The key to capitalism vs. Socialism is private ownership vs. Public ownership. In that sense, the US is still mainly Capitalist, although not fully or completely so.
Please don't flame me for the capitalization differences, as apparently Autocorrect favors socialism over capitalism.
I think this is wrong, first of all because capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. The same goes for communism and socialism. Form of governments I believe include Republic, Oligarchy, Democracy, and such...
@ulrich20032002 Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are just as much Govt. Systems as they are Economic ones. Unfortunately for your statement, a way a country is led is a direct result of its economic ideals and status.
"Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy." says wikipedia.
The meaning is dubious though since parties from all sides are trying to brand this term for better or worse.
From pure capitalism to pure socialism the US finds itself quite far on the capitalist side.
imho specific programs like ss or health care are a form of cooperative organization rather than a sign of a political system.
these are (horribly explained) economic systems. the economic systems are corperate fascism (what we have now) socialism (lack of private property, government programs that cause huge debt) and capitalism (true freedom, no ruling class big corporation guys). government systems are authoritarianism (no elections) and democracy(elections)mixed systems are totalitarianism (socialism and authoritarianism) media controlled wasteland (authoritariansim and fascism)and freedom(capitalism and democracy)
@Sekatathefag whats happening is national socialism and a global conspiracy to destroy everyone but the elite. the fema camps will be fully operational in 24 hours so the FASCIST elite can make more money from the deaths of CAPITALISTS who believe in PERSONAL LIBERTY and LAZZEZ FAIRE economics rather than robbing the people through creating debt that the government needs to get rid of with taxes.
@d3ltadrive lol the elite are planning to destroy everyone but themselves eh? After they've completed this dastardly plan, and it is only them who remain, how will they still be elite? Kinda hard when there's no one below you to compare yourself to! And you can't even spell the name of your own damn philosophy - it's laissez with an 'i'.
Perhaps I was too brief, Iceland is financially fucked the US ius financially fucked and Sweden is a democratic monarchy with state church and all that.
No wonder all the other countries in the world thinks the United states is over populated by stupidity. If anything, the US is turning more and more fascist, and because of the propaganda, people mistake this for socialism? facepalm.
@ripham247 no. Communism is 100% sharing of our income, and in a sence which does not rob a worker for their pay. In fact communism isn't even an ideology, but the outcome of socialism. It is believed to be the ultimate state of humanity, but also believed to be too hard to achieve. A communist country (a true communist country, unlike sovjet) Is without taxes, and without poverty and still achieves all the personal freedom a person deserves.
@kiel108 It's not really capitalist either, I would say the USA is caught inbetween a corporatist oligarchy and a socialist nanny state. capitalism thrives on consumer feedback and competion between privately held companies, all the giant corporations and the myriad of regulations cause most of Americas problems, only fanatics could seriously consider taxing cows for emtting greenhouse gases and rationing toilet paper, come on!
@kiel108 The US is socialist for large corporations and wealthy families that provide funds for political campaigns. For everyone else, the US is a SOMEWHAT capitalist. But yeah really the US is neither capitalist or socialist. The US is a corporatocracy. The US no longer has a competitive free-market economy.
@kiel108 The U.S is socialist. Not communist. Not capitalist. Socialism is the blend of ideology. A compromise between the two systems. It is more accurate to say that the U.S leans capitalist, while China leans communist.
@LordKaisen Sorry, but you have to get over it: If we organize ourselves as a community we have to deal with some problems as such.
It's also not a matter of the system being socialist or capitalist "to any one". Socialism is, by definition, a state in which every worker is owner of his working place. So is the US socialist???
Social security is not socialism but a way to tackle a problem as a society because people can get into trouble that is bigger than their purse.
@Ah4b nope that's Communism. Socialism is the merging of the two systems, I can understand your confusion though. Too many failing politicians use that phrase to talk about the U.S but attach state-control media blah blah nonsense - which is Communism.
The U.S state provides services and subsidies to a market, in order to ease their pain. In a capitalist system you're on your own. The poor have it incredibly tough. In a communist system the state provides your needs. nobody's rich.
A communist society required that there be no ideology or government, because there would (in theory) be no class interests to promote an authority or belief system of any kind. It was ironic indeed that 'communism' became synonymous with phony belief system and rigid authority structure, which are probably the main things Marx opposed.
Communism is Aristocracy with out the Aristocrats and with out the King's subjects the serfs and what ever . In communist government ' ; Communist's Soviets ( councils ) do the governing as a Democratic republic , elected democratically to the councils; and as a King that is the Government and owns everything and looks after the welfare of his subjects the Communist government own everything of the people and for the people's welfare by the peoples communal efforts in their labor .
So let me get this straight... An American president uses socialism to fight a war against another socialist, With yet another socialist on the other side of the world also fighting said socialist..... And you expect Classic liberals to support such non-sense? You really think Stalin would have won if we hadn't attacked the western front? The AFC was over after Pearl Harbor so who cares? "simply doesn't exist" what are you talking about?You been paying attention to Europe lately?
Of course the communist don't have everything. The minute the communist government found out that you have enough to live on, they took it away from you.
Actually in a true capitalist country (unlike the corprotist system we have today which your judging it by) the private people who have all the wealth would still have to answer to the laws of the constitution and the laws made by the government...whom are elected by the people!
@sy2pie Yeah, the only problem is that the conservatives wants to remove that power. The conservative parties DONT want the government to be allowed to interfear with private business at all.
@sy2pie Because I have studied quite allot history. The free market doesnt offer any labour rules, it doesnt put any necesary restrictions on itself, and it ultimately ends up creating THE MOST un-sustainable society.
@gulbirk Are you kidding me? Sure you need regulation to a certain level and laws. Every time the state gets involved in the free market it usually ends up creating more inequality and problems. Competition and free market ensures the consumer has the power (aka the people). If you do not like a business eithic then you do not use their service and if enough people agree then it fails.
@sy2pie Its not that easy. If the government isnt there to set rules, the private enterprise has shows its very good at Nr1: Paying people next to nothing. Nr2: Ruining the enviroment.
Pluss, it doesnt give you the power. Because you dont choose whats produced. It starts with the produCER. Besides, if you want the cheapest sollution, the cheapest sollution is obviously NOT when someone is trying to profit from it. Obviously non profit/state owned/ co-operatives win at that one.
. We don't need the government to regulate businesses.....the government is the problem..Wall-street (many of the corporation wouldn't be so large if it weren't for the government in the 1st place.) was able to take advantage of people because they knew that profit-loss principles didn't apply to them. Why? Because they knew that the government would cushion their fall....This isn't capitalism anymore...it's corporatism...crony capitalism.
Why would a larger business want certain regulations? Because it know that the cost of that regulation to the smaller business is greater than the cost of the regualtion on itself...If the market were truly free, their wouldn't be people taking advantage over others...If there are.......then it's not a free market.....
