I hate when capitalists like this lady here refer to others as "capitalists" in a derogatory way. I'm relatively certain she sells her books on the free and open markets not through some socialist distribution policy. She has no problem complaining about a system in which she has succeeded.??? What a moron.
@L1v3for3v3R equaliztion isn't communism? Forcing the producers to give to the lazy, unwise, irresponsible? Mind you the true evil rich people will never have to suffer or pay tax, because corporatism own U.S. so it will only be the American producers who have to suffer. They will keep rushing in illegal immigrants and enlarge public sectors until the government become so big that it becomes tyranny. The Military Complex will own you all through the puppet regime under Martial Law.
@L1v3for3v3R Listen to what that guy said. He wanted to take a piece of the pie from the have and share it with the have not. He said that to Joe the plumber, also his wife wanted someone to lose their share of the pie. So on and so forth. Obama wants to add to the negative rights of the constitution. He surrounds himself with revolutionaries and communists, so do you think there are not enough proof yet?
i'm not impressed with her here, really. i think she is stuck in this narrow rhetorical paradigm wherein she doesn't have to be more substantial than to say "captialism= bad, socialism= good". i don't like it when people manage to get away with being so simplistic.
however she is on to something when she describes socialims as people getting together and figuring out what to do. it is pretty much true: bottum-up horizontal institutions that are more acountable and closer to the people involved.
U.S. has been practicing socialism for many years even though most people still were deceived to believe it was capitalism. Obama is a communist, not just a socialist.
v Only a feeble-minded journalism/writer resorts to that sort of language and doesn't look twice at all the errors in his post before posting. Just sayin'.
JAMIE DIMON, CNBC, FOXBUSINESS AND CNN ANCHORS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGALLY ACCESSING AND MONITORING PRIVATE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.
THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 1-3 MONTHS.
I AM GOING TO JUMP OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE IN 1-3 MONTHS AND COMMIT SUICIDE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERIOUS OF THIS MATTER. JAMIE DIMON AND THESE TELEPROMPTER READERS WILL GO TO JAIL.
Capitalism is a religion without evidence? How about cellphones, plasma tvs, personal computers, etc... All of these things were exclusively toys for the rich at one time and now they're common among the poor. How about the religion of socialism? Where's your evidence for socialism improving the lot of the poor?
@NamelessCommenter Socialism can't be carried out without a strong central state. How would decisions be made? By public vote? Who carries out the decisions of the people? Who makes sure everyone does their part and is compensated accordingly. There has to be a power structure to enforce the decisions, even if the decisions are made by the people. A noncorrupt central power structure has yet to exist making socialism impractical by nature.
@MultiSmartass1 Government involvement in the economy is not capitalism. The bailouts as a policy are more socialist than capitalist. Remember the excuse behind them was to stimulate the economy for the people. Government providing for the people is a socialist notion. Corruption exists in every power structure, at least in capitalism the powers that be have to produce goods and services directly to the people in order to maintain their power. They can't force the public to buy their bullshit.
You are one of these racist tea party fanatics who believes that everything is socialism.
Government bailouts are socialist-really? That makes the companies that recieved look like raving socialists or welfare dependents.
Government providing for people is a socialist notion? Great, get rid of social security and let old people starve, get rid of medicaid and medicare and let them die,get rid of the public schools.
@MultiSmartass1 Where do you get off calling me a racist? What have I said about race anywhere? Public schools, social security, medicaid and medicare were relatively recently introduced to our society. How did people get educated or care for the elderly for the 10,000 years of civilization before these programs. Education has suffered since the inception of the board of ed. Parents have no choice where to send their kids. If they're poor they're just fucked as far as education goes.
@MultiSmartass1 Old people weren't starving before SS, at least not any more than the rest of the country was during the depression. Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons why health care costs have skyrocketed since their inception. Get Gov out of the HC business and prices will fall while quality increases
@jjrglobal People can't afford to get health care as it is because costs have skyrocketed.
If you take Medicare and Medicaid out of the equation, more uninsured people who are unable to pay for medical costs.
As for SS, if your living standard for most Americans is the level of Great Depression, then you are consigning a lot of elderly people to either outright poverty and manageable penury.
In any event, you are promoting the Republican Right Wing mantra: Only the rich have rights.
DO not go to the extremes Barbara?. It is not a matter of socialism by itself, since it doesn´t solve anything. It is an equilibrium between them. Let´s call it: a social capitalism, by taking care from the government through right instrument. The problem is that it looks like even the goverment doesn´t know what to do. Crisis envolves also mentallity issues at this point.
what an idiot. does not understand markets. part of markets is the result of groups of people making a difference to improve their standards of living. to just say we have less is just absolutely wrong. we have more food and clean water now in the us than 50 years ago, despite having more people and to top it all off, the price of it has gone down. absolute nonsense.
@MultiSmartass1 no smartass, markets arent that. markets are based on scarcity. money is a medium of exchange and store of wealth. it facilitates transactions. wants and needs are always limitless, the fact that there are prices facilitates supply.
stop being such an idiot. how much did you spend for ur computer or ur internet? not that much. 15 years do u know what the average Pentium would be, around $2000. the fact that technology prices has gone down so much is a function of markets.
@nsaneforevr1 Markets in this day and age require money for exchange.
We don't have a barter system or a work trade system but a financial system predicated on money.
No money, no honey.
Supply and demand mean nothing without the means of exchange vis-a-vis money.
Therefore Markets and Capitalism work best for the rich and the upper middle class as well as some of the middle class and not for the working class and poor.
By the way, you racist retard, learn how to spell. Its You Are not ur.
@MultiSmartass1 Your talking to a mixed Asian. You have nothing solid so you speak in nonsense. Supply and Demand is everything. That's what constitutes prices. We don't live a barter goods and services outright because money became the medium of exchange. You barter goods and services with money.
If capitalism only works for the rich then prove it. give me some shred of evidence therefore i can prove to you that you have no idea what your talking about.
@MultiSmartass1 No, I was just a guy born into a poor family that worked itself to an average middleclass family. Who are you, just a person who does not believe in freedom and complains like Ehrenreich.
If capitalism does not work and only helps poor was so poor why does the US beat every country in applied citizenship?
@MultiSmartass1 Yeah only many times, but that's all you say. You never a say how (Don't be jealous that I may have a higher intellect). Give some examples, some raw data. You are just like Ehrenriech, complain about everything, blame freedom, and give no shred of evidence.
Some free advice, take some classes, get a real job, and stop making claims without any backing.
@MultiSmartass1 Historians do not know anything about economics (which is clear you don't either cause you are a journalist).
I do read and watch those media outlets. They say we need the rich. We need less govt control. Things are bad, but it will be better w/o all this red tape and money printing.
What benefits the poor more? Ehrenreich does not. She wrote stupid books, and fails on purpose to "prove it."
Anyone can be racist, but now who is really stereotyping in this conversation.
@MultiSmartass1 people live very well here. poor people are fat, and water is clean and cheap, yet still buy bottled water.
you gain assets by saving. the irish did not become a wealthy class in the northeast buy fucking around, they had to work their ass off. they had to save and take risks.
im sorry, but know your stuff, because ur an idiot. we have so much more now. who dosent have a cell, comp, car, internet, ipod, tv, indoor pluming, ac, fridges, and whatever else people buy.
@nsaneforevr1 Having more products available on the market means nothing if you do not have the money to purchase them or the assets to feed, clothe and house yourself and others.
The Irish are not the wealthy class in the Northeast, Wasps are. Most Irish are still cops and priests, not Boston Brahmin. I think you are thinking of the Kennedys.
Most poor people are skinny not fat. Water is not clean which is why people drink bottled watter.
@MultiSmartass1 it does mean something, if you have taken economics, more stuff means prices are pushed down. the fact that clothing and food used to be 18-20% expenditures in the 1960s, to a whopping 8-10% of total expenditures is because of markets.
the irish are a whole lot better now then they were when they immigrated here. southern new hampshire, cambridge, etc
im sorry poor people are fat. half my family is rooted in white, welfare taking, trash and fat.
@MultiSmartass1 no, but the fact that you keep making silly arguments that capitalism does not work, but that still an economic argument. The only difference is my argument holds water. Show some backing to your argument. Where is it? In fact, where's the racist proof?
You could talk bad about capitalism all you want, but it only gave us the light bulb, the airplane, refined oil, indoor heating and plumbing, refrigerators, washers and dryers, ipods, and all sorts of other stuff we purchase.
@nsaneforevr1 Capitalism never gave us any of the items you mentioned-inventors and innovators did that. Human beings not a system of economics.
