of someone else's hard work. It's classic robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Paul gets fed up and moves to the Caymans and Peter either learns how to work or starves to death. I don't think that I'm smarter, although I doubt you will believe that. I've meticulously made most of the decisions in my life (resulting in good and bad), and that mixed with trying over and over and over and over again along with time and chance have yielded good results. Will those results continue? Maybe, maybe not. If they don't I'll continue to work hard at it as long as the ups outnumber the downs. If the downs win, I change my career to something that's more profitable.

To clarify, I don't have employer provided insurance...the job doesn't provide it. I buy my own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}And you think that if we had universal health care you would have to stand in line to get it? And the line about the "truly physically and mentally handicapped" -- sounds just like the Reagan bullshit about "The truly needy". So who decides this? You? You decide who is TRULY needy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do indeed think that if I was in need of an organ transplant or major surgery that the chances of me having to wait for someone who drank themselves to death increases exponentially under universal healthcare. The U.S. is the world's politician's country of choice when time matters, because their money gets them results. Tell that to the people in the UK who are told that the government won't pay for a certain cancer med because it's too expensive for their single payer system that they are taxed to pay for.

Your last question is one of those "Do you like to beat your wife?" questions. Danged if you do, danged if you don't. I will say this; the answer to who is *truly* needy is not "everyone". If you can move at least two appendages, matching or not, you can contribute somehow. For years, I worked with people that had what most would consider severe handicaps, and their drive to succeed and keep on going after failure is part of what inspires me. My strength is pure weakness compared to theirs. Lastly, and to clarify, being physically disabled is a state that has very limited medical options to allow one to operate without hindrance as compared to those based in the mind outside of gross physical abnormalities of the brain. Those same people I worked with then, doubled down on the fact that I needed to harden up and push forward no matter what.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}You sound like a right-winger who wandered here by mistake. I can't tell if you think we have a social contract to provide minimum support and social services to all citizens or not -- you contradict yourself. I think that you believe that our society does NOT have to treat all citizens with respect and provide them with minimum support and social services because of your term "truly physically and mentally handicapped".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't wander here by mistake, I never wander anywhere that I haven't adequately planned for or want to go to. To assume that I fit the term "right-winger" based on my views on these few subjects is a little premature. I'm pro-conservation, I'm for regulations that don't damage personal drive for anyone regardless of income level, I'm of the mentality that people should be left alone as long as it doesn't affect my ability to do the same, and I'm pro-gun. I tend to hang out with the other pro-gunners on this board who have decided to label themselves democrats, and we get along pretty well. These are the same folks who I've seed derided for not being blue enough, while at the same time being the ones who helped Obama become President. I happen to label myself according to the President I look up to, Teddy Roosevelt. If that makes me "right-wing" in your eyes, so be it.

Your view that I have made contradictions only shows me that you didn't actually understand what was stated. Hence my point by point answering of your questions. As for providing minimal support and social services to all citizens, I do not support that. Not all people need services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE)I guess you think all those homeless mentally ill people are faking it? You think that everybody with Post-traumatic stress are faking it?? You are not a doctor or a psychiatrist or a social worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guess wrong on both counts. As it relates to being a medical professional, I take it that you aren't either, unless you are....in which case jobs should abound. Healthcare is the only industry growing right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}It's not your job to judge who deserves to be supported in our society or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was. My job does me just fine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{QUOTE}You just contradicted yourself, bub.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your statement of contradiction is in itself a contradiction....I'll need to go look that one up.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

129. I did not mean all citizens need to be supported by the government.

The ones who make the right choices and work hard, according to you, are supporting themselves and paying taxes.

I was not clear. I meant that those people who are disabled should get a minimum income, or minimum standard of support, like minimum income, health care, and social services. The kind of thing that European countries have.

The people who think that everyone should work hard, and if they have problems, it must be their own fault, fail to realize one thing: A society where there is a minimum standard of living and universal health care is far more stable than the U.S.

The mass shootings started after the Reagan union-busting and deregulation of the economy. Mass layoffs started happening. The TV people wring their hands and wonder why a guy decides to go shoot his former boss who just fired him or to vent his rage by randomly shooting a bunch of people. Or maybe he decides that he can't support himself or his family, since he got fired, so he shoots his wife, his kids and himself.

It's pretty obvious that the shootings are done by guys who see no future, and no job prospects. However, the TV people are not going to criticize the system that deems their jobs to be valuable and high-paying.