In pure capitalism, you into into contracts freely...trade is a mutually beneficial thing, or you wouldn't engage in it. Pure capitalism, is an economic system, but it is the best system...The principles of profit & loss create an incentive for businesses to do right by their consumers...The problem with our current system is the fact that the regulations and corporate welfare, create and incentivize monopolization of the economy by a few large businesses.
People often leave out one thing. In socialism or at least statism (anything that isnt pure capitalism) YOU elect your leader. In pure capitalism, you dont decide anything.
@gulbirk I understand what you are saying...the capitalist doesn't claim authority over me...I have consented for him to have authority over me...for one to claim authority over me, he would take take my life, liberty, property, without my consent....if one claims authority over me (like the government) then you are not free to leave that environment...in capitalism, I am free to leave my employment and find another job or start my own business. or live in the state of nature.
@gsus573 No you are not. Because the corporations have the right (which is just a false word without meaning) to go into nature and do exactly what they want.
I would rather live in a society where someone "decides over me" (even though I elect them, so thats not really true) and have a good decent life, then to live in a society with no authority and no one giving a damn shit about me, and no way to change anything.
@gulbirk Would you rather be able to vote everyday or every 2-4 years? The market (either authoritarian or otherwise) has the most influence on our lives. People often don't realize that every time you spend a dollar you are casting a vote. Wouldn't you rather have choices as to where you vote(with your money) or only have ONE state run option that you only get to vote on every 2-4 years? Come on man, Economic freedom is among the most democratic of all institutions!!
@clintcastle No, not even close. Because for once, I cant have any controll over what I am being paid or how much I will have to work. Jesus christ man just look at history. Can you honestly tell me that the working class was not exploited until the government stepped in and we got labour rules?
@gulbirk Yes We have learned from history and now have the technology and means to boycott scandalous companies on an international level. Things have changed and we now have the technology to educate ourselves on what businesses are up to. Companies like Angie's list would pop up all OVER the place and people will actually do some homework before they go shopping. Its sad that Americans fear this. There are so few parent companies that own so many of the products we buy Gov. sponsored monopoli
@gulbirk The beauty of Libertarianism is you can choose to run or work for a non-profit democratically elected company or you can work for a profit driven company. Its not the governments place to tell you to choose between a capitalism or socialism. See Libertarian socialism
@clintcastle Hahha, what a joke. The problem is that the CONSUMER will always pick the cheapest product. And the cheapest product is always made by those who get the lowest payment and follow the worst labour rules. We have learned from history. We learned from history to INFORCE labour rules and to give the unions power. Unfortunetly, people are so ignorant of history that we are now moving backwards to the time when people had no rights.
@gulbirk You think its okay for a union factory worker to make 25-30$ an hour while everyone else makes a more competitive reasonable wage? Get real!! and then the rest of society has to bail out these companies with bloated salaries,pensions, and lazy workers? Pretty soon we will have no jobs at all! In a global economy socialism doesn't work because some other country is always willing to do it for less. The days of blaming capitalists(even though this country is fascist) are almost over.
@clintcastle You think its more ok for a factory worker to make 5 dollars only so the manager of the factory can have a higher profit? You should get real. The competition is a fraud set up by the companies to make more money, and has NEVER benefitted anyone else then the companies. This is why workers had the FIGHT to get unions and labour rules and decent governments.
What you basicly said is slavery is fine because its cheap.
@gulbirk I didnt say so he could have a higher profit I appreciate the role unions USED to play in this country but the government over stepped its bounds big time. You are right competition is BS because companies that do well get special treatment and no bid contracts from the government. But you have to realize that isn't capitalism that is Fascism/Socialism. With real capitalism you wont have markets in bed with the government. Capitalism cannot trample a mans rights only government can.
@clintcastle No, you got the rights from the government and the unions. And capitalism will remove the right again, and you advocate that. It hasnt over stepped. Working people could have way more rights. The unions have no power in USA. In Norway we are entitled to 4-5 weaks vaccation each year. AND, 8 weaks for both mother and father when they have a child.
If the point isnt to get a higher profit, then tell me why greedy people ship their industries to thirld world countries?
@billburns2 The only joke is a system that has systematically murdered over 100 million of its own people throughout history and yet people still praise it as some beacon of hope. Do you think its some damn fluke that America flourished so much during the Classic liberal years, with the WORLD immigrating to our shores? People came over here for economic freedom and by and large they got it.. The system was undoubtedly imperfect but you cant compare capitalism's success to anything else.
How many socialist countries would you rather live in? Would you expect to find work in any of these countries? How do you think their economies would fair if we removed military support from them tomorrow? do you think they could still finance their ridiculous entitlements to the people?Look at Japan, one of the most socialized countries in the world(uses our military) and they haven't had any significant economic growth in 20 years.
@billburns2 The main flaw with quasi-socialism which is what those countries really are, is that eventually the GDP to debt ratio will result in run away inflation. How long do you think these countries can finance this crap from the hard work of others? If you want REAL socialism take a look at the countries that actually define themselves as socialists, then tell me you would rather live in those countries.
@billburns2 Yes they were doing fine in 1942 Nazis were socialists too... Please do not stop researching socialism once you have reached that "feel good" position of workers rights and social justice.... Thats how Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini packaged and sold that crap to Europeans as well. The only reason Europe isnt speaking German now is because in the 30s America still believed in Classic Liberalism and they still somewhat believed in it. Please youtube "the proper view of capitalism".
Sorry, but your argument simply doesn't tally with history.
Take a look at the performance of the left-wing European countries over the past 60 years and it's clear to see that the socio-economic time bomb that Conservatives like to scare people with simply doesn't exist.
And before you take the credit for defeating Nazism, google the proudly conservative America First Committee.
Stalin defeated Hitler, not Roosevelt or Churchill.
we see all days that some of those US-Americans are really bad educated or not educated at all, some farmers and cowboys,..who shoot all the indians and had no idea of what was going on from that moment precisely,..
@brentisone - Have you read De Toqueville's "Democracy in America"? In the early 19th century, he pointed out that America's "working class" was far better educated than their peers in Europe. His example was that an American farmer would go out into the field with a scythe under one arm, and the Decameron under the other.
You evidently don't know what you're talking about. Not much of a surprise...
@Hiraghm - What are you trying to insinuate? That those regular "working class heroes" and farmers were so well educated, that they commited all the destruction, murder and devastating activities in the 19.th driven by a sens of integrity and strong application to a superior instruction? Superior even to those regular instructed citizens in Europe. Who were beggars, those which left old Europe for America, well instructed farmers or distinct system victims, which no hope of survival there?
@brentisone - Not trying to insinuate anything. Although, it would be easier to follow your rambling if you'd stick a comma or period in there once in awhile. I don't know what 'destruction, murder and devastation" you're talking about. The Americans of the 19th century lived in a wilderness, populated only by stone-age aborigines. It was a very dangerous place.
