Jump to content
Bluenami

The defamation of socialism

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, jbander said:

The means of production in socialism can be owned and controlled by the state, as it also can be owned by the people , Also general when they say it's owned by the people ,they are generally saying through the state. Either way it is still socialism.

 

The worker co-ops advocated by the Marxist economist Richard Wolff are not owned by the state and are socialism.  The free market still exists, profits still exist, private property exists, but exploitation does not.

 

Communism as advocated by Marx has no government, but communism as perverted usually means state ownership where the people then own the state, but that never happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bluenami said:

I don't lay they blame at the feet of the rich, but the feet of the stupid.

 

The rich manipulate large numbers of the stupid and gullible.  The vanities of the stupid and the gullible are pandered to by the rich through their right wing media ...  Mainly Fox and talk radio but also the major networks which are all owned by conservative moguls.  Even MSNBC, which is owned by Comcast.    As I understand it, Disney and Fox each own 30 percent, while AT&T owns 10 percent through its acquisition of Time Warner. Comcast itself owns the remainder.  

 

MSNBC, supposedly the most liberal channel, fills a profitable viewer niche.  But MSNBC is only moderate left.  The commentators on MSNBC are severely limited in their content, being forced to concentrate on mostly on social issues while largely avoiding economic ones.  Hosts like Ed Schultz, with very respectable ratings,  have been fired for too much concentration on labor issues.

 

While it's true that many of the upper, elite rich support democratic causes, a far larger portion are activist conservatives.  The top ten:-- On the left, there's Tom Steyer and George Soros.  Countered on the right by:  Donald Trump ...  The Koch brothers ...  Sheldon Adelson ...  John Joe Ricketts ...  Rupert Murdoch ...  Robert Mercer ...  and Paul Singer.  In the middle is Michael Bloomberg. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/21/the-10-most-influential-billionaires-in-politics/?utm_term=.bf6d420cf114

Warren Buffet doesn't count because he mostly doesn't put his money where his mouth is.  For instance, Buffet donated only $6,000 to all the Clinton's campaigns over the last 15 years.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-billionaire-backers/

 

A significant portion of the stupid and gullible are victims of propaganda put out by the very rich.  They have been sold a bill of goods based on issues which appeal to them; Wedge issues like gun rights, abortion and racial hate.  And, having been won over on the basis of shallow issues, which they have been convinced are huge, they enter denial about voting against the best economic interests of themselves and their families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

The rich manipulate large numbers of the stupid and gullible.  The vanities of the stupid and the gullible are pandered to by the rich through their right wing media ...  Mainly Fox and talk radio but also the major networks which are all owned by conservative moguls.  Even MSNBC, which is owned by Comcast.    As I understand it, Disney and Fox each own 30 percent, while AT&T owns 10 percent through its acquisition of Time Warner. Comcast itself owns the remainder.  

 

Yeah it's ironic that the right controls the "liberal media" lol.  Yes, I guess you have a point there.  But they're just preaching to the choir since nobody had to tell them to hate the lazy which is what the Right boils down to.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

MSNBC, supposedly the most liberal channel, fills a profitable viewer niche.  But MSNBC is only moderate left.  The commentators on MSNBC are severely limited in their content, being forced to concentrate on mostly on social issues while largely avoiding economic ones.  Hosts like Ed Schultz, with very respectable ratings,  have been fired for too much concentration on labor issues.

 

Nobody watches MSNBC and the ones who would are on social media.  The ones who can't figure out a computer are parked in front of Fox all day.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

While it's true that many of the upper, elite rich support democratic causes, a far larger portion are activist conservatives.  The top ten:-- On the left, there's Tom Steyer and George Soros.  Countered on the right by:  Donald Trump ...  The Koch brothers ...  Sheldon Adelson ...  John Joe Ricketts ...  Rupert Murdoch ...  Robert Mercer ...  and Paul Singer.  In the middle is Michael Bloomberg. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/21/the-10-most-influential-billionaires-in-politics/?utm_term=.bf6d420cf114

Warren Buffet doesn't count because he mostly doesn't put his money where his mouth is.  For instance, Buffet donated only $6,000 to all the Clinton's campaigns over the last 15 years.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-billionaire-backers/

 

I can't imagine Buffett is very enamored with Hillary since she's a conservative with merely a liberal heart for social issues.  He resonated more with Bernie, but didn't think Bernie had a chance to win.  Now he's talking about Bloomberg, so I think he's finally lost his mind.