And no, I'm not in the health care field. I have worked in the legal business my whole life. I will not argue my job qualifications with you (wasting my breath) but I do have a Juris Doctor. I did not get a Ph.D. in a liberal arts field. I do have a Bachelor's degree in pre-med from the best pre-med school in the state, which is also called the best liberal arts college west of the Mississippi, in the annual U.S. News and World Report survey.

Whatever. I know I'm quite capable. I've seen lots of really stupid people get ahead in the world and become managers, and it looks like most of America is truly a mediocracy. Mediocre people are quite threatened by intelligent people and will undermine them. I've seen this. I've seen lawyers and judges that will lie about intelligent underlings without provocation. Narcissists and psychopaths have leadership roles in this society. They mold society in their own image, with movies and shows that make violence, domination, competition and humiliation of the non-conformist desirable.

I'm pro-conservation and pro-gun ownership for self defense. I think the societal problems around gun ownership are about attitudes re: violence and gender roles. Changing the gun ownership laws does not get to the root of the problem.

[poboyross]

132. I agree with you on most of your points.

And thanks for reading my uber long post...honestly, that's the result of me being up late because of chronic back problems and being tired of playing COD4 to pass the time ;) I don't think if people work hard and have problems that it is or isn't their fault. Fault is a term wracked with the idea of "bad". Sometimes better decisions should have been made, sometimes hind sight is 20/20. What's that thing that Bell said about the light bulb? He was questioned about if he thought he wasted his time with the other 20k designs he tried. He said that they weren't failures, he just learned 19,999 ways not to make it. I think that's a good attitude to have.

I agree with you on the minimum support for those who are disabled, and if they break on through and overcome, get a job, and make some money; they shouldn't be penalized by removing that care....unless they become the next Bill Gates, then there's a problem!

I think the shootings are a multi-pronged issue. I think it's a mix of people who are hopeless because of the bad economic conditions, those who were already mentally unstable and are now at a breaking point, and all of us who are so affected by the fact that the world seems to be spinning out of control. The 24/7 news cycle contributes to this, as do those who, in a sick way, benefit from having everyone running around scared (news shows to get ratings, companies to sell their products, and politicians to get their way). I also think that people aren't as hearty as they used to be because we've had it good for so long. I talk to my grandma bout how she lived through the depression raising 8 brothers and sisters pretty much on her own...no father, sick mother. You know, she's never bitter about it and talks about it as if it were the norm, maybe because it was. She lived a life where her and her husband went completely broke twice (some bad decisions, some bad farm seasons) and with only a 8th grade (her) and 3rd grade (him) education, they still came back to have plenty of money to live on after retirement.

I don't know what your degrees are in, but they sound pretty lofty ( I mean that ). If you're still west of the Mississippi, maybe coming east would help out. I don't know how true it is, but I've heard job hunting is even worse out West. Good luck in your job hunt, no doubt you've been interviewed by the "mediocrity" many times. I know I have. I figure that you can only shoot in the dark so many times before you hit something, and sometimes it takes a helluva lot of ammo. Good luck, and keep trying.

I also agree on the mediocrity of American culture, especially when you get to the managerial level. The last company I was at was eat up with it. I saw what was coming and left last year for a better job. I literally found out yesterday that they are cutting 4/5 of their work force and shipping the work to China. Get this, they're not paying out ANY severance packages, they're looking for a way to not pay out accrued vacation, AND they're reading a letter to the entire company today telling everyone that in spite of this, they expect them to work just as hard until the day they're let go. They're not letting anyone go at the same time, nor telling them when between now and June. That way, they think if people work hard they might be one of the last let go. Guess who gets to stay on? That's right....the worthless upper managers who didn't know how to do their jobs, the ones that ran the company into the ground.

Too bad it took this long to figure out that we're in agreement on a number of things after all that go round. Sorry I was so long winded, too. I'm on here for multiple reasons, I guess I have to add "convincing people that just because I call myself a Teddy Roosevelt conservative, that I'm not the first thing that comes to mind". I am my own type of loon, I reckon.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

149. Thanks.

I have a law degree which is 90 hours of classroom work. It is about four times as hard as college.
My vocational degree (court reporting) is the only one that ever got me a job. However, working in court is quite stressful and I can't do it anymore. I applied for quite a few legal assistant jobs and in two years I got one interview. :shrug:

I have retired to the country (East Texas) and am selling my house in the big city. I miss being able to go to stores other than Wallyworld. I would have to drive 60 miles to Target or any other store.