Yes, the Americans of the 19th century were better educated than their European peers.
@Hiraghm - Yes, nice to read that there are some remaining over-ambitious defenders of american stone age, even your lesser educated or sensitive friends accept that brutal expoitation and land robbery of your ancestors was definetely more destructive and helpless, unaware of real human/cultural issues than what you are pretending herein. The whole enterprise was executed by a brutal, illiterated bunch of peasants.
Those who are mainly still at top in that country of the brave and unaware.
@brentisone - uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Ever read the history of Europe? Angles? Saxons? Normans? Gauls? Romans? Greeks? Vikings? Ask the Irish or the Scots about land robbery.
And the natives we had to fight to create this nation were backward and brutal, fighting wars with each other, invading and enslaving each other long before Europeans got here. In a single 3 day "holiday" alone the Mayans murdered 80,000 captive slaves. Long before we got here.
@brentisone - And the natives had been here for over 12,000 years. Egyptian civilization only goes back about 6,000-8,000 years. So those stone age aborigines were here, with just as many resources, longer than there had been civilization in the rest of the world. Yet they couldn't manage to get out of the stone age. Literally.
Those "Native Americans" who embraced civilization are doing quite well today, btw, living in harmony among us. Like, say, the Angles, Saxons and Normans...
Economic socialism works and has lead to the rise of many successful companies. In economics it is when the workers own the work place.
The reason capitalists lie to you telling you that socialism is socialization and tyranny is so their workers will never form a socialist work place and compete against them in an open market, workers cooperatives would drive them out of business.
In politics socialism is democracy, the people own and are the state.
The basic devide between all systems is ...Individualism vs Collectivism. Libertarianism and true free market Capitalism come under Individualism...all the others, Communism Fascism,Socialism, Altruism,Religion Democracy etc are Collectivist....meaning that individuals are oppressed and denied their rights and liberty...they are seen as sacfifical animals to the common good of the partiicular "collective"...a non existent abstraction used as an excuse by dictators to control people.
@Riellysdad Capitalism is a system in which you could work your entire life making a company prosper and never see an increase in income, where the worker has no ownership of the work place and is a commodity that can be liquidated at any time. In business Socialism is when the workers collectively own the work place, it is no more coercive than capitalist wage and in fact many was less so. The American People once considered wage labor only one step up from slavery now you accept getting fucked
@Laughingblades ...You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism...where state power is offered to businesses that pay for it . The US has not had a free market for over 100 years... instead they have had a State controlled, corporatist economy that has enriched the protected and favored from competition from the real Capitalists and made the people poorer and less free as a result. Do learn some history and economics kid....
@Riellysdad No I'm not confusing capitalism with corporatism at all, in fact you can't tell me a single thing I said that is opposed to capitalism, you simply imagine some sort of free market utopia that has never and will never exist when you think of the word capitalism, you believe the lie that mere competition is sufficient to solve all the inequities and all of the corruption and keep in check any business from gaining too much power, and you're wrong.
@Laughingblades if some "capitalist" came to your area and said "everybody has to pay for my services, buy my product, work for me, or give me a cut of what you get working for someone else, or for yourself," what then? "government"does it/ sanctions it? oh, well i guess we have to 'vote' on it ;/
@tr00ths33k3r Capitalists control the work place and means of production, volunteerist arguments ignore the harsh realities workers face, income is a survival necessity, in order for there to be a choice viable alternatives must be presented, and often the only alternative is which capitalist to work for.
@tr00ths33k3r A completely rigged market in which the state has laws favoring capitalists and corporatists, in which coops face income caps, special property laws, taxes, and lacks access to the special privileges and incentives given to capitalists and corporatists. Also deliberate and pervasive propaganda against socialism and cooperative systems, the intentional suppression of knowledge and the intentional mischaracterization of cooperative companies to prevent workers from learning of them.
@tr00ths33k3r :3 He has power over your income, in our society an income is a survival necessity, the capitalist holds power over that income.
As for HIS means of production, labor puts all the work into growing the company, and if the capitalist shared the cost of the means of production with labor through shared ownership and let labor work for itself, taking home a share of the company as a founder instead of a share in labor value, the workers would be better off and he'd still make money.
@tr00ths33k3r Capitalists take the wealth generated by labor and keep it for themselves, returning a portion as an hourly wage. There was a time when this was considered unamerican, now americans accept it as status quo
@tr00ths33k3r Which is exactly what I said. And in Capitalism, capitalists control the means of income. In socialism, the workers control the means of income.
@Laughingblades labor gets something in trade for their help in "growing" the company, after the owner put all of THEIR money/time/energy into starting it.
@tr00ths33k3r And the owner could take a founder's share and share ownership of the company with the labor who produces all the wealth the capitalist enjoys. But instead labor is treated as a disposable commodity. And without labor the capitalist would starve and his company would fail.
@Laughingblades or he could do whatever he wants as long as he doesnt encroach on the rights of others, seeing as how he is the owner, and the workers do not own the company.
Laughing, first, I've got no problem with companies like Mondragon. I think profit-sharing is a great idea. But it's not always organic. Even with Mondragon, a capitalist got people to voluntarily lend him money to help expand his business. Workers voluntarily chose to work for him for a certain wage. Who has been wronged in such an arrangement?
@SansAuthoritas Voluntarism rings false when the only choice is between which master to serve and starvation. The workers are wronged because they exist in a system in which they are treated as disposable commodities, as resources to be exploited to make the capitalist wealthy. Their income is a survival necessity that can be taken away at any time by the capitalist, and even if you cling to Voluntarist Propaganda there are not enough jobs to be had and that situation is only going to get worse
Laughing, I'm not a fan of the current system. (Corporatism.) But I am also under no illusion that in free market society, those who work hard are rewarded. I know I have been. I do not have the skills or desire to start or run my own business, but I can offer established business owners a great value. I would like to have the skill or desire to run my own business, but I don't. Is that wrong? What alternative do you propose? Does it entail sticking a gun to an innocent head?
@SansAuthoritas The thing is, in a cooperative system you would not need the skills and MONEY (because the main factor for most is not ability, but cost) to start your own business. To start a cooperative business, you could pool money with other entrepreneurs and go into business for yourself with other worker owners, workplace issues could be handled democratically and everyone would profit from the labor they put into the company. This system works, but our system is rigged against it.
I agree both that it works and that corporatism is rigged against it. I am all in favor of anyone who wants to start such a business, and would be a preferential patron of that business. But my question remains, besides convincing other people that it is a better way, in a grassroots effort, how do you propose to implement such a "system?" (I hesitate to call it that, because "system" implies a top-down, imposed plan.)
