I went, it was a blast. It was tragic and pathetic to see the 3 Nazis protesting outside, but everything else was great. I bought so many books, I don't know where I'm going to find the time.
I'll be there in Chicago, but sadly I can only make it Saturday. There are SO many awesome talks to see, I'll miss so many good lectures just on the single day I'm going.
Where's all the money going to come from to pay for socialism over the long term?You can only tax the "greedy" businessman so much before you run out of their money and discourage people from becoming successful in the first place. Where does all the innovation in new life saving healthcare etc come from? Capitalism. It sounds really nice that everyone can be taken care of from cradle to grave but in reality it's completely unaffordable and unrealistic without a MASSIVE drop in living standards.
Well, as a healthcare worker I can tell you that the majority of people do not have access to those innovations. My idea of socialism is not to meet human need by taxing capitalists but my having worker control of the economy and production. And an expansion of education would allow the mass of people to participate in increasing productivity, with the incentive of producing more through working less, etc.
I actually wouldn't expect a drop. On the contrary, I'd expect a rise. For example, over $1 trillion per year is spent on advertising, and another $1 trillion on military. That money could go towards raising living standards. And because productivity gains would meet the interests of all (instead of just a few as exists under capitalism), I think we'd see gains in living standards from that on a scale difficult to imagine today.
That pot of money would only get smaller and smaller in a short period of time. You would run out of wealthy people in a heartbeat and discourage people from becoming wealthy/make it impossible for them to become wealthy in the first place. It couldn't be added to by giving jobs to the unemployed either. Where would that money come from? That's right, that same pot of money that their supposedly putting money back into.
for one, advertising (1 trillion a year as cptflume points out) does not create anything material. It increases consumption, but that does nobody any use in the first place, and whatever economic losses due to no advertising would be more than made up by the stimulating effect of 1 trillion dollars put to good use (education, healthcare, food, shelter, etc.) the $10,000 that it costs to take out a magazine ad would be much more useful paying for ~1000 people to eat for a day.
I think you don't understand where wealth comes from. Its not "innovative entrepreneurs" as is commonly thought, its through the labor of those who produce the profits for the rich. If they were to democratically control production, they control all the wealth in the world. That kind of world doesn't need incentives for people to get rich, because there would be no rich or poor where every person has a say in running society at large.
@cptflume How do you find jobs? Does any of the socialist people know that the government runned by democrat and republican aren't supportive of banning outsourcing?
What your take for illegal immigrant? How about some jobs? *show mic
Mikhail Kalashnikov created the greatest and most influential weapon of the 20th century, and he lived his entire life in a humble apartment. what he got in return for his service were some medals, no material reward. I don't think we should spend our time making weapons, nor do I think the USSR was a model of socialism. However, Kalashnikov proved that you don't need enormous material rewards to motivate people to do great things.
The Soviets proved what happens when the govt controls the means of production; prices rise, standards drop, shortages of basic essentials(food), poverty and just a general plunge in living standards.
Actually, the Soviets Union *improved* living standards for Russians, who just left behind serfdom shortly before the revolution, and FAR behind the rest of Europe. The assumption is that because living standards in the USSR were below that of West Europe and the US and Canada that living standards declined, this is false.
Also, Stalin's popularity in Russia today is still above 50%. After the end of Communism, living standards plummeted. at least the USSR gave people pensions and healthcare.
I'm not suggesting that the Soviet Union was ideal, far from it. I'm saying there actually were good things that it did. But the bad parts, the lack of personal freedom, the state secrecy, lack of democracy, etc. are all bad.
But apparently Russians aren't too bothered by all those bad things, I think that goes to show how capitalism has miserably failed them. I think that Bush claimed that democracy inevitably comes in a capitalist society, Russia proves that wrong.
Exactly, what everyone on this thread fails to realize is that while socialism will equalize the "field" so to speak, it will equalize us in poverty, living standards will drop and society will become stagnant and fail to progress and advance due to the immense tax burden of the welfare state created...so if thats what these douchebags want then they can move to europe!
that is included in a loose definition of socialism, but have more public workers and nationalizing industries *definitely* counts as socialism. the dictionary definition of socialism is 'control of the means of production in the hands of the people.' I'm not sure about Sweden, but Denmark, which is similar has about half of the entire population in public jobs.