And I miss being around creative people. The people up here do their socializing at church and I am not interested in church or high school sports. My main project is cleaning out the house (Two generations of Depression people who saved EVERYTHING---AGGGHHHH!) and gardening.

My mother told me how she was "really poor" in the Depression. However, her mother had a job with the A&M University, a car, a secretary and civil service retirement. And they had white servants -- a cook and a washwoman. So they weren't nearly as poor as she told me they were. She also went to college in 1938, which was rare, and especially so for a woman.


My real calling is art and music so I'll do that. :D

[dem mba]

133. nailed it - eom

[dem mba]

134. well i hope you're logging onto DU from a public library

because if you had a computer and internet connection in your home you would look like a giant hypocrite. p.s. - Personal computers and the Internet as we know it were all invented AFTER the 1960s. So I guess there are 2 decent things that have improved our lives since then.

Capitalism has been around for a lot longer than just Adam Smith. So why don't we look at what civilization has gained since the days of currency being traded for goods in Mesopotamia and Babylon and not some arbitrary line in the sand you just came up with.

[defendandprotect]

80. FDR created a "hybrid" system of capitalism in REGULATING it . . .

he did it to save capitalism --

but capitalism overturned most of the New Deal -- it took them a while, but they've

gotten there -- by buying government.

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

Capitalism is a "ridiculous King-of-the-Hill System" intended to move the wealth of

a nation from the many to the few.

Capitalism is not about competition it's about killing the competititon.


Our schools pretty much taught that capitalism was synonymous with democracy --

rather it's antonymous with democracy.

[dem mba]

95. you're framing the question in an odd way

competition is but one factor of Capitalism. Capitalist markets perform better with competition and worse without it. So to say Capitalism is about killing competition doesn't really make sense. Specific firms within a Capitalistic market may wish to become a monopoly or gain majority market share (as well they should) but that's why you regulate their respective industries.

So we definitely agree on regulation being a positive thing. Just wanted to emphasize that competition is a key factor in making capitalism work.

Also, as far as the king-of-the-hill system to get wealth from the many to the few, well I see that as a good thing, with conditions. Capitalism should be a true meritocracy, where those that work the hardest and have the smartest ideas thrive and survive. I know we don't live in that world, but this is what we should strive for because its benefits are legion - greater innovations, more advancements in the arts and sciences (art is most certainly a business), less transfers of wealth and more true wealth creation, to name a few.

[defendandprotect]

126. You missed the point . . . competition is NOT a factor in capitalism . . .

it's a false concept --
As I said, capitalism is about killing the competition.

You might also note that claims of free enterprise also "don't make sense" ---
because it is also a false concept of capitalism.

Specific firms within a Capitalistic market may wish to become a monopoly or gain majority market share (as well they should) but that's why you regulate their respective industries.

You might have also noticed that we are repeatedly bailing out "business which is too big to fail."
In which case, they are TOO BIG. Our anti-trust/monopoly laws have been ignored and unused.
And, further, you might also have noticed that elite/capitalists have OVERTURNED NEW DEAL
REGULATIONS?

At this point what we are talking about is RE-REGULATION of capitalism.
Reinstituting Glass-Seagall, for another.


Just wanted to emphasize that competition is a key factor in making capitalism work.

Again, there is no real "competition" in capitalism . . . imagine four corners with gas stations
where the prices were fixed by the oil industry? What would happen?

If you have more than one option for a cable carrier you're lucky --
TWO? Wow!

What has your alleged competition done for health care in America?

Also, as far as the king-of-the-hill system to get wealth from the many to the few, well I see that as a good thing, with conditions. Capitalism should be a true meritocracy. . .

What? You do realize that what I'm saying is that the elite/corporations usurp all our nation's
wealth and control of our resources? And you think that's a good idea?
There is also no capitalist "meritocracy" -- it's as much a myth as "free enterprise."
What we do have is "Welfare for the rich and free enterprise for the poor."

where those that work the hardest and have the smartest ideas thrive and survive.

And, exactly what would become of those who didn't want to work 20 hours a day, or those
who weren't interested in developing ideas for corporate profit-making -- or those
artists, poets, philosphers . . . or natural healers not interested in profits?
Capitalists right now are harvesting slave labor around the world and if we give them another
inch they'll be reintroducing child labor here--!