@SansAuthoritas There was a time in America when Americans considered the idea of going to work for someone else's profit to be repugnant, wage labor was considered only one step up from slavery and the American people called it "Wage slavery" the Republican party even ran on a platform of labor ownership rights, whereby those who worked in the factories would own them under legal recognition that labor was the engine of wealth. It took a war to distract people enough to get capitalism adopted.
@SansAuthoritas Socialism works and works well in many countries, but the way the term is abused in the west, it can mean almost anything depending on it's context. A Worker Cooperative is Work Place Democracy, it's what the Republicans supported before the Red Scare, and what the American People by and large supported before the US got dragged into the war and distracted with the nationalization of labor. Communism is a bit different, it's an idealistic philosophy that expects too much of men.
@SansAuthoritas It's already been done in other countries, it's not a mere ideal it's a business model that has provided some world famous companies like Kantega. The only reason you don't see Worker Cooperatives in America is because the market is legally rigged against them, and because people in America are deliberately kept ignorant of them.
When people try to form Cooperatives in America, and some have been formed, they're called socialists and communists, they run into income caps, ect.
@SansAuthoritas That's taxation, which is a component in socialization, not socialism. This is a deliberate deception that has been perpetrated against working class Americans, every nation must deal with what to socialize and how regardless of the economic system, unless it's an anarchy. Think about it, how is your military funded? How is the building of roads and bridges funded? What about public education? Are we to call all of these things socialism?
@SansAuthoritas I'm a sociopath, I don't care if it's antisocial. But that's a separate issue from socialism, taxation relates to socialization.
If you're against taxation that pretty much makes you an anarchist, and if you're not against taxation that makes you a hypocrite. A lot of Libertarian Socialists are anarchists, I happen to be more statist myself, like a Swede I like my benefits and if having no homeless means having no billionaires then I'm all for eating the rich, but that's just me
@Laughingblades - Then you support slavery and the politics of envy. Individual people don't really mean anything to you, since you just don't want to see poor people. In order to avoid seeing poor people, you will take away their individual liberty, their right to succeed or fail on their own.
@SansAuthoritas :3 So you consider it wrong for the government to take taxes to pave roads then, amiright?
What if the tax is by a voluntary actions, such as the sales tax, whereby each time you purchase a good a share of that purchase goes to the state to provide services like paving the roads that got you to the store. Further fees could be applied to other voluntary activities. Would you consider this theft?
Correct. Taking money from non-aggressors by force or threat of force, for any reason, is wrong.
No, I wouldn't consider a sales tax to be theft, I'd consider it to be robbery. If the vendor doesn't pay the tax, men with guns force him to. And if he resists, they kill him.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIT!
jamiegoddard4 5 days ago
Really very incorrect... and no, the US is far, far from socialist!
TheOptimizersLtd 1 week ago
@TheOptimizersLtd Really?! "far far from"...
cottonrun1 6 days ago
The key to capitalism vs. Socialism is private ownership vs. Public ownership. In that sense, the US is still mainly Capitalist, although not fully or completely so.
Please don't flame me for the capitalization differences, as apparently Autocorrect favors socialism over capitalism.
nighthawk7050 1 week ago
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS AN SHOWING HOW POINTLESS IT IS
pjrevello501 1 week ago
Wrong. Socialism - both the figures would be holding half a bag of cash each.
gmullin 1 week ago
I'm astonished you can actually use a keyboard. You're a moron.
mechmusician 2 weeks ago
I think this is wrong, first of all because capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. The same goes for communism and socialism. Form of governments I believe include Republic, Oligarchy, Democracy, and such...
ulrich20032002 2 weeks ago
@ulrich20032002 Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are just as much Govt. Systems as they are Economic ones. Unfortunately for your statement, a way a country is led is a direct result of its economic ideals and status.
AcruxSolus 2 weeks ago
That was perhaps the most flawed video I've ever seen.
VNight777 3 weeks ago
anyone who thinks the us is socialist is quite ignorant.
GaribaldiInTheMaking 3 weeks ago
None of these are governments, they are economies.
jsquad31 1 month ago 7
I can see how all those Marxists throughout history would strife after the perfect ideal-society, Communism..... where.. ehh.. noone has anything (?)
BearWindAppleyard 1 month ago
Comment removed
Fire4theAmericans 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialism has nothing to do with taxation!
LiBlub1 1 month ago
if your definition of socialism is that the government is leeching of the people in form of taxation.. then every state in the world is socialist.
mirsad96 1 month ago
that last picture is wrong everyones got guns
merc741 1 month ago 3
You're all wrong. The US is a fascist state.
PissedFechtmeister 1 month ago
Capitalism—You work for the money your earn. (good)
Socialism—"each according to his need." (bad)
Communism—You sit around and the government gives you money so they can take it away from you and kill you. (evil)
That's all you need to know about economics.
CptQuestionMark 1 month ago
are u retard?
JD3K 1 month ago
"Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy." says wikipedia.
The meaning is dubious though since parties from all sides are trying to brand this term for better or worse.
From pure capitalism to pure socialism the US finds itself quite far on the capitalist side.
imho specific programs like ss or health care are a form of cooperative organization rather than a sign of a political system.
Ah4b 1 month ago
Those are economic ideologies. Fuck off with you're misleading title.
teabaginz 1 month ago
This... wow...
The501stLego 1 month ago
I can`t believe how people are dumb, off course he was joking
Nobody gets it LMAO
Sekatathefag 1 month ago
Well said :)
Sekatathefag 1 month ago
When you talk about UEA you confuse socialism with imperialism, I think.
SoleteXIII 1 month ago
That was kind of funny...
Phil727ck 1 month ago
I loved that Capitalism was trademarked.
fuggimotto 1 month ago
these are (horribly explained) economic systems. the economic systems are corperate fascism (what we have now) socialism (lack of private property, government programs that cause huge debt) and capitalism (true freedom, no ruling class big corporation guys). government systems are authoritarianism (no elections) and democracy(elections)mixed systems are totalitarianism (socialism and authoritarianism) media controlled wasteland (authoritariansim and fascism)and freedom(capitalism and democracy)
d3ltadrive 1 month ago
@d3ltadrive NO they are very well explained, it is 100% what`s happening
Sekatathefag 1 month ago
@Sekatathefag whats happening is national socialism and a global conspiracy to destroy everyone but the elite. the fema camps will be fully operational in 24 hours so the FASCIST elite can make more money from the deaths of CAPITALISTS who believe in PERSONAL LIBERTY and LAZZEZ FAIRE economics rather than robbing the people through creating debt that the government needs to get rid of with taxes.
d3ltadrive 1 month ago
@d3ltadrive LMAO ok
Sekatathefag 1 month ago
@d3ltadrive lol the elite are planning to destroy everyone but themselves eh? After they've completed this dastardly plan, and it is only them who remain, how will they still be elite? Kinda hard when there's no one below you to compare yourself to! And you can't even spell the name of your own damn philosophy - it's laissez with an 'i'.