It's like saying Bush was a socialist because of doubling the size of Dept of Education, bailing out the banks, the auto industry, Medicare and Medicaid etc.
Most economies are mixed at this point but one thing is for sure, if you get rid of capitalism and go 100% socialism, you have big trouble ahead. Socialized industries require capitalism to do all the hard work for them. Swedens hospitals don't get their technology and medicine from socialism.
Well, for the record I listed the music title for attribution purposes, not to suggest that Abu Nurah is a socialist (he hasn't told me either way). Also, I'm Pope Innocent, the other artist on that track, and have the rights to use the song, FYI.
Human need and corporate greed? What about government greed?
Bopkasen 1 year ago
I went, it was a blast. It was tragic and pathetic to see the 3 Nazis protesting outside, but everything else was great. I bought so many books, I don't know where I'm going to find the time.
spartan2600 2 years ago
And by "Nazis" I'm sure you mean "anyone who disagrees with you"; Not actual, skull-measuring Fascist Nazis.
The mind boggles at the irony.
ThanklessExpediency 2 years ago
No, actual Nazis. Can't say if they've literally measured skulls, but they covered themselves in Swastikas and other obvious Nazi symbolism.
spartan2600 2 years ago
I'll be there in Chicago, but sadly I can only make it Saturday. There are SO many awesome talks to see, I'll miss so many good lectures just on the single day I'm going.
spartan2600 2 years ago
I want to go to this sooo badly!
alas, i can't afford train tickets right now D:
redrocker922 2 years ago
Where's all the money going to come from to pay for socialism over the long term?You can only tax the "greedy" businessman so much before you run out of their money and discourage people from becoming successful in the first place. Where does all the innovation in new life saving healthcare etc come from? Capitalism. It sounds really nice that everyone can be taken care of from cradle to grave but in reality it's completely unaffordable and unrealistic without a MASSIVE drop in living standards.
beelz3333 2 years ago
Well, as a healthcare worker I can tell you that the majority of people do not have access to those innovations. My idea of socialism is not to meet human need by taxing capitalists but my having worker control of the economy and production. And an expansion of education would allow the mass of people to participate in increasing productivity, with the incentive of producing more through working less, etc.
cptflume 2 years ago
Would you expect a big drop in living standards under such a system?
beelz3333 2 years ago
I actually wouldn't expect a drop. On the contrary, I'd expect a rise. For example, over $1 trillion per year is spent on advertising, and another $1 trillion on military. That money could go towards raising living standards. And because productivity gains would meet the interests of all (instead of just a few as exists under capitalism), I think we'd see gains in living standards from that on a scale difficult to imagine today.
cptflume 2 years ago
Where's that money going to come from though?
beelz3333 2 years ago
Well enough value is already produced to meet the needs of all, and that could be increased by providing jobs for the unemployed.
cptflume 2 years ago
That pot of money would only get smaller and smaller in a short period of time. You would run out of wealthy people in a heartbeat and discourage people from becoming wealthy/make it impossible for them to become wealthy in the first place. It couldn't be added to by giving jobs to the unemployed either. Where would that money come from? That's right, that same pot of money that their supposedly putting money back into.
beelz3333 2 years ago
for one, advertising (1 trillion a year as cptflume points out) does not create anything material. It increases consumption, but that does nobody any use in the first place, and whatever economic losses due to no advertising would be more than made up by the stimulating effect of 1 trillion dollars put to good use (education, healthcare, food, shelter, etc.) the $10,000 that it costs to take out a magazine ad would be much more useful paying for ~1000 people to eat for a day.
spartan2600 2 years ago
I think you don't understand where wealth comes from. Its not "innovative entrepreneurs" as is commonly thought, its through the labor of those who produce the profits for the rich. If they were to democratically control production, they control all the wealth in the world. That kind of world doesn't need incentives for people to get rich, because there would be no rich or poor where every person has a say in running society at large.