As per you lack of education, you erect a man of straw argument- You say Capitalism doesn't work-and then proceed to argue against it.
The fact is that I have stated that Capitalism works fine-for the rich and upper middle class and not for working class people and the poor. This is how it should be. The market can do nothing for poor people.
@MultiSmartass1 ur jus an ignorant moron, probably w/ a useless degree in psychology, complaining about some rich guy, who works incredibly hard, took enormous risk, probably started from nothing, wishing you were him, but instead vote for some politician who will promise to conscript his hard earned property, because he is a "fat cat," to make yourself feel better. some advice, read "free to choose," be productive, and be thankful that they rich guy has the capital to provide jobs.
@MultiSmartass1 Michael Dell only started out of his condo. Bill Gates only dropped out of Harvard. Mark Zuckerburg only started in a college dorm. Richard Branson only started out selling Christmas trees. John Mackey only started in a garage. Who the fuck is Oprah Winfrey.
the fact that these people made it means anybody can. the fact that Asians are the highest income earners make you an idiot.
@nsaneforevr1 Yes all over the world where people labor for a few pennies or nickels a day because corporations relocate to countries where they can undermine labor unions (if there are any) and pay people paltry wages which aren't livable on at all.
These jobs are essentially worthless if they do not provide anywhere near a wage that can more than adequately pay for food, clothing and shelter.
So, yes, rich men supply jobs, pay a pittance and pocket the rest for themselves.
@MultiSmartass1 If that's so true than why has real wages increased in countries like South Korea and Japan to levels that rival the United States in just sixty years. These countries were dirt poor not to mention reveled in war destruction. Why is it that now they are one one the premiere tech centers in the world? Because of capitalism. Because people were allowed to choose what to do with their money.
@nsaneforevr1 Actually it is because of government direction and investment in business and industry not laissez fair, neoliberal capitalism.
Japan has MITI and the government has helped steer a course for business there.
Korea has seen government investment in targeted industry and have also passed strict laws regarding capital flows-for example, it is a dealth penalty offense to take capital or moneys out of the country and flee elsewhere.
@MultiSmartass1 Maybe we're confusing something. When I say capitalism, I'm using the classical liberal definition, FREE MARKETS. Which means lack of government intervention. What your saying of capitalism is govt involvement and calling that capitalism, which it is not.
In regards to wages, if the govt wasn't taxing everyone from Jan to June every year I could take in more money. To think that the we used to only pay less than 10% in taxes.
To end your confusion, Iam refering to capitalism in all its protean guises whether neoliberal or state guided.
Either way, capitalism works for elites and the ruling class not the masses and the working class.
It doesn't matter what permutation you come up with, Capitalism does not provide anything for people because you to have either capital (raw form) or money(refined form) to survive.
Capitalism isn't broken, socialism reared its ugly head and nearly brought down Capitalism. Socialism always has and always will end in despotism. It is a destructive spiral race to the bottom of human achievement and will lower the standards of every human that lives in its coercive forceful violent grasp. Where has it not ended like this
@jjrglobal The US is not a socialist country and never has been.
The US economy has never been predicated on socialism.
Therefore, socialism can't bring down a capitalist.
When you leverage an economy to finance capital and rely on "exotic" financial instruments like Credit default swaps and collatoralized debt obligations, when you stop linking your economy to production and rely on risk, when you push variable rate mortgages to people who can't pay them, you get Capitalism in action.
@MultiSmartass1 Nobody was forced into variable rate mortgages Borrowing money you can't afford to pay back is a choice that the government pushed. Don't blame individual irresponsibility on capitalism. People who have good credit are given better loans because they have a record of responsible fiscal behavior. Those subprime loans were encouraged by socialist minded government agencies Freddy and Fanny. Nodody's forced to participate in the wall street con game.
@BelieversinThings Interesting how in a capitalist nation, anytime there is a government agency or department, they are immediately socialist and pushing and implementing socialism, according to you right wingers.
There is no responsibility in Capitalism which is why there is regulation.
Corporate executives and business owners want unfettered markets with no SEC, FDA, FAA or other regulatory body.
Freddy and Fanny are blamed but not Countrywide and the other mortgage companies that profited.
I like to define socialism simply as government control, the degree to which defines the society. So every society has socialism, except anarchy. It was the social programs implemented by the federal gov that caused this crisis. Without the GSE's guarantee and the CRA requiring a quota on loans to minorities this mess could not have happened.CDS(insurance)or other "exotic" instruments didnt make people not pay their mortgage. It wasnt Capitalism it was socialism that is to blame
@jjrglobal The US Government does not control the economy of this society nor does it control the society as a whole.
You are living in dream world if you think the US is socialist society.
Like other white supremacist crackpots who hate blacks, hispanics and other nonwhites and are therefore against social programs that help them and other non-whites.
So, you can continue to believe we lie in an Orwellian society where the government controls and sees all.
R U actually reading my comments? I never said the US was a socialist country that controlled our economy. The gov does control certain aspects of our economy, unfortunately they are some of the most important, like interest rates and mortgages. Yes I know the Fed is a private bank. By manipulating interest rates the Fed is manipulating and distorting the entire economy, creating the boom and bust cycle. Im against social programs because they harm the people they intend to help
I care very much about people, which is why I have actually looked at the results of social programs and thought about the subject for more than five minutes. Perhaps you should do the same before commenting back. No one can honestly say that the social programs we have implemented in this country have done any good for the people they claim to help. Social programs have destroyed more lives and given people no hope and no way out of generational poverty, barely able to exist
@jjrglobal Poverty existed before social programs came into being and they will continue to exist with them in place.
The market has always been a nursemaid to poverty.
Social programs provide a basic standard of living to a number of people who would otherwise starve and die or barely survive without them.
Right wingers like you are against them because you don't believe people-working class and poor people-have any rights especially economic rights in this country.
Poverty has accelerated since the social programs were implemented. So you think the welfare program in this country has been a huge success, huh? The social security program is just wonderful, right? Have you spent any time analyzing the results of anything before you decide to make moronic comments?
I dont think anyone has the right to another persons property that is taken by force, but theft by force is OK to you??
Would you agree that there are a large number of welfare recipients that don't work, simply because they would lose their welfare benefits if they did become employed?
If you pay people not to work, even if it is a poverty level existence that is paid to them, then don't be surprised when people don't work. The minimum wage job that a welfare recipient turns down because of lost benefits, would be a starting point for them to acquire skills necessary to move up and succeed.
@jjrglobal What good is a minimum wage job when you live a low wage society?
Maybe 20-30 years ago, the idea of moving from a low-wage job to a higher wage job was feasible. Not today. When low-wage jobs with high volumes of work dominate the American job market, the average American worker is fucked because wages don't keep up with costs.
Maybe the reason why many people on welfare choose not get off it and try to get jobs is because there are very few jobs that pay living wages anymore.
Which is why I say that the social programs are the cruelest policies ever thrust upon minorities. It puts them in a poverty trap, with little chance of escape. Once a parent becomes dependent on the programs and doesn't work, what kind of skills is that parent going to teach their offspring? Which is why poverty has become a generational problem that has accelerated since Welfare's inception
I really try not to get my philosophical guidance from racist comedians. You're wrong and I this from personal experience. My wife and I own a pediatric clinic, we hired a medical assistant from another Dr in town who was making $8.00/hr. by bumping her pay to $12. Within a year, she had become so familiar with our system that I offered her a position as office manager starting her off at $40K. She was awesome at her job, she increased our bottom line and made things better
After about ten months at the job, she came to me and told me that she had just been informed that she was going to lose all her benefits come the first of the year because her increase in salary meant she was no longer eligible for Medicaid for her two children, child care, housing assistance, food stamps and welfare. I didnt even know she was on all this gov assistance, but I didnt think her benefits from the gov equalled anywhere near $40K a year. Apparently it was worth more than 40K to her
because after that convo her job performance began to slip drastically, after 60 days it was clear that her intention was to be fired so she could not only get her benefits back but also so she could collect unemployment. So I fired her. Now she's making $9.50 hr, living in shitty gov housing, receiving welfare. But heres what she didnt know. If she had continued doing her job well, I was prepared to double her salary, by now she would be earning over $200K a year, and gov programs caused this
No she was scared of losing her benefits of free housing, food, child care, and money offered by the government. She gave up a really good career because of fear and no self confidence. If she gave up a 40K a year job, don't you think most people wouldn't think twice about not working if it was going to hurt their government benefits? How is that a good thing?
You have made my point for me. It should not have mattered if she got a raise or not, the fact is she quit to retain her benefits and you think this is somehow uplifting.