Hypertask 1 month ago
what the f is that? Communism is opposide to capitalism, while socialism is opposide to democracy. Why everyone is mixing this kind of stuff?
ixonixas 2 months ago
usa is a banana republic and not socialist
R3dSt4r90 2 months ago
You dont know anything. Really, you dont.
Perhaps I was too brief, Iceland is financially fucked the US ius financially fucked and Sweden is a democratic monarchy with state church and all that.
For instance.
theawesomebeliever 2 months ago
You dont know anything. Really, you dont.
theawesomebeliever 2 months ago
No wonder all the other countries in the world thinks the United states is over populated by stupidity. If anything, the US is turning more and more fascist, and because of the propaganda, people mistake this for socialism? facepalm.
ElGartardos 2 months ago
@ElGartardos LOLWUT
TheBlazikenking 2 months ago
owww....my brain...
Nikolaithesurvivor 2 months ago
Communism is Socialism you dmbass
Gracefulandings 2 months ago
@Gracefulandings no it is not ?
wickedawesomehede 2 months ago
@wickedawesomehede Yeah it is?
Gracefulandings 2 months ago
@Gracefulandings Communism is 100% taking of ur income. Socialism is 50% and create a corrupt nanny state.
ripham247 2 months ago
@ripham247 no. Communism is 100% sharing of our income, and in a sence which does not rob a worker for their pay. In fact communism isn't even an ideology, but the outcome of socialism. It is believed to be the ultimate state of humanity, but also believed to be too hard to achieve. A communist country (a true communist country, unlike sovjet) Is without taxes, and without poverty and still achieves all the personal freedom a person deserves.
Socialism= Power to the workers.
ElGartardos 2 months ago
@Gracefulandings Communism is a branch of socialism, they aren't the same thing. But both a blight on humanity.
Willis2992 2 months ago
the us isnt socialist -_-
kiel108 2 months ago 18
@kiel108
the US sure as shit isn't capitalist either
ApocDevTeam 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ApocDevTeam
Political Truth:#1 of 4
/watch?v=dHdoEP6gtxo
iwanttocrashmybike 2 months ago
Comment removed
rayduh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiel108 it sure is
rayduh 2 months ago
@kiel108 It's not really capitalist either, I would say the USA is caught inbetween a corporatist oligarchy and a socialist nanny state. capitalism thrives on consumer feedback and competion between privately held companies, all the giant corporations and the myriad of regulations cause most of Americas problems, only fanatics could seriously consider taxing cows for emtting greenhouse gases and rationing toilet paper, come on!
MasterKorinSama 2 months ago
@kiel108 The US is socialist for large corporations and wealthy families that provide funds for political campaigns. For everyone else, the US is a SOMEWHAT capitalist. But yeah really the US is neither capitalist or socialist. The US is a corporatocracy. The US no longer has a competitive free-market economy.
normtheclone 2 months ago
@kiel108
And that's exactly what you're supposed to think.
Zaquiel77 1 month ago
@kiel108 The U.S is socialist. Not communist. Not capitalist. Socialism is the blend of ideology. A compromise between the two systems. It is more accurate to say that the U.S leans capitalist, while China leans communist.
LordKaisen 1 month ago
@LordKaisen bullshit... the US is as much socialist as your ass is part of you face...
Ah4b 1 month ago
@Ah4b social security is pure capitalism to you? How bout welfare?
LordKaisen 1 month ago
@LordKaisen Sorry, but you have to get over it: If we organize ourselves as a community we have to deal with some problems as such.
It's also not a matter of the system being socialist or capitalist "to any one". Socialism is, by definition, a state in which every worker is owner of his working place. So is the US socialist???
Social security is not socialism but a way to tackle a problem as a society because people can get into trouble that is bigger than their purse.
Ah4b 1 month ago
@Ah4b nope that's Communism. Socialism is the merging of the two systems, I can understand your confusion though. Too many failing politicians use that phrase to talk about the U.S but attach state-control media blah blah nonsense - which is Communism.
The U.S state provides services and subsidies to a market, in order to ease their pain. In a capitalist system you're on your own. The poor have it incredibly tough. In a communist system the state provides your needs. nobody's rich.
LordKaisen 1 month ago
@kiel108 The US has been far closer to socialism than capitalism for decades now.
stebecool 3 weeks ago
@kiel108
ur right its state socialist
Subtropicx 5 days ago
A communist society required that there be no ideology or government, because there would (in theory) be no class interests to promote an authority or belief system of any kind. It was ironic indeed that 'communism' became synonymous with phony belief system and rigid authority structure, which are probably the main things Marx opposed.
BaseOfLiterature 2 months ago
good short meanfull video :)
aghzizo 2 months ago
marvelous for dummys indeed
parzrelmuzik 2 months ago
Communism is Aristocracy with out the Aristocrats and with out the King's subjects the serfs and what ever . In communist government ' ; Communist's Soviets ( councils ) do the governing as a Democratic republic , elected democratically to the councils; and as a King that is the Government and owns everything and looks after the welfare of his subjects the Communist government own everything of the people and for the people's welfare by the peoples communal efforts in their labor .
korz53 2 months ago
@korz53
No that is Stalinism only one of ideologies of communism.
Aleksa21111 2 months ago
Wow, Epic Fail!
WhyMeMoFo 2 months ago
Im sorry i think i just got dumber from watching this.
owen82100 2 months ago 47
This has been flagged as spam show
What about Venezuela, Brazil etc?
marcuspotter4564 2 months ago
Comment removed
marcuspotter4564 2 months ago
lol, bullshit. What about Cuba, Vietnam etc?
marcuspotter4564 2 months ago
@marcuspotter4564 They're under stalinist rule, I don't consider stalinism Communism
Z3ldaMahBoi 2 months ago
So let me get this straight... An American president uses socialism to fight a war against another socialist, With yet another socialist on the other side of the world also fighting said socialist..... And you expect Classic liberals to support such non-sense? You really think Stalin would have won if we hadn't attacked the western front? The AFC was over after Pearl Harbor so who cares? "simply doesn't exist" what are you talking about?You been paying attention to Europe lately?
clintcastle 2 months ago
Comment removed
clintcastle 2 months ago
Comment removed
clintcastle 2 months ago
Of course the communist don't have everything. The minute the communist government found out that you have enough to live on, they took it away from you.