I know we don't live in that world, but this is what we should strive for because its benefits are legion - greater innovations, more advancements in the arts and sciences (art is most certainly a business), less transfers of wealth and more true wealth creation, to name a few.

Thank heavens we don't -- as yet! So you want to strive for more capitalistic fiction?
What "greater innovations"? More bombs, more weapons? Less health care?
What "advancements in the arts and sciences"? Corporations have distorted and denied
Global Warming reality for decades and lied to the public with huge propaganda campaigns
over decades!
When was the last time you went to a Broadway theater?
Where is new music? New live TV?

The wealth and resources of the nation belong to everyone on the planet--
it's a commonwealth.

And, think about it . . . this continent belonged to the Native American -- from which'
we stole it!

Further there is no need to create wealth by pounding down natural
resources nor destroying nature. What is the value of nature to us, in your view?

All that betrays labor is treason. Abe Lincoln

How old are you?
Stay away from the Cool Aid!

[havocmom]

14. ready to give it a try. Gotta be better than the socialism for the uber rich we have now

Time to level the field.

[midnight]

15. I want a fairer system that doesn't use us little people to

finance the rich peoples games, taxes, multiple homes, etc....

[Warpy]

16. We're not quite at the point where we need a few years of

a Communist style regime to break the plutocracy, but we're getting there fast.

The aim should always be to institute a mixed system that can respond quickly to providing things at reasonable cost while providing service that doesn't have profit sucked out to degrade it.

Capitalism is great at producing things. Socialism is great at producing services. I think we need both.

[bird gerhl]

18. Popularly managed imperialism would be ideal

which is what I thought we were supposed to get with Democrats in both chambers of Congress and the White House!

What a disappointment this all turned out to be.

[blindpig]

52. Ideal for who?

I'm sure the people of our neo-colonies would be thrilled if we got imperialism "right".

[bird gerhl]

116. Ideal for us

We are the world's middle class and we will not apologize for our way of life. Our way of life is non-negotiable.

[blindpig]

156. What an astonishing statement.

I was going to rant but such obtuse ignorance speaks for itself.

[roody]

20. Agree.

[The Hope Mobile]

21. Why do you think the Danish are the happiest people on earth?

Highest standard of living? Best health, education, etc.?

[Sandrine for you]

23. They are not really happy: they lost the faith in Jesus,...so they are really lost....

in an strange world of nothing,they have just that: false happiness,health and education,but no savior....


:toast:

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. ?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

81. Sarcasm . . . ????

or religious insantiy?

"God" is against the well-being of nations -- against health and education --- ???

I didn't know that !!!

[Sandrine for you]

146. yes sarcasm...

[Sandrine for you]

150. Well the meaning of the apple ? A war against science.

But it was a reference to the little nation of the north of Europe.

Sarcasm

[The Hope Mobile]

138. I'm going to assume that this is sarcasm . . .

or else you're a fundie. Hopefully I'm just comedy challenged here.

[Sandrine for you]

147. yes sarcasm...lol

[fascisthunter]

144. that's a pretty weird conclusion to make

you assume those who are religious can only be happy. Well then, explain why the most hate-filled lunatics are religious?

[Sandrine for you]

148. yes sarcasm...the beer...you know...

[fascisthunter]

151. ahh... I see

phew

[HughBeaumont]

63. Plus all of the killer Lego sets should have something to do with it.

[The Hope Mobile]

137. You got a good point there! That's GOT to be a huge part of it :)

[jwirr]

25. Put me down for Socialism.

[leftofthedial]

26. Capitalism is unsustainable.

[corruptmewithpower]

27. What we have now, under Bush and Obama is Fascism.

That is Fascism on strictly economic terms.

[TankLV]

29. Absolutely - in a heartbeat...

[Lerkfish]

30. well, to be fair, you're comparing a pristine government style with a messy boat of pirates

in other words, predatory capitalism is NOT a form of government, but of highly motivated thievery.

[blindpig]

54. Capitalism is capitalism

Splitting hairs or calling the current situation an aberration gets us nowhere. It always comes to this.

[Lerkfish]

59. I think you misunderstood the spirit of my post

Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system, not a government. There is a difference.

in fact, if you look at the definition, capitalism is more like the ABSENCE of government:

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

my characterization of the bloody pirates was to capitalism in general, not as an aberration.