The point of the medical assistant to office manager and back again, illustrates the harm done by dependence on the state and the difficulty to break away from it even when there are large amounts of money at stake. Your point of most jobs being low wage makes my example that much more meaningful. If people will give up a high paying job for benefits, they'll damn sure give up a low paying one. So my example proves everything
The Fed has everything to do with social programs, without the incestuous relationship the Fed has with the Federal Government, most of the social programs would not be funded. They steal from all of us with their printing press, its called debasing currency. You dont know anything about the Fed do you?
@jjrglobal The Fed is the lender of last resort and it is a financial institution.
It is not the Presidency nor the Congress and is not responsible for drafting legislation nor with creating and fomenting foriegn and domestic policies.
The Fed's purview is economic.
So when you say that the Fed has "everything to do with social programs", you are an idiot liar.
When you say the Fed has an "incestuous relationship" with the Federal Gov't, you are a fanatical liar.
Hitler:12 million dead (Hitler led the National *Socialist* German Workers' Party)
When Hitler is only 3rd place mass murderer, you have a real problem. Socialism is up in the ranks with small pox or malaria for its death toll on humanity, and this is not to even count the billions more who have lived under its tyranny.
Anyway, Socialism isn't what drove those guys to mass murder. For Hitler, it was rabid Nationalism that justified the scapegoating of an entire class/race of people, much like we see with the Tea Party fools. Mao and Stalin were just brutal dictators, who would have been the same, regardless of political ideology. Every Western civilization has elements of Socialism, and it works if there is a balance. Swing too far to ANY side and it gets real ugly...
Mao: a delusional, despotic nationalist who forced collectivization and various murderous "mass movements" on the people of China
Stalin: a power-hungry warlord who hijacked the Russian Revolution with his cronies and established one of the world's great despotic imperial monster states
Hitler: a fascist anti-semite mass murderer who was only a "socialist" insofar as he nationalized a few industries and harnessed populist rage
@retsep81 When Barbara Ehrenreich refers to "socialism," she's referring to the worker's movements and the mass protest movements - movements for a welfare state, for a living wage, for safer and more humane working conditions, et cetera. That's consistent with her position as one of the leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America. She's not apologizing for or whitewashing the deeds of Stalin, Mao, Enver Hoxha, Kim Il-Sung, etc.
@BlacknWhitesAlright First of all when rightwingers and other delusional people refer to anything critical of free market capitalism, they label it socialist.
Socialism is a political ideology not an economic system in and of itself.
You can apply socialist principles to an economy but socialism is above all political.
Capitalism is not a political ideology but a economic system.
The comparisons between capitalism and socialism are illogical by rightists.
@MultiSmartass1 Socialism is a political system that encompasses the economic system. It provides a way to handle a system that already exists, but it can't support itself on its own, so it must control the economy. Capitalism is profit based, and goes against the ideology of socialism, which is based on equal wealth regardless of skill or productive capacity.
@BelieversinThings First, Capitalism wasn't set up to go against any socialist system. Adam Smith never had socialism in mind when he wrote THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and certainly not soviet style communism.
Second, socialism doesn't "encompass" an economic system, it is primarily a political system as i pointed out.
Thirs, the only thing you got right is that Capitalism is profit based. The is the only thing that matters. Strictly, speaking people have no rights under capitalism.
@MultiSmartass1 Capitalism was set up to allow the common people an opportunity to become wealthy, which in Adam Smith's time was only a priveledge of royalty. I live in a capitalist system and I can live where I want, work where I want at whatever I want to do, own whatever I can afford, speak my mind whether I like capitalism or not, and worship whatever religion I want, or none at all. Socialism is workers controlling the means of production. You can't do that without controlling the economy.
@BelieversinThings Capitalism is solely an economic system not a political one.
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, of the press, free assembly or religion.
That's the constitution and the bill of rights not capitalism
Also, there is nothing wrong with workers controlling the means of production if it means they have say in their income, working conditions and job duties rather than owners and mangers who don't give a shit if they live or die.
@MultiSmartass1 Capitalism is the economic counterpart of a free society. The economic system provides the fuel and means for the system to run. There's no comparison between the prosperity capitalism allows and any other system. It's just completely rediculous, and slightly scary that the heirs of this incredible country are set to destroy it.
@MultiSmartass1 You don't need a free society to have capitalism, but you need capitalism to have a free society. Corporations want people to give them their money. In a free market they have to provide something for you in order for you to CHOOSE to give it to them. Malevolent corporations need to use big government to circumvent the free market and help them get your money despite doing bad business. If it wasn't for the government many big, corrupt banks would've gone broke and disappeared.
@BelieversinThings Your initial comment is illogical and partially untrue.
You don't need capitalism to have a free society.
In fact, you have a freer society because people might have the chance to be adequately fed, clothed and sheltered.
In fact, your post is full of contradictions and illogic.
If corporations who use the government to get money are malevolent than many US companies would fit that bill because corporate welfare has existed for years.
@MultiSmartass1 People are adequately fed, clothed, and sheltered in prison, are they free? There are scumbags in corporations, the free market keeps them in check by making them earn what they have. When the government comes in and props them up, nothing keeps them in check. It's government action that enables bad corporations to exist. It is physically possible to have both scumbags working together. I'll be happy to help you sort out the logical details.
Money creates greed-based ethics. I say get rid of it all. Communists had money too, and that created a huge divide between the rich and the poor. Get rid of money and we can start working on the future of America, untethered by greed. Maybe this sounds too simplistic. Let me know what your opinion is (i.e. not just the thumbs up/thumbs down standard reply).
are you talking about a resource based economy? like in the venus project? sounds like a good theory, id like there to be some experimentation regarding it. However I dont think money is inherently bad, it should be a medium of exchange and nothing more, perhaps if it had a constant value it would be less deficient.
That's true. I think the internet is a powerful resource to organize human transactions and connections to gradually shift into an economy without money.
I know very little about the venus project. Do you know if it suports the idea of property rights, and by extension, some form of government? I dont think you want to remove money, because anything can be used as a medioum of exchange. What you want to remove is profit or gains from corporate activity. Then what incentive will there be for competition other than self enrichment?
I think their idea is that there is no use for laws on property rights once you've eliminated scarcity, but you can't eliminate scarcity until we've made the necessary technological advances. Also I think the idea/the ultimate goal of the VP is to figure out a way to REPLACE competition with an individually incentivised approach for us all to work cooperatively with one another. But I personally don't see this happening until we refine the internet towards our individualist/collective want/need.
State-Capitalism is when the government controls an entity of production, but does not own it, leaving it to their corrupt mafia friends to profit from this monopoly(would not be a problem if there was ZERO government!).
Socialism IS "government ownership of the means of production". That IS a "centrally planned economy"!
You obviously do not own a dictionary...not that I thought you did...
HAHAHAHA! ONLY government creates oligarchy and artifical illegitimate hierarchy!
"why do you believe that
self-professed "socialist" states, are in fact socialist?"
Other than the fact that the DPRK is probably THE most tyrannical state on this earth, the commanding heights of its economy are run by the government!
The real problem isn't capitalism or socialism; it's gullible brainwashed people. As long as the majority of Americans believe a 2000 year old zombie is their Messiah, the powerful elite will easily exploit that kind of credulous thinking. Once America rids itself of its religious virus, then perhaps we can talk about socialism, or real freedom and equality for everyone. Until then, you might as well just pray along with those crazy christians, they obviously can't be reasoned with.
it isn't just religion that's a unrational belief - the real solution is balance - bit of capitalism - bit of socialism.. bit of god bothering - bit of logic etc.
@a0eoj Christian fanatisism is just one of many herd mentality groups that insist on pushing their bullshit on other people. That's what it comes down to. Someone just wants to be left alone, and someone else insists he has to behave a certain way. It's all about someone controlling someone else. American capitalism is do you whatever you want as long as you don't impede someone else's ability to do the same. Socialism is rationing by an inefficient state. It never works.
There's a HUGE difference between socialism/communism for the rich and socialism/communism for the poor. The first is EXTREMELY damaging, and the latter can be very beneficial for us all. The REAL problem is that we're raised in a society where the rich are told that the only way they can stay in power is by holding down those at the bottom. In other words Power=Oppression. We need to rethink that equation, because it is OBVIOUSLY wrong. It will take more THINKING than some are used to.
Marxism is "government ownership of the means of production.", period. Marx's 10 planks all involved the compulsory, violent State. Capitalism means the "free flow of capital.", as opposed to state capitalism, which is corporatist/fascism.