Mrbrianjohnson951 2 months ago
Actually in a true capitalist country (unlike the corprotist system we have today which your judging it by) the private people who have all the wealth would still have to answer to the laws of the constitution and the laws made by the government...whom are elected by the people!
sy2pie 2 months ago
@sy2pie Yeah, the only problem is that the conservatives wants to remove that power. The conservative parties DONT want the government to be allowed to interfear with private business at all.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Why would you want the government messing around with the free market?
sy2pie 2 months ago
@sy2pie Because I have studied quite allot history. The free market doesnt offer any labour rules, it doesnt put any necesary restrictions on itself, and it ultimately ends up creating THE MOST un-sustainable society.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Are you kidding me? Sure you need regulation to a certain level and laws. Every time the state gets involved in the free market it usually ends up creating more inequality and problems. Competition and free market ensures the consumer has the power (aka the people). If you do not like a business eithic then you do not use their service and if enough people agree then it fails.
sy2pie 2 months ago
@sy2pie Its not that easy. If the government isnt there to set rules, the private enterprise has shows its very good at Nr1: Paying people next to nothing. Nr2: Ruining the enviroment.
Pluss, it doesnt give you the power. Because you dont choose whats produced. It starts with the produCER. Besides, if you want the cheapest sollution, the cheapest sollution is obviously NOT when someone is trying to profit from it. Obviously non profit/state owned/ co-operatives win at that one.
gulbirk 2 months ago
hehe, there's a diff between the [nominal] tax rate and the effective tax rate.
fububalla 2 months ago
silly communists
tr00ths33k3r 2 months ago
. We don't need the government to regulate businesses.....the government is the problem..Wall-street (many of the corporation wouldn't be so large if it weren't for the government in the 1st place.) was able to take advantage of people because they knew that profit-loss principles didn't apply to them. Why? Because they knew that the government would cushion their fall....This isn't capitalism anymore...it's corporatism...crony capitalism.
gsus573 2 months ago
Why would a larger business want certain regulations? Because it know that the cost of that regulation to the smaller business is greater than the cost of the regualtion on itself...If the market were truly free, their wouldn't be people taking advantage over others...If there are.......then it's not a free market.....
gsus573 2 months ago
In pure capitalism, you into into contracts freely...trade is a mutually beneficial thing, or you wouldn't engage in it. Pure capitalism, is an economic system, but it is the best system...The principles of profit & loss create an incentive for businesses to do right by their consumers...The problem with our current system is the fact that the regulations and corporate welfare, create and incentivize monopolization of the economy by a few large businesses.
gsus573 2 months ago
People often leave out one thing. In socialism or at least statism (anything that isnt pure capitalism) YOU elect your leader. In pure capitalism, you dont decide anything.
gulbirk 2 months ago
That's because Capitalism isn't a form of government....it's an economic system......@gulbirk
gsus573 2 months ago
@gsus573 Ok, in free market anarcho capitalism then. Libertarinaism if you want.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk I understand what you are saying...the capitalist doesn't claim authority over me...I have consented for him to have authority over me...for one to claim authority over me, he would take take my life, liberty, property, without my consent....if one claims authority over me (like the government) then you are not free to leave that environment...in capitalism, I am free to leave my employment and find another job or start my own business. or live in the state of nature.
gsus573 2 months ago
@gsus573 No you are not. Because the corporations have the right (which is just a false word without meaning) to go into nature and do exactly what they want.
I would rather live in a society where someone "decides over me" (even though I elect them, so thats not really true) and have a good decent life, then to live in a society with no authority and no one giving a damn shit about me, and no way to change anything.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Would you rather be able to vote everyday or every 2-4 years? The market (either authoritarian or otherwise) has the most influence on our lives. People often don't realize that every time you spend a dollar you are casting a vote. Wouldn't you rather have choices as to where you vote(with your money) or only have ONE state run option that you only get to vote on every 2-4 years? Come on man, Economic freedom is among the most democratic of all institutions!!
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle No, not even close. Because for once, I cant have any controll over what I am being paid or how much I will have to work. Jesus christ man just look at history. Can you honestly tell me that the working class was not exploited until the government stepped in and we got labour rules?
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk Yes We have learned from history and now have the technology and means to boycott scandalous companies on an international level. Things have changed and we now have the technology to educate ourselves on what businesses are up to. Companies like Angie's list would pop up all OVER the place and people will actually do some homework before they go shopping. Its sad that Americans fear this. There are so few parent companies that own so many of the products we buy Gov. sponsored monopoli
clintcastle 2 months ago
@gulbirk Give us the illusion of competition but really its all the same crap that mostly costs the same.
clintcastle 2 months ago
@gulbirk The beauty of Libertarianism is you can choose to run or work for a non-profit democratically elected company or you can work for a profit driven company. Its not the governments place to tell you to choose between a capitalism or socialism. See Libertarian socialism
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle Hahha, what a joke. The problem is that the CONSUMER will always pick the cheapest product. And the cheapest product is always made by those who get the lowest payment and follow the worst labour rules. We have learned from history. We learned from history to INFORCE labour rules and to give the unions power. Unfortunetly, people are so ignorant of history that we are now moving backwards to the time when people had no rights.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk You think its okay for a union factory worker to make 25-30$ an hour while everyone else makes a more competitive reasonable wage? Get real!! and then the rest of society has to bail out these companies with bloated salaries,pensions, and lazy workers? Pretty soon we will have no jobs at all! In a global economy socialism doesn't work because some other country is always willing to do it for less. The days of blaming capitalists(even though this country is fascist) are almost over.
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle You think its more ok for a factory worker to make 5 dollars only so the manager of the factory can have a higher profit? You should get real. The competition is a fraud set up by the companies to make more money, and has NEVER benefitted anyone else then the companies. This is why workers had the FIGHT to get unions and labour rules and decent governments.
What you basicly said is slavery is fine because its cheap.
gulbirk 2 months ago
@gulbirk I didnt say so he could have a higher profit I appreciate the role unions USED to play in this country but the government over stepped its bounds big time. You are right competition is BS because companies that do well get special treatment and no bid contracts from the government. But you have to realize that isn't capitalism that is Fascism/Socialism. With real capitalism you wont have markets in bed with the government. Capitalism cannot trample a mans rights only government can.
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle No, you got the rights from the government and the unions. And capitalism will remove the right again, and you advocate that. It hasnt over stepped. Working people could have way more rights. The unions have no power in USA. In Norway we are entitled to 4-5 weaks vaccation each year. AND, 8 weaks for both mother and father when they have a child.
If the point isnt to get a higher profit, then tell me why greedy people ship their industries to thirld world countries?
gulbirk 2 months ago
@clintcastle
"Capitalism cannot trample a mans rights only government can."
Funny
That's a joke, right?
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 The only joke is a system that has systematically murdered over 100 million of its own people throughout history and yet people still praise it as some beacon of hope. Do you think its some damn fluke that America flourished so much during the Classic liberal years, with the WORLD immigrating to our shores? People came over here for economic freedom and by and large they got it.. The system was undoubtedly imperfect but you cant compare capitalism's success to anything else.
clintcastle 2 months ago
How many socialist countries would you rather live in? Would you expect to find work in any of these countries? How do you think their economies would fair if we removed military support from them tomorrow? do you think they could still finance their ridiculous entitlements to the people?Look at Japan, one of the most socialized countries in the world(uses our military) and they haven't had any significant economic growth in 20 years.