 

I don't consider Trump rich and actually suspect he's broke.  The other guys you mentioned, I suppose, but the list is short compared to the left and growing shorter, which was my point that eventually all the prosperity creates liberals, though it takes quite a bit of brain power to be an economic liberal.

 

We need to be careful that what's happening in Europe doesn't take root here, which are conservatives in "Labour Party" clothes.  That's not too far from what Hillary represented.

 

In Europe they pretend to be socialist to win the votes.  In the US they demonize socialism to prevent people finding out about it.

 

1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

A significant portion of the stupid and gullible are victims of propaganda put out by the very rich.  They have been sold a bill of goods based on issues which appeal to them; Wedge issues like gun rights, abortion and racial hate.  And, having been won over on the basis of shallow issues, which they have been convinced are huge, they enter denial about voting against the best economic interests of themselves and their families.

 

Makes sense, but the propaganda only works on that generation which is preaching to the choir and that's why I blame the choir: it's profitable to preach to them.  Zerohedge for instance wouldn't mind trashing Trump as they sometimes do, but the audience boos, so they go right back to catering to their base.  They aren't a propaganda site per se, but entertainers.  The first rule of show business is to know your audience.  So it appears as "controlling the masses", but I don't think it's that as much as trying to be profitable (and propagandizing as much as possible, but mainly they're in it to make money).

 

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds?page=2
Are people born conservative?

 

What It Means 
There is a big unknown underlying these findings. Supposing that the size of one's amygdala really does increase the likelihood of being a conservative. Is the size of the amygdala determined at birth, or does it perhaps increase with frightening childhood experiences, such as authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment?

 

Similarly, one might ask whether the gray matter difference is affected by exposure to educational challenge, social diversity, or childhood cognitive enrichment.

 

So that's why I say prosperity breeds liberals.  Adversity breeds conservatives.  The rich 'should' be liberal and the poor 'should' be conservative and if we have conservatives in power, we know who to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bluenami said:

 

The worker co-ops advocated by the Marxist economist Richard Wolff are not owned by the state and are socialism.  The free market still exists, profits still exist, private property exists, but exploitation does not.

 

Communism as advocated by Marx has no government, but communism as perverted usually means state ownership where the people then own the state, but that never happens.

Nobody said that it has to be run by the government, I'm talking about socialism not Marxism , they are two different things. ,you said in socialism business isn't owned and run by the government , You said is is owned and run by the worker.  and  that it is never run by the government and that's is not correct at all. It's usually run by the government. In communism the government has nothing to do with anything because there is none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jbander said:

Nobody said that it has to be run by the government, I'm talking about socialism not Marxism , they are two different things. ,you said in socialism business isn't owned and run by the government , You said is is owned and run by the worker.  and  that it is never run by the government and that's is not correct at all. It's usually run by the government. In communism the government has nothing to do with anything because there is none.

 

Oh I see what the confusion is.  Yes Marxist communism has no government, but Marxism was perverted/distorted into state capitalism (Leninism, Stalinism) which was "supposed" to be democratic, but was actually autocratic and still carried the communism label, which we both know isn't communism, which isn't a system of government because there isn't one, so it can't be an example of socialism... and state capitalism is definitely not socialism, so socialism is it's own thing independent of anything to do with communism.

 

Lenin and Stalin attempted to form the socialist prerequisite to communism by making the government one giant corporation, owning the means of production, with the people as co-owners, but it didn't turn out that way and Stalin just made it more capitalistic after taking the reins.  I suppose you could argue that the intent was theoretically socialistic, but what influence would you have over your own workplace if you're co-owner with everyone in the country?  None and that's how much they received.