[blindpig]

61. OK

The term 'predatory capitalism' sets me off. Too many around here seem to think that capitalism is capable of reform but the fix is temporary at best and always inadequate and then the rapacity starts again.

What your definition lacks is that capitalism always trends towards imperialism and monopoly and the compromise of the state.

Here we are.

[defendandprotect]

83. Capitalism is a FORM of government when it buys government and elected officials -- !!!

and that is how they overturned New Deal regulations on capitalism ---

Corporatism which has been with us and building for decades now is fascism.

Yes -- unregulated capitalism is organized crime.

[Octafish]

31. We're extinct if we don't.

You know the NAZIs will go into a secure, undisclosed location and emerge after the eco-collapse and reinhabit the earth with their brethren, the cockroaches.

And in all seriousness, I agree with you 100-percent, Ardent15. The current system is destroying us all.

[Amonester]

33. As the oceans heat up, they are acidifying more and more.

Once the water's pH level will have fallen beyond the point of no return, marine life will not survive.
Once marine life will be gone, so will the human race.

pdf doc: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/

Capitalism (actually, in reality, a combination of communism for the richest only coupled with capitalism for the growing mass of poor persons) is not only not doing anything substantial enough to prevent oceans from acidifying, but is making them acidify more and more daily, instead.

We're screwn. Unless... (a "new" form of "real" 'scientific' socialism for all is created)

[pampango]

36. But is Predatory Socialism (like in the USSR) better than Capitalism?

An oligarchy existed (and exists) in the USSR (Russia) and China. Their economic systems were broken and were changed.

That doesn't mean that socialism (democratic) can't work or that some form of modified capitalism can't work. The answer is not just that socialism or capitalism is better, but what are the specifics of how one makes either system or a combination work for ordinary people.

[acmavm]

38. Capitalism depends on honesty in the marketplace in order to be

a fair and effective form of government.

Look at the American/World economy and look who gamed the system and brought us all down. Wall Street and the republican party in charge. There was absolutely no honesty there and when that was pointed out at various times during the past 8 years or so, it was covered up by both our government and the people that feed their campaign coffers.

Same thing is happening right now. Goldman Sachs is running the bailout. And the democratic administration is putting the next 10 generations of Americans on the hook for the tab. And we're still not being let in on the whole story.


Unfettered capitalism at its best. The risk belongs to the little guy, the profits belong to the Predator Class and their lackeys.

[pampango]

45. I agree with you about "unfettered" capitalism. I also believe that "unfettered" socialism

(using the USSR and China as examples) can be bad for the little guy and great for the ruling oligarchy.

Either system (or some combination of the two) depends on effective democratic control of the rules under which the system operates to be useful at meeting the needs of most citizens. Neither capitalism nor socialism has any magical power to solve all of society's problems and rely on effective democratic control to be useful.

[defendandprotect]

84. There's an old Russian joke . . .

"Question: What's the difference between capitalism and communism?

Answer: Under capitalism, man exploits man

Under communism, it's just the opposite"


Or as Orwell said . . . "a pox on both their houses" -- !!!

[pampango]

101. I hadn't heard that one. New meaning to communism being the "opposite" of capitalism. n/t

[14thColony]

37. I'll take socialism as an economic model

With a liberal direct democracy as the political counterpart.

[eridani]

41. Socialism is fine for public goods

Not everything belongs in that category, though.

[defendandprotect]

105. I thought "society" was about human beings . . .

and that's definitely the change we need --

stopping the exploitation of people for economic profit -- !!!

[eridani]

124. For basic needs, yes. How about determinining what to do with discretionary income? n/t

[defendandprotect]

125. What discretionary income -- Bush bankrupted our Treasury . . . !!!

Further, military industrial intelligence complex vacuums up every cent they
can set sights on!

And Democrats are now re-funding the Bush wars for more than two years and
don't see any immediate withdrawals on the horizon.

Socialism is fine for public goods
Not everything belongs in that category, though.

[eridani]

127. I define it as money that people spend on things other than rent, utilites, food

--transportation and minimally functional clothing. Not talking about the national debt here. If we aim for more than subsistence under socialism, we will have discretionary income.