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle
"How many socialist countries would you rather live in?"
All of them.
"Would you expect to find work in any of these countries?"
Yes. The socialist European countries have very low unemployment.
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 The main flaw with quasi-socialism which is what those countries really are, is that eventually the GDP to debt ratio will result in run away inflation. How long do you think these countries can finance this crap from the hard work of others? If you want REAL socialism take a look at the countries that actually define themselves as socialists, then tell me you would rather live in those countries.
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle
All these countries are significantly older than yours and are doing markedly better.
Looks like they got it right to me
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 Yes they were doing fine in 1942 Nazis were socialists too... Please do not stop researching socialism once you have reached that "feel good" position of workers rights and social justice.... Thats how Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini packaged and sold that crap to Europeans as well. The only reason Europe isnt speaking German now is because in the 30s America still believed in Classic Liberalism and they still somewhat believed in it. Please youtube "the proper view of capitalism".
clintcastle 2 months ago
@clintcastle
Sorry, but your argument simply doesn't tally with history.
Take a look at the performance of the left-wing European countries over the past 60 years and it's clear to see that the socio-economic time bomb that Conservatives like to scare people with simply doesn't exist.
And before you take the credit for defeating Nazism, google the proudly conservative America First Committee.
Stalin defeated Hitler, not Roosevelt or Churchill.
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 stalin didnt defeat hitler Georgij Zjukov did
bigtime399 2 months ago
we see all days that some of those US-Americans are really bad educated or not educated at all, some farmers and cowboys,..who shoot all the indians and had no idea of what was going on from that moment precisely,..
brentisone 3 months ago
@brentisone - Have you read De Toqueville's "Democracy in America"? In the early 19th century, he pointed out that America's "working class" was far better educated than their peers in Europe. His example was that an American farmer would go out into the field with a scythe under one arm, and the Decameron under the other.
You evidently don't know what you're talking about. Not much of a surprise...
Hiraghm 3 months ago
@Hiraghm - What are you trying to insinuate? That those regular "working class heroes" and farmers were so well educated, that they commited all the destruction, murder and devastating activities in the 19.th driven by a sens of integrity and strong application to a superior instruction? Superior even to those regular instructed citizens in Europe. Who were beggars, those which left old Europe for America, well instructed farmers or distinct system victims, which no hope of survival there?
brentisone 3 months ago
@brentisone - Not trying to insinuate anything. Although, it would be easier to follow your rambling if you'd stick a comma or period in there once in awhile. I don't know what 'destruction, murder and devastation" you're talking about. The Americans of the 19th century lived in a wilderness, populated only by stone-age aborigines. It was a very dangerous place.
Yes, the Americans of the 19th century were better educated than their European peers.
I said it, didn't insinuate.
Hiraghm 3 months ago
@Hiraghm - Yes, nice to read that there are some remaining over-ambitious defenders of american stone age, even your lesser educated or sensitive friends accept that brutal expoitation and land robbery of your ancestors was definetely more destructive and helpless, unaware of real human/cultural issues than what you are pretending herein. The whole enterprise was executed by a brutal, illiterated bunch of peasants.
Those who are mainly still at top in that country of the brave and unaware.
brentisone 3 months ago
@brentisone - uh, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Ever read the history of Europe? Angles? Saxons? Normans? Gauls? Romans? Greeks? Vikings? Ask the Irish or the Scots about land robbery.
And the natives we had to fight to create this nation were backward and brutal, fighting wars with each other, invading and enslaving each other long before Europeans got here. In a single 3 day "holiday" alone the Mayans murdered 80,000 captive slaves. Long before we got here.
Hiraghm 3 months ago
@brentisone - And the natives had been here for over 12,000 years. Egyptian civilization only goes back about 6,000-8,000 years. So those stone age aborigines were here, with just as many resources, longer than there had been civilization in the rest of the world. Yet they couldn't manage to get out of the stone age. Literally.
Those "Native Americans" who embraced civilization are doing quite well today, btw, living in harmony among us. Like, say, the Angles, Saxons and Normans...
Hiraghm 3 months ago
watch?v=8z1buym2xUM
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
you want the "full product of your labor" ? have your own "means of production."
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
retarded
matchbox555 3 months ago
i think i past
blackhawlk333g 3 months ago
@Karlox13 some americans are not like that
youpon1000 3 months ago
Yeah, in Europe you don't get assaulted with a gun for not paying taxes.
LowellMorgan 3 months ago
@Lowell,
Pretty sure that you do.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
hmm, indeed VERY misinforming!
helehole 3 months ago
"This is communism, nobody has anything." Hahaha, that made my day.
mikesheen741 3 months ago
Economic socialism works and has lead to the rise of many successful companies. In economics it is when the workers own the work place.
The reason capitalists lie to you telling you that socialism is socialization and tyranny is so their workers will never form a socialist work place and compete against them in an open market, workers cooperatives would drive them out of business.
In politics socialism is democracy, the people own and are the state.
Socialization is a separate issue.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades the only institution which claims to have "power" over you is the "government."
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r In capitalism the company owner has power over the workers and controls the means of production.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades yeah, HIS means of production.
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
The basic devide between all systems is ...Individualism vs Collectivism. Libertarianism and true free market Capitalism come under Individualism...all the others, Communism Fascism,Socialism, Altruism,Religion Democracy etc are Collectivist....meaning that individuals are oppressed and denied their rights and liberty...they are seen as sacfifical animals to the common good of the partiicular "collective"...a non existent abstraction used as an excuse by dictators to control people.
Riellysdad 3 months ago
@Riellysdad Capitalism is a system in which you could work your entire life making a company prosper and never see an increase in income, where the worker has no ownership of the work place and is a commodity that can be liquidated at any time. In business Socialism is when the workers collectively own the work place, it is no more coercive than capitalist wage and in fact many was less so. The American People once considered wage labor only one step up from slavery now you accept getting fucked
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades ...You are confusing Capitalism with Corporatism...where state power is offered to businesses that pay for it . The US has not had a free market for over 100 years... instead they have had a State controlled, corporatist economy that has enriched the protected and favored from competition from the real Capitalists and made the people poorer and less free as a result. Do learn some history and economics kid....
Riellysdad 3 months ago
@Riellysdad No I'm not confusing capitalism with corporatism at all, in fact you can't tell me a single thing I said that is opposed to capitalism, you simply imagine some sort of free market utopia that has never and will never exist when you think of the word capitalism, you believe the lie that mere competition is sufficient to solve all the inequities and all of the corruption and keep in check any business from gaining too much power, and you're wrong.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@Laughingblades if some "capitalist" came to your area and said "everybody has to pay for my services, buy my product, work for me, or give me a cut of what you get working for someone else, or for yourself," what then? "government"does it/ sanctions it? oh, well i guess we have to 'vote' on it ;/
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Capitalists control the work place and means of production, volunteerist arguments ignore the harsh realities workers face, income is a survival necessity, in order for there to be a choice viable alternatives must be presented, and often the only alternative is which capitalist to work for.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Riellysdad And by the way thanks for you're quaint little history lesson but it really has nothing to do with anything I said.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades what's stopping you from making a workers co-op now?