Marxism is violent by definition, the only true philosophy is voluntarism.
Claiming that 85 million died because of Socialism only shows your ignorance...
I'll say it again... you may say that Stalin was an immoral, cruel man... And I will agree with you... but I will never do so if you talk about Marx.
If I walk out of a capitalist society, what happens to me? what if all countries were governed by capitalist standards? how do I leave? It is forced upon me.
Just like with all other socialist soap box orator's, everything bad about your "The end justifies the means" philosophy that is bad, TOTALLY has nothing to do with the actual violent ideals you promote.
And Marx? Well, when he was not supporting violence, and being an anti-semite, he was cheating on his wife with the maid, and when she became knocked-up, he just gave the little Frederick Demuth away...real great guy.
YES! Your "The end justifies the means" philosophy!
Socialists scream for the state to hold the monopoly of violence--the definition of socialism--and then whine, and belligerently proclaim the violence that came from this had NOTHING to do with socialism.
You believe in violence, as opposed to voluntary association. You believe in violence to promote your view of society.
With you, it is all about violence to bring in "Pure Communism".
@randyguitarman13 Actually, "monopoly on violence" is the definition of state power, period. That's what the police and military are - the state's enforcement mechanism, the material representation of the state's monopoly on legitimate use of force. That's true under any state system, whether socialist, capitalist, fascist, monarchy... Nothing to do with "socialism" or lack thereof at all.
I'll quote it for you: "Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of Mein Kampf, overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians.[60]"
"According to Marx, Judaism corrupted the entire human kind. All the evil and wickedness of the Christian world materialism and selfishness, the worship of money and private property originated from Judaism."
I hate when capitalists like this lady here refer to others as "capitalists" in a derogatory way. I'm relatively certain she sells her books on the free and open markets not through some socialist distribution policy. She has no problem complaining about a system in which she has succeeded.??? What a moron.
tysonbc0927 2 months ago
She speaks the truth, it hurts huh.
FloydsterUtube 6 months ago
i try and keep an open mind for everyones point of view, but i cannot handle this woman.
KAAAching1 7 months ago
@KAAAching1
I'm with you. She's intolerable.
ClumsyRoot 7 months ago
@L1v3for3v3R equaliztion isn't communism? Forcing the producers to give to the lazy, unwise, irresponsible? Mind you the true evil rich people will never have to suffer or pay tax, because corporatism own U.S. so it will only be the American producers who have to suffer. They will keep rushing in illegal immigrants and enlarge public sectors until the government become so big that it becomes tyranny. The Military Complex will own you all through the puppet regime under Martial Law.
sai18kit 8 months ago
@L1v3for3v3R Listen to what that guy said. He wanted to take a piece of the pie from the have and share it with the have not. He said that to Joe the plumber, also his wife wanted someone to lose their share of the pie. So on and so forth. Obama wants to add to the negative rights of the constitution. He surrounds himself with revolutionaries and communists, so do you think there are not enough proof yet?
sai18kit 8 months ago
Would you force someone to live under a socialist government if they didn’t want to?
manor1730 9 months ago
i'm not impressed with her here, really. i think she is stuck in this narrow rhetorical paradigm wherein she doesn't have to be more substantial than to say "captialism= bad, socialism= good". i don't like it when people manage to get away with being so simplistic.
however she is on to something when she describes socialims as people getting together and figuring out what to do. it is pretty much true: bottum-up horizontal institutions that are more acountable and closer to the people involved.
fede2 10 months ago
U.S. has been practicing socialism for many years even though most people still were deceived to believe it was capitalism. Obama is a communist, not just a socialist.
sai18kit 10 months ago
@sai18kit - Seek professional help immediately.
tom6612 9 months ago
Barbara cock sucker pice of sheet asshole.
21avasapi 1 year ago
What in the Hell, is she babbling about?
centurion180ad 1 year ago
Journalist*. I have an excuse for that - I'm a journalism student. *Oh, the irony...*
Zizz0n 1 year ago
v Only a feeble-minded journalism/writer resorts to that sort of language and doesn't look twice at all the errors in his post before posting. Just sayin'.
Zizz0n 1 year ago
I want to hear more
biofit123 1 year ago
People get to get there and f*ck your mouth you are and sick bastard . You don't know sh*t you are on assh*le is
21avasapi 1 year ago
Barbaras you wrote the book about that Jesus you are a f*cking devil
21avasapi 1 year ago
You tell 'em, Barbara.
gatoperezoso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BREAKING NEWS:
JAMIE DIMON, CNBC, FOXBUSINESS AND CNN ANCHORS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGALLY ACCESSING AND MONITORING PRIVATE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.
THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 1-3 MONTHS.
I AM GOING TO JUMP OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE IN 1-3 MONTHS AND COMMIT SUICIDE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERIOUS OF THIS MATTER. JAMIE DIMON AND THESE TELEPROMPTER READERS WILL GO TO JAIL.
READ MY PROFILE FOR MORE INFORMATION.
111WLee 1 year ago
Capitalism is a religion without evidence? How about cellphones, plasma tvs, personal computers, etc... All of these things were exclusively toys for the rich at one time and now they're common among the poor. How about the religion of socialism? Where's your evidence for socialism improving the lot of the poor?
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@NamelessCommenter Socialism can't be carried out without a strong central state. How would decisions be made? By public vote? Who carries out the decisions of the people? Who makes sure everyone does their part and is compensated accordingly. There has to be a power structure to enforce the decisions, even if the decisions are made by the people. A noncorrupt central power structure has yet to exist making socialism impractical by nature.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
She is complaining about the system, how much money she is making?
omt07 1 year ago
Capitalism is dynamic and resilient because it works for the rich, the upper middle class and half the middle class.
I have always understood-from the time I was a boy-that Capitalism works for the rich because one is dependent on the other thus the bailouts.
The AIGs. Citibanks and Goldman Sachs needed their friends in government to bail them out. Makes practical and logical sense.
Its bad for the rest of us but who cares?
Markets wil provide!
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Government involvement in the economy is not capitalism. The bailouts as a policy are more socialist than capitalist. Remember the excuse behind them was to stimulate the economy for the people. Government providing for the people is a socialist notion. Corruption exists in every power structure, at least in capitalism the powers that be have to produce goods and services directly to the people in order to maintain their power. They can't force the public to buy their bullshit.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings Your reasoning makes no sense.
You are one of these racist tea party fanatics who believes that everything is socialism.
Government bailouts are socialist-really? That makes the companies that recieved look like raving socialists or welfare dependents.
Government providing for people is a socialist notion? Great, get rid of social security and let old people starve, get rid of medicaid and medicare and let them die,get rid of the public schools.
Capitalism in action.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Where do you get off calling me a racist? What have I said about race anywhere? Public schools, social security, medicaid and medicare were relatively recently introduced to our society. How did people get educated or care for the elderly for the 10,000 years of civilization before these programs. Education has suffered since the inception of the board of ed. Parents have no choice where to send their kids. If they're poor they're just fucked as far as education goes.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings I can call you whatever I want-if the shoe fits and your case, it fits just fine.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Old people weren't starving before SS, at least not any more than the rest of the country was during the depression. Medicaid and Medicare are the reasons why health care costs have skyrocketed since their inception. Get Gov out of the HC business and prices will fall while quality increases
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal People can't afford to get health care as it is because costs have skyrocketed.
If you take Medicare and Medicaid out of the equation, more uninsured people who are unable to pay for medical costs.
As for SS, if your living standard for most Americans is the level of Great Depression, then you are consigning a lot of elderly people to either outright poverty and manageable penury.
In any event, you are promoting the Republican Right Wing mantra: Only the rich have rights.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
DO not go to the extremes Barbara?. It is not a matter of socialism by itself, since it doesn´t solve anything. It is an equilibrium between them. Let´s call it: a social capitalism, by taking care from the government through right instrument. The problem is that it looks like even the goverment doesn´t know what to do. Crisis envolves also mentallity issues at this point.
JerryfromCostaRica 1 year ago
what an idiot. does not understand markets. part of markets is the result of groups of people making a difference to improve their standards of living. to just say we have less is just absolutely wrong. we have more food and clean water now in the us than 50 years ago, despite having more people and to top it all off, the price of it has gone down. absolute nonsense.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 You're an idiot.
Markets are predicated on money. If you don't have the money, you dont get the honey.
Markets and products work just fine for the rich and the upper middle class because they the income and asets to get whatever they want.
Markets dont work for working class and poor people because they lack money and have no assets.
What good is having more food and clean water if you can't get access to them.