[defendandprotect]

141. And it looks to you like Great Britain, France, Italy have been at "subsistence" levels -- ???

We are discussing a national situation -- not every individual in America --
who would be free at any rate to decide what to do with their discretionary
income under a democratic socialism, just as people in other nations are free
to make those decisions.

Now let's get back to the nation --
nationalizing oil industry --
nationalizing banks --
nationalizing auto industry -- and get them building electric cars

[eridani]

157. No problem with that. Just leave books, restaurants and spring fashions out of it n/t

[Vinca]

42. I think life would be alot more pleasant under socialism.

You wouldn't worry from one day to the next if you'd end up sick and bankrupt living in the street.

[The2ndWheel]

49. Wouldn't you rather be in socialism?

Why would you want to be under any system?

[sendero]

43. The problem is that..

.... "capitalism" and "socialism" do not describe discrete points of policy but merely specify a rather wide continuum of policies.

Definitely, we need to move towards the "socialism" side of the continuum, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in pure socialism.

[rucky]

44. Put me down in the Socialism column...

if for no other reason than to scare the shit out of any Freeps that may be reading this thread.

[harun]

46. You would think more people would come to this conclusion when our bank system

nearly collapses at max every 7 years or so and needs massive gov't intervention just to keep it from imploding.

If the system can't work for even 10 years w'out collapse, then the system needs fundamental changes.

[LWolf]

47. Of course. nt

[TBF]

48. I think that's why most of us are here -

if we were thrilled with the status quo we'd be out living our lives and not complaining about it. We're here looking for folks to talk to because we know something is really wrong.

[Echo In Light]

57. Agreed

[defendandprotect]

85. misplaced

[defendandprotect]

86. Another vote for the obvious, which we need to hear every now and then--!!!

Thank you!

[Common Sense Party]

60. Most people on this thread have far more faith and confidence in government

than I do.

[Vidar]

62. Of course it would. Sweden is in far better shape economically than

we are & isn't even lacking for billionaires.

[AZ Criminal JD]

92. I guess you forgot that Sweden has zero international responsibilities

Just for starters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. And most of our "international responsibilities" are more accurately described

as an expression of being meddling control freaks who have appointed ourselves boss of the world.

[AZ Criminal JD]

154. The hundreds of millions of people who depend on our aid

just to live through the day may disagree with you. Maybe we should have been like Sweden in WW II when it was Germany's biggest trading partner happily making money off the death of tens of millions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

158. Most of our foreign aid is military aid, and the two largest recipients

are Israel and Egypt.

The Scandinavian countries (including Sweden) actually give a higher percentage of their GDP as genuine charitable aid than the U.S. does, and much of the alleged American charitable aid is a way of getting rid of surplus agricultural commodities or is actually carried out by NGOs.

[AZ Criminal JD]

159. Making it up to fit your world view

Most foreign aid is not military, it is economic. Total foreign aid as of 2007 was 123 billion of which 95.5 billion was private aid. All of the private aid (79%) is economic. http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2007/May/20070524165115zjsredna0.2997553.html Scandinavian countries give practically nothing from the private sector. Of government aid approximately 25% is military and 75% economic. http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1321_u_s_foreign_aid_economic_assistance.html Old numbers but the proportion is the same. Israel and Egypt are the only two countries where the military aid is larger than the economic aid. But hey, let those people in Africa starve.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

160. I'm fine with actual charitable aid, but viewing military interventions

and military aid as "our global responsibility" has lead to nothing but trouble.

[Vidar]

139. In other words, they haven't made a fucking mess of the whole planet, like the US,

& Britain before us.

[mike_c]

64. absolutely....

eom

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. Socialism As An Overall System Is Stupid.

[Mudoria]

71. A good mix of socialism with capitalism would be the ideal I think..

a pure form of either isn't a good thing to my mind.

[defendandprotect]

88. Have you ever lived in a system of "pure" or any kind of socialism .... ???

[Mudoria]

93. Please point out a "pure" system of socialism...

[defendandprotect]

94. You suggest " a pure form of either isn't a good thing to my mind" . . . how do you know?

A good mix of socialism with capitalism would be the ideal I think..
a pure form of either isn't a good thing to my mind.

[defendandprotect]

87. What about our socialism for the rich?

which is what we're living thru right now . . .

while we continue with free enterprise for the poor -- !!!

[MedleyMisty]

68. I'm very pro socialism

even if I don't think that humans naturally ride sparkly unicorns among shiny rainbows in Happy Sunshine Land.