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r A completely rigged market in which the state has laws favoring capitalists and corporatists, in which coops face income caps, special property laws, taxes, and lacks access to the special privileges and incentives given to capitalists and corporatists. Also deliberate and pervasive propaganda against socialism and cooperative systems, the intentional suppression of knowledge and the intentional mischaracterization of cooperative companies to prevent workers from learning of them.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r :3 He has power over your income, in our society an income is a survival necessity, the capitalist holds power over that income.
As for HIS means of production, labor puts all the work into growing the company, and if the capitalist shared the cost of the means of production with labor through shared ownership and let labor work for itself, taking home a share of the company as a founder instead of a share in labor value, the workers would be better off and he'd still make money.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades how can someone else have "power" over YOUR income?
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Capitalists take the wealth generated by labor and keep it for themselves, returning a portion as an hourly wage. There was a time when this was considered unamerican, now americans accept it as status quo
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if labor has/is generating wealth, why are they working for a capitalist?
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@Laughingblades "income" is needed for survival, period
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r Which is exactly what I said. And in Capitalism, capitalists control the means of income. In socialism, the workers control the means of income.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades so what's stopping you from starting a workers co-op?
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r I already answered that
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades labor gets something in trade for their help in "growing" the company, after the owner put all of THEIR money/time/energy into starting it.
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@tr00ths33k3r And the owner could take a founder's share and share ownership of the company with the labor who produces all the wealth the capitalist enjoys. But instead labor is treated as a disposable commodity. And without labor the capitalist would starve and his company would fail.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades or he could do whatever he wants as long as he doesnt encroach on the rights of others, seeing as how he is the owner, and the workers do not own the company.
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
Comment removed
tr00ths33k3r 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Laughing, first, I've got no problem with companies like Mondragon. I think profit-sharing is a great idea. But it's not always organic. Even with Mondragon, a capitalist got people to voluntarily lend him money to help expand his business. Workers voluntarily chose to work for him for a certain wage. Who has been wronged in such an arrangement?
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas Voluntarism rings false when the only choice is between which master to serve and starvation. The workers are wronged because they exist in a system in which they are treated as disposable commodities, as resources to be exploited to make the capitalist wealthy. Their income is a survival necessity that can be taken away at any time by the capitalist, and even if you cling to Voluntarist Propaganda there are not enough jobs to be had and that situation is only going to get worse
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Laughing, I'm not a fan of the current system. (Corporatism.) But I am also under no illusion that in free market society, those who work hard are rewarded. I know I have been. I do not have the skills or desire to start or run my own business, but I can offer established business owners a great value. I would like to have the skill or desire to run my own business, but I don't. Is that wrong? What alternative do you propose? Does it entail sticking a gun to an innocent head?
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas The thing is, in a cooperative system you would not need the skills and MONEY (because the main factor for most is not ability, but cost) to start your own business. To start a cooperative business, you could pool money with other entrepreneurs and go into business for yourself with other worker owners, workplace issues could be handled democratically and everyone would profit from the labor they put into the company. This system works, but our system is rigged against it.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
I agree both that it works and that corporatism is rigged against it. I am all in favor of anyone who wants to start such a business, and would be a preferential patron of that business. But my question remains, besides convincing other people that it is a better way, in a grassroots effort, how do you propose to implement such a "system?" (I hesitate to call it that, because "system" implies a top-down, imposed plan.)
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas There was a time in America when Americans considered the idea of going to work for someone else's profit to be repugnant, wage labor was considered only one step up from slavery and the American people called it "Wage slavery" the Republican party even ran on a platform of labor ownership rights, whereby those who worked in the factories would own them under legal recognition that labor was the engine of wealth. It took a war to distract people enough to get capitalism adopted.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Communism/socialism were supposed to work along those lines, weren't they? What happened?
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas Socialism works and works well in many countries, but the way the term is abused in the west, it can mean almost anything depending on it's context. A Worker Cooperative is Work Place Democracy, it's what the Republicans supported before the Red Scare, and what the American People by and large supported before the US got dragged into the war and distracted with the nationalization of labor. Communism is a bit different, it's an idealistic philosophy that expects too much of men.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
You still haven't explained: how do you plan to implement your ideal?
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas It's already been done in other countries, it's not a mere ideal it's a business model that has provided some world famous companies like Kantega. The only reason you don't see Worker Cooperatives in America is because the market is legally rigged against them, and because people in America are deliberately kept ignorant of them.
When people try to form Cooperatives in America, and some have been formed, they're called socialists and communists, they run into income caps, ect.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Does your plan involve taking money by force or threat of force?
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas That's taxation, which is a component in socialization, not socialism. This is a deliberate deception that has been perpetrated against working class Americans, every nation must deal with what to socialize and how regardless of the economic system, unless it's an anarchy. Think about it, how is your military funded? How is the building of roads and bridges funded? What about public education? Are we to call all of these things socialism?
So no, but that's for a nation to decide
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Taking money by force or threat of force is anti-social. It's called "robbery," no matter if the robber intends to use the money for "good" things.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas I'm a sociopath, I don't care if it's antisocial. But that's a separate issue from socialism, taxation relates to socialization.
If you're against taxation that pretty much makes you an anarchist, and if you're not against taxation that makes you a hypocrite. A lot of Libertarian Socialists are anarchists, I happen to be more statist myself, like a Swede I like my benefits and if having no homeless means having no billionaires then I'm all for eating the rich, but that's just me
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades - Then you support slavery and the politics of envy. Individual people don't really mean anything to you, since you just don't want to see poor people. In order to avoid seeing poor people, you will take away their individual liberty, their right to succeed or fail on their own.
Hiraghm 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
I am an anarchist. Taking money from non-aggressors at gunpoint is wrong. Like gravity pulls downward, like the sun shines, it's just the way it is.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago
@SansAuthoritas :3 So you consider it wrong for the government to take taxes to pave roads then, amiright?
What if the tax is by a voluntary actions, such as the sales tax, whereby each time you purchase a good a share of that purchase goes to the state to provide services like paving the roads that got you to the store. Further fees could be applied to other voluntary activities. Would you consider this theft?
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Correct. Taking money from non-aggressors by force or threat of force, for any reason, is wrong.
No, I wouldn't consider a sales tax to be theft, I'd consider it to be robbery. If the vendor doesn't pay the tax, men with guns force him to. And if he resists, they kill him.
SansAuthoritas 3 months ago