IneptTroopr 2 years ago 5
@cptflume How do you find jobs? Does any of the socialist people know that the government runned by democrat and republican aren't supportive of banning outsourcing?
What your take for illegal immigrant? How about some jobs? *show mic
Bopkasen 1 year ago
Mikhail Kalashnikov created the greatest and most influential weapon of the 20th century, and he lived his entire life in a humble apartment. what he got in return for his service were some medals, no material reward. I don't think we should spend our time making weapons, nor do I think the USSR was a model of socialism. However, Kalashnikov proved that you don't need enormous material rewards to motivate people to do great things.
spartan2600 2 years ago
The Soviets proved what happens when the govt controls the means of production; prices rise, standards drop, shortages of basic essentials(food), poverty and just a general plunge in living standards.
beelz3333 2 years ago
perfect reasons why socialism is a detrimentally crippling system
obrien630 2 years ago
Actually, the Soviets Union *improved* living standards for Russians, who just left behind serfdom shortly before the revolution, and FAR behind the rest of Europe. The assumption is that because living standards in the USSR were below that of West Europe and the US and Canada that living standards declined, this is false.
Also, Stalin's popularity in Russia today is still above 50%. After the end of Communism, living standards plummeted. at least the USSR gave people pensions and healthcare.
spartan2600 2 years ago
If that's the type of system you want(Soviet Union), you're insane.
beelz3333 2 years ago
I'm not suggesting that the Soviet Union was ideal, far from it. I'm saying there actually were good things that it did. But the bad parts, the lack of personal freedom, the state secrecy, lack of democracy, etc. are all bad.
But apparently Russians aren't too bothered by all those bad things, I think that goes to show how capitalism has miserably failed them. I think that Bush claimed that democracy inevitably comes in a capitalist society, Russia proves that wrong.
spartan2600 2 years ago
So, millions dead as a result of starvation because of the state running agriculture and healthcare, not bothersome?
Lining up for hours every day for some rations of bread, not bothersome?
Having a pension when the currency is worthless and won't buy anything, not bothersome?
Having healthcare even though millons starved and were riddled with disease, not bothersome?
Be careful wat you wish fr. Capitalism isn't perfect but you'd be screaming for it if you lived in a 100% socialized country.
beelz3333 2 years ago
I'd have to say all that happens all the time under modern capitalism as well, especially during its endemic economic crises.
IneptTroopr 2 years ago
Exactly, what everyone on this thread fails to realize is that while socialism will equalize the "field" so to speak, it will equalize us in poverty, living standards will drop and society will become stagnant and fail to progress and advance due to the immense tax burden of the welfare state created...so if thats what these douchebags want then they can move to europe!
obrien630 2 years ago
Right, because poverty and starvation is endemic in Sweden. >.>
spartan2600 2 years ago
Sweden are not socialists. Having universal healthcare and more public services than the U.S, does not make you socialists.
beelz3333 2 years ago
that is included in a loose definition of socialism, but have more public workers and nationalizing industries *definitely* counts as socialism. the dictionary definition of socialism is 'control of the means of production in the hands of the people.' I'm not sure about Sweden, but Denmark, which is similar has about half of the entire population in public jobs.
spartan2600 2 years ago
Neither are socialist countries.
It's like saying Bush was a socialist because of doubling the size of Dept of Education, bailing out the banks, the auto industry, Medicare and Medicaid etc.
Most economies are mixed at this point but one thing is for sure, if you get rid of capitalism and go 100% socialism, you have big trouble ahead. Socialized industries require capitalism to do all the hard work for them. Swedens hospitals don't get their technology and medicine from socialism.
beelz3333 2 years ago
Well, for the record I listed the music title for attribution purposes, not to suggest that Abu Nurah is a socialist (he hasn't told me either way). Also, I'm Pope Innocent, the other artist on that track, and have the rights to use the song, FYI.
cptflume 2 years ago
Nice job, Comrades and Friends! Looking forward to seeing you in Chicago!
rlgee 2 years ago 2