[slackmaster]

69. I think that is a false dilemma

The reality in this country is that we have a mix of capitalism and socialism.

[defendandprotect]

89. We have welfare for the rich and free enterprise for the poor . . .

as Bobby Kennedy, Jr. has so aptly stated it --

Additionally, no measure of capitalism can be beneficial for our planet,

natural resources nor humanity.

[defendandprotect]

72. Agree . . . actually, now better known as criminal capitalism . . .

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime ---


The economist who was being circulated at DU recently -- Simon? Simpson? --

ended by referring to having to break the oligarchy -- if I remember it correctly!

[trayfoot]

78. laissez faire capitalism is as bad as communism or socialism

[bamacrat]

79. YES...

Were I rich and became rich during the last 8 years I would probably say no. If capitalism has worked for you then you probably like it. If it hasnt you dont. But I do think that as a society we would progress so much faster and farther if we would admit we are a socialist country. We have something called Social Security, we have medicare and medicaid, government funded education roads and sewers. The only thing that is capitalist about our country is the way we look at money. If we want social programs that help the greater good of our people we have to have a socialist form of economy. The rich cant get infinitely richer pay less taxes and the government continue to provide these services. In a true capitalist society it would be up to the rich to invest in programs and roads and such. But would they....NO.

Socialism all the way woooo.

[blindpig]

90. As long as we have Capitalism we cannot be Socialist.

What you're describing is the libertarian wet dream, something we've been inching towards for decades. What we have now is capitalism with a badly frayed social safety net. Socialism is the absences of Capitalism, it is what comes after.

[defendandprotect]

91. Capitalism can only work for the few . . .

additionally, it's a reckless system of exploitation harmful to the planet

and humankind.

It's based on conquest and perpetual wars ---

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" -- which are the licenses

for the few to exploit nature, natural resources, animal-life . . . and even

other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

[inna]

96. count me in. NT

[Two Americas]

99. doens't much matter

Our opinions don't much matter. Capitalism is going to take us all down no matter what our opinions are about it.

Most people don't even know what the word means. Most people do not know how modern and aberrant it is, how unusual it is historically, how recently it arose.

Most people don't know that "socialism" describes the way that human communities have been structured since the beginning of time - the standard, the norm - and that humans would never have survived otherwise.

Socialism is everything BUT one very odd, modern, and destructive belief system that we call "capitalism."

Thinking that socialism is the "alternative system" to capitalism is like thinking that life is the alternative system to murder, and then arguing back and forth about which "system" is "better" - life or murder. Imagine how confused and convoluted our thinking would have to be be if we felt compelled to see murder as an alternative system to life. That is just how confused and convoluted our thinking is about politics.



...

[leftstreet]

100. It'd be a start n/t

[Wednesdays]

102. I'm leery of answering black-or-white questions

Certainly we need to lean far more towards socialism than we've been. But pure socialism? I'm not sure if that's such a great thing, either.

If you mean socialism in the sense of the "socialist" European countries such as in Scandinavia, then definitely yes.

[ananda]

104. Me!

Predatory capitalism based on greedy
self interest principles can never work.

[tbyg52]

106. I'm in. nt

[bvar22]

107. European Democratic Socialism ??? ...Sure.

*

[ProdigalJunkMail]

108. Capitalism itself is not predatory...

people, however, are! In order for capitalism to function it requires workers and consumers that are well educated and interested...and capitalists that are moral and ethical...unfortunately in this country we have a desperate shortage of both!

sP

[cilla4progress]

109. Absolutely!

And have for a long time. I don't even "wish I could say I have faith" in capitalism. When it comes to life's essentials - a roof over one's head, decent food, education (through college), health care - access should be absolutely equal.

Luxury automobiles, condos on the 18th green, vacations to Tasmania - in my view, these can fall under the rule of competitive advantage. In recent discussions about European health care, this is what I hear: the cost for essential medical care is socialized; if you want a boob job - you pay for it. So I don't think my idea is novel. Not certain what it is called though?

[handmade34]

110. had that mindset for 30 years

this world can't change positively fast enough for me. (3 cheers for Vermont and Iowa!!!!)

[AllyCat]

111. Yup. If for no other reason than to swing things the other way and

settle somewhere even in the middle.

this is not a democracy. It is a corporatocracy pure and simple. And I'm sick of it.