If you can't afford them.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 no smartass, markets arent that. markets are based on scarcity. money is a medium of exchange and store of wealth. it facilitates transactions. wants and needs are always limitless, the fact that there are prices facilitates supply.
stop being such an idiot. how much did you spend for ur computer or ur internet? not that much. 15 years do u know what the average Pentium would be, around $2000. the fact that technology prices has gone down so much is a function of markets.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Markets in this day and age require money for exchange.
We don't have a barter system or a work trade system but a financial system predicated on money.
No money, no honey.
Supply and demand mean nothing without the means of exchange vis-a-vis money.
Therefore Markets and Capitalism work best for the rich and the upper middle class as well as some of the middle class and not for the working class and poor.
By the way, you racist retard, learn how to spell. Its You Are not ur.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 money is based on scarcity. money does not mean anything unless there is actual wealth creation (IE goods and capital).
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Money may have been based on scarcity not anymore.
You can print money until the cows come home.
Currency is no longer tied to gold thank to Nixon's axing of the Bretton Woods system in 1971.
Lots of speculative funds out there floating ever since.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Your talking to a mixed Asian. You have nothing solid so you speak in nonsense. Supply and Demand is everything. That's what constitutes prices. We don't live a barter goods and services outright because money became the medium of exchange. You barter goods and services with money.
If capitalism only works for the rich then prove it. give me some shred of evidence therefore i can prove to you that you have no idea what your talking about.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 So you're a mixed Asian, cry me a fucking river.
Like Asian people aren't racist.
I don't need to prove it.
Watch CNBC, FOX Business News, NIGHTLY BUSINESS NEWS.
Read the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Businessweek.
Read every fucking business book out there.
In fact, read a goddamn history book.
If you believe capitalism benefits poor people more than rich people, you are nothing more than a fucking retard.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 No, I was just a guy born into a poor family that worked itself to an average middleclass family. Who are you, just a person who does not believe in freedom and complains like Ehrenreich.
If capitalism does not work and only helps poor was so poor why does the US beat every country in applied citizenship?
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 What are you a moron? I just wrote that Capitalism helps the rich not the poor.
Get the arguments right before you post.
In fact, get a GED and some education before you respond to a college educated person like me.
Too bad, your family didn't stay poor-you might have learned something about life.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Yeah only many times, but that's all you say. You never a say how (Don't be jealous that I may have a higher intellect). Give some examples, some raw data. You are just like Ehrenriech, complain about everything, blame freedom, and give no shred of evidence.
Some free advice, take some classes, get a real job, and stop making claims without any backing.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 You misspelled Ehrenreich's name. Get a high school education before you deign to respond to me.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Historians do not know anything about economics (which is clear you don't either cause you are a journalist).
I do read and watch those media outlets. They say we need the rich. We need less govt control. Things are bad, but it will be better w/o all this red tape and money printing.
What benefits the poor more? Ehrenreich does not. She wrote stupid books, and fails on purpose to "prove it."
Anyone can be racist, but now who is really stereotyping in this conversation.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 people live very well here. poor people are fat, and water is clean and cheap, yet still buy bottled water.
you gain assets by saving. the irish did not become a wealthy class in the northeast buy fucking around, they had to work their ass off. they had to save and take risks.
im sorry, but know your stuff, because ur an idiot. we have so much more now. who dosent have a cell, comp, car, internet, ipod, tv, indoor pluming, ac, fridges, and whatever else people buy.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Having more products available on the market means nothing if you do not have the money to purchase them or the assets to feed, clothe and house yourself and others.
The Irish are not the wealthy class in the Northeast, Wasps are. Most Irish are still cops and priests, not Boston Brahmin. I think you are thinking of the Kennedys.
Most poor people are skinny not fat. Water is not clean which is why people drink bottled watter.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 it does mean something, if you have taken economics, more stuff means prices are pushed down. the fact that clothing and food used to be 18-20% expenditures in the 1960s, to a whopping 8-10% of total expenditures is because of markets.
the irish are a whole lot better now then they were when they immigrated here. southern new hampshire, cambridge, etc
im sorry poor people are fat. half my family is rooted in white, welfare taking, trash and fat.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 You economic argument is bullshit as is the economics itself.
A bullshit excuse for a science. Physics and Chemistry are real sciences compared to economics.
I am sure the Irish in Ireland will be glad to hear they are less than Irish Americans in New Hampshire and Masschusetts.
I should have known you were trash because you come from trash as you yourself admit.
You are nothing more than a racist scumbag with sick right wing arguments.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 no, but the fact that you keep making silly arguments that capitalism does not work, but that still an economic argument. The only difference is my argument holds water. Show some backing to your argument. Where is it? In fact, where's the racist proof?
You could talk bad about capitalism all you want, but it only gave us the light bulb, the airplane, refined oil, indoor heating and plumbing, refrigerators, washers and dryers, ipods, and all sorts of other stuff we purchase.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Capitalism never gave us any of the items you mentioned-inventors and innovators did that. Human beings not a system of economics.
As per you lack of education, you erect a man of straw argument- You say Capitalism doesn't work-and then proceed to argue against it.
The fact is that I have stated that Capitalism works fine-for the rich and upper middle class and not for working class people and the poor. This is how it should be. The market can do nothing for poor people.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 ur jus an ignorant moron, probably w/ a useless degree in psychology, complaining about some rich guy, who works incredibly hard, took enormous risk, probably started from nothing, wishing you were him, but instead vote for some politician who will promise to conscript his hard earned property, because he is a "fat cat," to make yourself feel better. some advice, read "free to choose," be productive, and be thankful that they rich guy has the capital to provide jobs.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 My degree is not psychology unlike you, a person who can't spell and who is probably writing this from his cardboard box.
I don't need to complain about the rich, I just state the facts.
Capitalism works for the rich. Fact
Capitalism screws working people and the poor. Fact.
I have never said capitalism doesn't work, it works perfectly for rich, white people.
Black people don't have a chance.
Hispanics don't have a chance.
Rich people don't work-their money works.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Michael Dell only started out of his condo. Bill Gates only dropped out of Harvard. Mark Zuckerburg only started in a college dorm. Richard Branson only started out selling Christmas trees. John Mackey only started in a garage. Who the fuck is Oprah Winfrey.
the fact that these people made it means anybody can. the fact that Asians are the highest income earners make you an idiot.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Gates came from money-his parents were well-to-do lawyers in Seattle.
As for the rest, who cares.
They dont prove or disprove anything.
They don't disprove the fact that rich people's money works more than they do.
They are mostly white and therefore don't disprove the fact that most non-white people will remain poor or working class and thus never be rich.
As for Asians, some asians do very well. A lot do not-they remain waiters or cart owners or taxi drivers.
Idiot.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
Comment removed
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Yep these rich men only supply hundreds of thousands of jobs all over the world with more than half of them only in the US.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Yes all over the world where people labor for a few pennies or nickels a day because corporations relocate to countries where they can undermine labor unions (if there are any) and pay people paltry wages which aren't livable on at all.
These jobs are essentially worthless if they do not provide anywhere near a wage that can more than adequately pay for food, clothing and shelter.
So, yes, rich men supply jobs, pay a pittance and pocket the rest for themselves.
That's profit.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 If that's so true than why has real wages increased in countries like South Korea and Japan to levels that rival the United States in just sixty years. These countries were dirt poor not to mention reveled in war destruction. Why is it that now they are one one the premiere tech centers in the world? Because of capitalism. Because people were allowed to choose what to do with their money.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Actually it is because of government direction and investment in business and industry not laissez fair, neoliberal capitalism.
Japan has MITI and the government has helped steer a course for business there.
Korea has seen government investment in targeted industry and have also passed strict laws regarding capital flows-for example, it is a dealth penalty offense to take capital or moneys out of the country and flee elsewhere.
Government investment and guidance not markets.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Maybe we're confusing something. When I say capitalism, I'm using the classical liberal definition, FREE MARKETS. Which means lack of government intervention. What your saying of capitalism is govt involvement and calling that capitalism, which it is not.
In regards to wages, if the govt wasn't taxing everyone from Jan to June every year I could take in more money. To think that the we used to only pay less than 10% in taxes.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 Classical economics technically doesn't involve charts, graphs and higher economics.
To end your confusion, Iam refering to capitalism in all its protean guises whether neoliberal or state guided.
Either way, capitalism works for elites and the ruling class not the masses and the working class.
It doesn't matter what permutation you come up with, Capitalism does not provide anything for people because you to have either capital (raw form) or money(refined form) to survive.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 if that is so true, what is your proposed solution. you have one wish, what would you do to make it all better.
nsaneforevr1 1 year ago
@nsaneforevr1 I don't spend my time wishing but surviving, trying to get by.
If I had one wish, make myself rich so I can retire. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
Anyone who takes this woman seriously, need to watch Part 6 of the 20/20 special "Bailouts & Bull****" with John Stossel. Her interview begins a :28
/watch?v=hYE4gO0b3K4
Jammer8x8 1 year ago
Money property system is ROOT problem.
1. people need food, water, energy, medicine, etc.
2. money systems require scarcity, so they will never create abundance of 1
3. sharing ALL resources and knowledge keeps small groups from controlling everyone
4. we have the resources and technology to provide EVERYTHING for the world now
5. automating the production distribution, frees up humanity to no longer be wage slaves to governments or corporations.
v=YxPPnCW6sMo
v=yPmHaTirnCc
dontblockmedk 1 year ago
This lady is an ignoramus. The last 150 years have produced the greatest advancements for mankind, and she still wants us to live in mud huts.
EVOB88 1 year ago
Capitalism isn't broken, socialism reared its ugly head and nearly brought down Capitalism. Socialism always has and always will end in despotism. It is a destructive spiral race to the bottom of human achievement and will lower the standards of every human that lives in its coercive forceful violent grasp. Where has it not ended like this
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal The US is not a socialist country and never has been.
The US economy has never been predicated on socialism.
Therefore, socialism can't bring down a capitalist.
When you leverage an economy to finance capital and rely on "exotic" financial instruments like Credit default swaps and collatoralized debt obligations, when you stop linking your economy to production and rely on risk, when you push variable rate mortgages to people who can't pay them, you get Capitalism in action.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Nobody was forced into variable rate mortgages Borrowing money you can't afford to pay back is a choice that the government pushed. Don't blame individual irresponsibility on capitalism. People who have good credit are given better loans because they have a record of responsible fiscal behavior. Those subprime loans were encouraged by socialist minded government agencies Freddy and Fanny. Nodody's forced to participate in the wall street con game.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings Interesting how in a capitalist nation, anytime there is a government agency or department, they are immediately socialist and pushing and implementing socialism, according to you right wingers.
There is no responsibility in Capitalism which is why there is regulation.
Corporate executives and business owners want unfettered markets with no SEC, FDA, FAA or other regulatory body.
Freddy and Fanny are blamed but not Countrywide and the other mortgage companies that profited.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
I like to define socialism simply as government control, the degree to which defines the society. So every society has socialism, except anarchy. It was the social programs implemented by the federal gov that caused this crisis. Without the GSE's guarantee and the CRA requiring a quota on loans to minorities this mess could not have happened.CDS(insurance)or other "exotic" instruments didnt make people not pay their mortgage. It wasnt Capitalism it was socialism that is to blame
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal The US Government does not control the economy of this society nor does it control the society as a whole.
You are living in dream world if you think the US is socialist society.
Like other white supremacist crackpots who hate blacks, hispanics and other nonwhites and are therefore against social programs that help them and other non-whites.
So, you can continue to believe we lie in an Orwellian society where the government controls and sees all.
I live in the real world, stupid.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
R U actually reading my comments? I never said the US was a socialist country that controlled our economy. The gov does control certain aspects of our economy, unfortunately they are some of the most important, like interest rates and mortgages. Yes I know the Fed is a private bank. By manipulating interest rates the Fed is manipulating and distorting the entire economy, creating the boom and bust cycle. Im against social programs because they harm the people they intend to help
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal You don't care about people which is why you are against social programs.
These programs at least provide something for people.
What you are discussing here is rightwing garbage.
The Fed has nothing to do with social programs.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
I care very much about people, which is why I have actually looked at the results of social programs and thought about the subject for more than five minutes. Perhaps you should do the same before commenting back. No one can honestly say that the social programs we have implemented in this country have done any good for the people they claim to help. Social programs have destroyed more lives and given people no hope and no way out of generational poverty, barely able to exist
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Poverty existed before social programs came into being and they will continue to exist with them in place.
The market has always been a nursemaid to poverty.
Social programs provide a basic standard of living to a number of people who would otherwise starve and die or barely survive without them.
Right wingers like you are against them because you don't believe people-working class and poor people-have any rights especially economic rights in this country.
I care? Bullshit.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
Poverty has accelerated since the social programs were implemented. So you think the welfare program in this country has been a huge success, huh? The social security program is just wonderful, right? Have you spent any time analyzing the results of anything before you decide to make moronic comments?
I dont think anyone has the right to another persons property that is taken by force, but theft by force is OK to you??
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal No, I leave the making moronic comments part to you. You seem to do such a good job making dumbass arguments.
Welfare and social security provide a modicum of financial support to people.
You can't make a lot of money from either one of those programs.
So, I have never seen the big deal for right wing wackos.
Neither program provides enough money to people.
Also, welfare changed and was "reformed" in 1996.
Apparently, you don't do your homework before posting.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
Would you agree that there are a large number of welfare recipients that don't work, simply because they would lose their welfare benefits if they did become employed?
If you pay people not to work, even if it is a poverty level existence that is paid to them, then don't be surprised when people don't work. The minimum wage job that a welfare recipient turns down because of lost benefits, would be a starting point for them to acquire skills necessary to move up and succeed.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal What good is a minimum wage job when you live a low wage society?
Maybe 20-30 years ago, the idea of moving from a low-wage job to a higher wage job was feasible. Not today. When low-wage jobs with high volumes of work dominate the American job market, the average American worker is fucked because wages don't keep up with costs.
Maybe the reason why many people on welfare choose not get off it and try to get jobs is because there are very few jobs that pay living wages anymore.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
Which is why I say that the social programs are the cruelest policies ever thrust upon minorities. It puts them in a poverty trap, with little chance of escape. Once a parent becomes dependent on the programs and doesn't work, what kind of skills is that parent going to teach their offspring? Which is why poverty has become a generational problem that has accelerated since Welfare's inception
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal This is a typical pseudo bleeeding heart argument foisted by right wingers. It doesn't work now and never worked before.
Social programs provide a modicum of support to people.
Minorities don't have much of a chance in this society anyway.
American society has always been tailored to whites because it was created by whites.
The poverty trap for minorities has always been a mix of racism and capitalism.
As Paul Mooney says, Racism trumps Capitalism.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
I really try not to get my philosophical guidance from racist comedians. You're wrong and I this from personal experience. My wife and I own a pediatric clinic, we hired a medical assistant from another Dr in town who was making $8.00/hr. by bumping her pay to $12. Within a year, she had become so familiar with our system that I offered her a position as office manager starting her off at $40K. She was awesome at her job, she increased our bottom line and made things better
jjrglobal 1 year ago
After about ten months at the job, she came to me and told me that she had just been informed that she was going to lose all her benefits come the first of the year because her increase in salary meant she was no longer eligible for Medicaid for her two children, child care, housing assistance, food stamps and welfare. I didnt even know she was on all this gov assistance, but I didnt think her benefits from the gov equalled anywhere near $40K a year. Apparently it was worth more than 40K to her
jjrglobal 1 year ago
because after that convo her job performance began to slip drastically, after 60 days it was clear that her intention was to be fired so she could not only get her benefits back but also so she could collect unemployment. So I fired her. Now she's making $9.50 hr, living in shitty gov housing, receiving welfare. But heres what she didnt know. If she had continued doing her job well, I was prepared to double her salary, by now she would be earning over $200K a year, and gov programs caused this
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal No, she chose that course because she thought that would work for her.
You can disagree with it all you want but its her funeral and she'll die if she wants to to.
Besides, how is she supposed to know you would double her salary.
She can't read your mind and who's to say you would have done that anyway?
Its all guesswork and speculation.
What it comes down to is you can't trust the private sector.
What good are promises when you get something real here and now.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
No she was scared of losing her benefits of free housing, food, child care, and money offered by the government. She gave up a really good career because of fear and no self confidence. If she gave up a 40K a year job, don't you think most people wouldn't think twice about not working if it was going to hurt their government benefits? How is that a good thing?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal You're contradicting yourself.
If she gave up the career, it wasn't because of lack of confidence and fear itself but because she might lose her benefits.
Apparently, the career wasn't working out for her.
If her job were so great and wonderful then there is no way she would left it.
You make it sound like she had made.
Doesn't seem like that.
Based on what little facts are presented here, I would say the woman wanted to go with a sure bet.
Clearly, your job wasn't enough.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@Multidumbass
You have made my point for me. It should not have mattered if she got a raise or not, the fact is she quit to retain her benefits and you think this is somehow uplifting.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Why would you think her departure was uplifting?