[harmonicon]

112. 100%

[applegrove]

115. That is a false choice. We have socialized medicine in Canada. But we still

have capitalism. Our banks were prudent so they are not in crisis. You can tone down the capitalism without getting rid of the whole thing. You just have to regulate like you are dealing with a bunch of thieves. Which is what property laws are allready all about. Just extend those laws to the banking and investment sector. Assume people and ceos could be thieves. Legislate. Get socialized health care and you are rocking it!!!

[razors edge]

117. There is absolutely no difference in the two.

They are identical in their administration and their end results.

Do you truly believe the Kremlin staff, or their families stood in the same bread lines as the unemployed sewer line repair man?

I don't.

This video is perhaps a little bit simple for some, but it's somewhat entertaining and points out the situation pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE


You can call a government what ever you like, but it comes down to a basic truth. Do you have rule of law or rule by something else.

The problem isn't the Corporate control of our government, it is the lack of equal protection under the law, and/or equal punishment for the law makers who break the law, as the case may be. Since the corporations now write most of the laws, they are the law makers as well IMHO.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[razors edge]

119. But I'm not an asshole.

But that's okay there are plenty here on DU who like to judge others without sharing their exhaustively researched positions in their hit and run juvenile posts. I forgive you for being an asshole.


You've been a member here for two months and you 1) insulted everyone one this board, and 2) think my posts are in line with the majority of the posts here?


Wow, just wow.

[Strelnikov_]

121. How bout we meet in the middle

Break up the big corps, enact/enforce regulations on the size of corps/companies to ensure a diverse/dynamic free market.

Overlay with a command economy at the macro level for steering/regulation.

Jintao's China Model, with regulation and democracy.

[JCMach1]

128. How about neither of the above- time to think beyond hour/wage slavery

to anyone or anything...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

130. The root causes of societal problems are never mentioned.

Man gets laid off from job, shoots his family, or shoots random people: Why? Mass layoffs and predatory capitalism, that's why. It should be obvious. But we can't criticize the economic system.

People who are sleep-deprived and have wrecks: The problem is predatory capitalism exploiting the workers--not paying overtime, working them beyond human capacity, keeping wages down. Nobody is cut slack for being human and needing sleep and down time. The man with the constitution of a horse, an overactive thyroid and too much testosterone is the standard. If you're a person with less energy, a female, an older person, or just a normal person, then you get tossed out to the trash heap.

The lack of groups of people (friends, relatives, co-workers) to help people with their problems is a major cause of problems. Rugged individualism doesn't work. Rugged individualism destroys the majority while letting a few individuals get rich.

[JCMach1]

131. Not quite what I was thinking... Socialism AND Capitalism both have as part of a theorectical base

the concept of hourly labor...

I think both socialism and capitalism are dinosaurs and at this point both are dead-ends of history.

[The2ndWheel]

136. "Rugged individualism doesn't work."

Is the root cause of rugged individualism capitalism? I'd say cheap energy is more of a root cause, which then gives the individual more possibility of not directly needing anyone else. The cheaper the energy, the more individuals there will be. For example, when everyone has a job, and money to spend, everyone is able to buy their own home. When jobs are being cut, and people don't have that money coming in, people start moving in with friends and/or family. Same with our healthcare system. More and more people unable to afford healthcare. The solution? Bring everyone into the same system. Move into the same house. Cook more meals at home. Start a garden. Share one car.

Rugged individualism isn't the root cause of anything. It's a symptom.

[JonLP24]

135. I don't like capitalism that abandons the working class and the poor

Otherwise I'd be ok with capitalism.

[Orsino]

140. I wouldn't mind the greed...

...if we had the courage to regulate it properly. Capitalism absolutely require socialism to survive--and perhaps the reverse is true, too.

But then, that's why we already mix the two in America.

[sarcasmo]

152. Predatory Capitalism sure isn't working.

[TBF]

153. "Predatory Capitalism" - heh. Is there any other kind? n/t

[lib2DaBone]

155. Count me in.. as a packer/shipper I've broken every finger on both hands...

..I have no health insurance and a lot of arthritis. God Bless America Banking System.

[upi402]

161. the media has taken away the balance of labor... UNIONS

Capitalism needs a check or it will consume itself. That check is a socialist counterbalance to its power... UNIONS.

And the corporatist media has easily fooled folks to act and vote against their own best interest.