Your illogic and irrationality are showing.
I don't know this broad.
She could be a figment of your imagination, some made-up nonsense example created to make a rhetorical point.
In fact, I think you did make her up
Any event, if she is real, she wanted the supposedly real benefits which could help her as opposed to some illusory raise which may never happen.
People live in the real world not some business model you construct.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@jjrglobal You must be a fucking fool.
That was a rhetorical point not "philsophical guidance."
Its a valid point.
As for Mooney being racist, eye of the beholder.
This a racist society and when non-whites point this out they are called racist.
As for your medical assistant, who give a fuck?
Vast majority of jobs are not in the medical field but in retail or temping and largely low wage.
So your example doesn't prove anything.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
You didnt even finish reading it moron
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Who cares? Cry me a fucking river.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
The point of the medical assistant to office manager and back again, illustrates the harm done by dependence on the state and the difficulty to break away from it even when there are large amounts of money at stake. Your point of most jobs being low wage makes my example that much more meaningful. If people will give up a high paying job for benefits, they'll damn sure give up a low paying one. So my example proves everything
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal No, the point of your stupid story is that you had a good employee who moved up to a higher job with bigger salary. Good for her.
That's not illustrative of this economy.
If most jobs available are low wage jobs that are incapable of keeping up with costs of housing, food and bills, then what's the fucking point?
If most jobs were like the office manager job then people might be a little better off but they arent.
Use your head, dumbass.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
The Fed has everything to do with social programs, without the incestuous relationship the Fed has with the Federal Government, most of the social programs would not be funded. They steal from all of us with their printing press, its called debasing currency. You dont know anything about the Fed do you?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal The Fed is the lender of last resort and it is a financial institution.
It is not the Presidency nor the Congress and is not responsible for drafting legislation nor with creating and fomenting foriegn and domestic policies.
The Fed's purview is economic.
So when you say that the Fed has "everything to do with social programs", you are an idiot liar.
When you say the Fed has an "incestuous relationship" with the Federal Gov't, you are a fanatical liar.
Get a GED and get a life.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
Do you know nothing about the Federal Reserve? Who do you think owns the Federal Reserve?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Who gives a shit? Stick to your own business and make money, asshole.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1
You claim to be a writer and journalist and this is the best you can do?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal No, I can come up with much better insults than "asshole."
I was just warming up.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
The real socialist legacy:
Mao: 70 million dead
Stalin: 50 million dead
Hitler:12 million dead (Hitler led the National *Socialist* German Workers' Party)
When Hitler is only 3rd place mass murderer, you have a real problem. Socialism is up in the ranks with small pox or malaria for its death toll on humanity, and this is not to even count the billions more who have lived under its tyranny.
retsep81 2 years ago
@retsep81 Poe's Law, check it out.
Anyway, Socialism isn't what drove those guys to mass murder. For Hitler, it was rabid Nationalism that justified the scapegoating of an entire class/race of people, much like we see with the Tea Party fools. Mao and Stalin were just brutal dictators, who would have been the same, regardless of political ideology. Every Western civilization has elements of Socialism, and it works if there is a balance. Swing too far to ANY side and it gets real ugly...
AtrophyChannel 1 year ago
@retsep81
Mao: a delusional, despotic nationalist who forced collectivization and various murderous "mass movements" on the people of China
Stalin: a power-hungry warlord who hijacked the Russian Revolution with his cronies and established one of the world's great despotic imperial monster states
Hitler: a fascist anti-semite mass murderer who was only a "socialist" insofar as he nationalized a few industries and harnessed populist rage
BlacknWhitesAlright 1 year ago
@retsep81 When Barbara Ehrenreich refers to "socialism," she's referring to the worker's movements and the mass protest movements - movements for a welfare state, for a living wage, for safer and more humane working conditions, et cetera. That's consistent with her position as one of the leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America. She's not apologizing for or whitewashing the deeds of Stalin, Mao, Enver Hoxha, Kim Il-Sung, etc.
BlacknWhitesAlright 1 year ago
@BlacknWhitesAlright First of all when rightwingers and other delusional people refer to anything critical of free market capitalism, they label it socialist.
Socialism is a political ideology not an economic system in and of itself.
You can apply socialist principles to an economy but socialism is above all political.
Capitalism is not a political ideology but a economic system.
The comparisons between capitalism and socialism are illogical by rightists.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Socialism is a political system that encompasses the economic system. It provides a way to handle a system that already exists, but it can't support itself on its own, so it must control the economy. Capitalism is profit based, and goes against the ideology of socialism, which is based on equal wealth regardless of skill or productive capacity.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings First, Capitalism wasn't set up to go against any socialist system. Adam Smith never had socialism in mind when he wrote THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and certainly not soviet style communism.
Second, socialism doesn't "encompass" an economic system, it is primarily a political system as i pointed out.
Thirs, the only thing you got right is that Capitalism is profit based. The is the only thing that matters. Strictly, speaking people have no rights under capitalism.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Capitalism was set up to allow the common people an opportunity to become wealthy, which in Adam Smith's time was only a priveledge of royalty. I live in a capitalist system and I can live where I want, work where I want at whatever I want to do, own whatever I can afford, speak my mind whether I like capitalism or not, and worship whatever religion I want, or none at all. Socialism is workers controlling the means of production. You can't do that without controlling the economy.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings Capitalism is solely an economic system not a political one.
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, of the press, free assembly or religion.
That's the constitution and the bill of rights not capitalism
Also, there is nothing wrong with workers controlling the means of production if it means they have say in their income, working conditions and job duties rather than owners and mangers who don't give a shit if they live or die.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 Capitalism is the economic counterpart of a free society. The economic system provides the fuel and means for the system to run. There's no comparison between the prosperity capitalism allows and any other system. It's just completely rediculous, and slightly scary that the heirs of this incredible country are set to destroy it.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings you don't need a free society to have capitalism.
Chile wasa dictatorship under Pinochet, it had capitalism.
Philippines was under Marcos, it had capitalism.
Spain under Franco, it had capitalism.
Free Societies and capitalism don't naturally go together any more than dictatorship and command economies.
The heirs of this country are not set to destroy anything.
Corporations own this nation and they aren't looking to burn down the store to get the insurance money yet.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 You don't need a free society to have capitalism, but you need capitalism to have a free society. Corporations want people to give them their money. In a free market they have to provide something for you in order for you to CHOOSE to give it to them. Malevolent corporations need to use big government to circumvent the free market and help them get your money despite doing bad business. If it wasn't for the government many big, corrupt banks would've gone broke and disappeared.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings Your initial comment is illogical and partially untrue.
You don't need capitalism to have a free society.
In fact, you have a freer society because people might have the chance to be adequately fed, clothed and sheltered.
In fact, your post is full of contradictions and illogic.
If corporations who use the government to get money are malevolent than many US companies would fit that bill because corporate welfare has existed for years.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 People are adequately fed, clothed, and sheltered in prison, are they free? There are scumbags in corporations, the free market keeps them in check by making them earn what they have. When the government comes in and props them up, nothing keeps them in check. It's government action that enables bad corporations to exist. It is physically possible to have both scumbags working together. I'll be happy to help you sort out the logical details.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@BelieversinThings Also, you talk about malevolent corporations and then blame the government for supporting big, corrupt banks.
Either the companies are to blame or the government is to blame but you can't have it both ways.
Essentially, you are trying to do the Right Wing propaganda tactic of seeming to blame companies while you really bash government.
The fact is that Capitalism works just fine for the corporate elites-who are right wing and Republican-and not for working people.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
BARBARA FOR PRESIDENT!
Vesnicie 2 years ago
It's weird how much she was farting.
corenothing 2 years ago
What about the 70 million that Mao Zedong slaughtered.
simontimon2 2 years ago 2
What about it?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
A world designed by Ehrenreich would be a totalitarian slave state.
JackBlair2 2 years ago
Good woman
xyzllii 2 years ago
Forward...
knpb 2 years ago
She's like a quasi-female Charles Nelson Reilly.
wilsonatore 2 years ago
a bit of communism, a bit of capitalism, a bit of non-sense speculation, a bit of superstition, a bit of socialism, a bit of everything.
virtuous8 2 years ago
... what is called Life
irinavavilova 2 years ago
Money creates greed-based ethics. I say get rid of it all. Communists had money too, and that created a huge divide between the rich and the poor. Get rid of money and we can start working on the future of America, untethered by greed. Maybe this sounds too simplistic. Let me know what your opinion is (i.e. not just the thumbs up/thumbs down standard reply).
seanotube85 2 years ago
are you talking about a resource based economy? like in the venus project? sounds like a good theory, id like there to be some experimentation regarding it. However I dont think money is inherently bad, it should be a medium of exchange and nothing more, perhaps if it had a constant value it would be less deficient.
mindlobster 2 years ago
The Venus Project (RBE) is essentially Marxism-2.0...
( I support it )... the abolishment of a monetary system (in the end) is KEY ;)
MazdakTV 2 years ago
You have to remember that Marxism wants to remove the monetary system in the end...
You can't remove the monetary system over 1 day... it's a problem...
But, via gradual change...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
That's true. I think the internet is a powerful resource to organize human transactions and connections to gradually shift into an economy without money.
seanotube85 2 years ago
I know very little about the venus project. Do you know if it suports the idea of property rights, and by extension, some form of government? I dont think you want to remove money, because anything can be used as a medioum of exchange. What you want to remove is profit or gains from corporate activity. Then what incentive will there be for competition other than self enrichment?
mindlobster 2 years ago
Self enrichment is not necessarily to earn more money...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
I think their idea is that there is no use for laws on property rights once you've eliminated scarcity, but you can't eliminate scarcity until we've made the necessary technological advances. Also I think the idea/the ultimate goal of the VP is to figure out a way to REPLACE competition with an individually incentivised approach for us all to work cooperatively with one another. But I personally don't see this happening until we refine the internet towards our individualist/collective want/need.
seanotube85 2 years ago
State-Capitalism is when the government controls an entity of production, but does not own it, leaving it to their corrupt mafia friends to profit from this monopoly(would not be a problem if there was ZERO government!).
Socialism IS "government ownership of the means of production". That IS a "centrally planned economy"!
You obviously do not own a dictionary...not that I thought you did...
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
"Dear Slavish Servant of the Capitalist Elite"
HAHAHAHA! ONLY government creates oligarchy and artifical illegitimate hierarchy!
"why do you believe that
self-professed "socialist" states, are in fact socialist?"
Other than the fact that the DPRK is probably THE most tyrannical state on this earth, the commanding heights of its economy are run by the government!
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
"Workers are not empowered in the states you named"
Yeah, the socialist states!
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
The real problem isn't capitalism or socialism; it's gullible brainwashed people. As long as the majority of Americans believe a 2000 year old zombie is their Messiah, the powerful elite will easily exploit that kind of credulous thinking. Once America rids itself of its religious virus, then perhaps we can talk about socialism, or real freedom and equality for everyone. Until then, you might as well just pray along with those crazy christians, they obviously can't be reasoned with.
a0eoj 2 years ago 7
it isn't just religion that's a unrational belief - the real solution is balance - bit of capitalism - bit of socialism.. bit of god bothering - bit of logic etc.
worriedaboutlife 2 years ago
Comment removed
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
@a0eoj Christian fanatisism is just one of many herd mentality groups that insist on pushing their bullshit on other people. That's what it comes down to. Someone just wants to be left alone, and someone else insists he has to behave a certain way. It's all about someone controlling someone else. American capitalism is do you whatever you want as long as you don't impede someone else's ability to do the same. Socialism is rationing by an inefficient state. It never works.
BelieversinThings 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Socialism is worker control of the means of production."
DART!!!! WRONG!!!! Socialism is GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production!
"Name a single socialist state. Give up? Right, because there are none."
Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea...etc.
"Capitalism is an economic system by and for the elite"
Socialism is the economic system of the elite!
Graduate middle school retard, DART!
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
For the benefit of us all, (you included), I wish you to get a proper education... you'll be a happier person after the transformation.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
With 85 million dead, that sounds very stupid coming from a socialist.
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
Calling Stalin a socialist really shows that you have not read up on history...
I urge you to actually read some literature on this subject... I think it'd do you good...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Anytime your ideas kill millions of people, you always say THAT system was not socialist. Mao WAS a socialist, Stalin WAS a socialist.
The ONLY true philosophy is Voluntarism, NOT violent socialism.
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
There's a HUGE difference between socialism/communism for the rich and socialism/communism for the poor. The first is EXTREMELY damaging, and the latter can be very beneficial for us all. The REAL problem is that we're raised in a society where the rich are told that the only way they can stay in power is by holding down those at the bottom. In other words Power=Oppression. We need to rethink that equation, because it is OBVIOUSLY wrong. It will take more THINKING than some are used to.
seanotube85 2 years ago
"There's a HUGE difference between socialism/communism for the rich and socialism/communism for the poor."
No, there is no "HUGE difference", both involve violence.
"Power=Oppression."
The state is despotic.
"We need to rethink that equation,"
Yes, go from a violent society--that also condones violence--to a voluntary society, that embraces voluntary association.
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
Socialism / Communism for the rich is self refuting per definition...
Socialism has never been achieved and certainly not pure communism ;)
I agree that the Authority is a problem, and children must be educated to question everything.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Mao & Stalin were not Socialists nor Marxists cause they did not advocate what Marxism/Socialism stands for...
Karl Marx famously said: "Capital punishment is not justifiable by any means"... Now... does that sound like Stalin to you?
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Who said marxistic ideas can't be on a voluntary basis?
How is capitalism voluntary? the only way to leave it is to leave the state... Is that voluntary?
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Marxism is "government ownership of the means of production.", period. Marx's 10 planks all involved the compulsory, violent State. Capitalism means the "free flow of capital.", as opposed to state capitalism, which is corporatist/fascism.
Marxism is violent by definition, the only true philosophy is voluntarism.
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
Marxism is not "government ownership of the means of production.".
Marxism does not demand a violent state, and certainly does not advocate such...
Marx said himself: "Capital punishment can't be justified under any circumstance..."
How is capitalism voluntary?
It kills the freedom of most...
Capitalism leads to the freedom for the rich elite...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
"Marxism does not demand a violent state, and certainly does not advocate such..."
Marx's "Communist Manifesto" called for violent state ownership of the 10 planks of society.
"How is capitalism voluntary?"
By definition.
You seem to only understand state corporatism.
Socialism "kills the freedom of most...", 85 million to date, at least.
Voluntarism is the only moral, beneficial form of society.
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
Claiming that 85 million died because of Socialism only shows your ignorance...
I'll say it again... you may say that Stalin was an immoral, cruel man... And I will agree with you... but I will never do so if you talk about Marx.
If I walk out of a capitalist society, what happens to me? what if all countries were governed by capitalist standards? how do I leave? It is forced upon me.
MazdakTV 2 years ago
Just like with all other socialist soap box orator's, everything bad about your "The end justifies the means" philosophy that is bad, TOTALLY has nothing to do with the actual violent ideals you promote.
And Marx? Well, when he was not supporting violence, and being an anti-semite, he was cheating on his wife with the maid, and when she became knocked-up, he just gave the little Frederick Demuth away...real great guy.
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
My "The end justifies the means" philosophy?
Maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth... I have never claimed that the end justifies the means... it doesn't.
Marx being anti-semite? maybe you should check Wikipedia... even that is more or less refuted there... Was Marx a self-hating jew?
My contempt for the state of Israel does not mean I hate jews... I love jews... I just do not like the government of Israel... and...
Israel does NOT equal "state of jews".
MazdakTV 2 years ago
YES! Your "The end justifies the means" philosophy!
Socialists scream for the state to hold the monopoly of violence--the definition of socialism--and then whine, and belligerently proclaim the violence that came from this had NOTHING to do with socialism.
You believe in violence, as opposed to voluntary association. You believe in violence to promote your view of society.
With you, it is all about violence to bring in "Pure Communism".
"The end justifies the means."
randyguitarman13 2 years ago
@randyguitarman13 Actually, "monopoly on violence" is the definition of state power, period. That's what the police and military are - the state's enforcement mechanism, the material representation of the state's monopoly on legitimate use of force. That's true under any state system, whether socialist, capitalist, fascist, monarchy... Nothing to do with "socialism" or lack thereof at all.
BlacknWhitesAlright 1 year ago
@BlacknWhitesAlright
' That's what the police and military are [...] Nothing to do with "socialism" or lack thereof at all.'
Who do you think enforces your violent socialism...?
randyguitarman13 1 year ago
I'll quote it for you: "Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of Mein Kampf, overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians.[60]"
You are using ad-hominem...
MazdakTV 2 years ago
"ad-hominem"?
"According to Marx, Judaism corrupted the entire human kind. All the evil and wickedness of the Christian world materialism and selfishness, the worship of money and private property originated from Judaism."