 

So, socialism as the bridge between capitalism and communism is workers taking control over their own means of production and where the government works in competition with the private sector for the regulation of social welfare.  No workers are being exploited and safety nets are provided for society, yet no government ownership of the means of production except what the government operates in the service of society.

 

FDR found a niche between capitalism and socialism where the worker is still exploited, just not as badly and the exploitation is taxed and used for the benefit of society.  A kinda socialism-lite.  I favor that system for now.  Putting the tax back the way FDR had it would result in an extra $2 trillion to play with and we already know it works or at least doesn't end in catastrophic failure since we had it for 50 years and during the time of the supposed great america that everyone wants to get back to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think your following, there is no degree of socialism , if there is no tenet of socialism then there is no socialism and the absolute fact is without the prime tenet being that The means of production being owned by the state and the sales of that production is also done by the state. If that isn't prevalent or if it doesn't even exist then there is no socialism. People you don't get your own definition of socialism, it has one already. You don't find the definition anywhere that can be trusted other then a encyclopedia by my experience , the rest have a ax to grind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bluenami said:

FDR found a niche between capitalism and socialism where the worker is still exploited, just not as badly and the exploitation is taxed and used for the benefit of society.  A kinda socialism-lite.  I favor that system for now.  Putting the tax back the way FDR had it would result in an extra $2 trillion to play with and we already know it works or at least doesn't end in catastrophic failure since we had it for 50 years and during the time of the supposed great america that everyone wants to get back to.

 

The policies which FDR originated and were carried on until roughly through the 1970s, were a form of social democracy;  With a glaring absence of universal health care.  I am in favor of social democracy which has been proven to work here and overseas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jbander said:

I don't think your following, there is no degree of socialism , if there is no tenet of socialism then there is no socialism and the absolute fact is without the prime tenet being that The means of production being owned by the state and the sales of that production is also done by the state.

 

That is Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism where the state owns the means of production, but it's not socialism even in theory because the people are veritable slaves with no control over anything.

 

If the US Gov owned the means of production, you would be 1/330,000,000 co-owner.... which is nothing.

 

If a worker co-op owns a small production facility, then your share of ownership might be 1/30, so you have more control over your own environment.

 

4 hours ago, jbander said:

If that isn't prevalent or if it doesn't even exist then there is no socialism. People you don't get your own definition of socialism, it has one already. You don't find the definition anywhere that can be trusted other then a encyclopedia by my experience , the rest have a ax to grind.

 

Socialism is simply the removal of worker exploitation inherent to capitalism.

 

FDR found a work-around where the exploited capital was redistributed back to the exploited.

 

Richard Wolff's solution is worker co-ops that prevent the exploitation in the first place, but I have two problems with that: 1) taxation may become unethical since the distribution of wealth was agreed upon. 2) it may stifle innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bludog said:

 

The policies which FDR originated and were carried on until roughly through the 1970s, were a form of social democracy;  With a glaring absence of universal health care.  I am in favor of social democracy which has been proven to work here and overseas. 

 

Yeah, until Kennedy proposed cutting taxes.  That was the beginning of the end.

 

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963. Conservatives revolted at giving Kennedy a key legislative victory before the election of 1964.[3]

 

Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bluenami said:

Yeah, until Kennedy proposed cutting taxes.  That was the beginning of the end.

 

Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bluenami said:

 

That is Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism where the state owns the means of production, but it's not socialism even in theory because the people are veritable slaves with no control over anything.

 

If the US Gov owned the means of production, you would be 1/330,000,000 co-owner.... which is nothing.

 

If a worker co-op owns a small production facility, then your share of ownership might be 1/30, so you have more control over your own environment.

 

 

Socialism is simply the removal of worker exploitation inherent to capitalism.

 

FDR found a work-around where the exploited capital was redistributed back to the exploited.

 

Richard Wolff's solution is worker co-ops that prevent the exploitation in the first place, but I have two problems with that: 1) taxation may become unethical since the distribution of wealth was agreed upon. 2) it may stifle innovation.

Nonsense. Total complete nonsense. Without the means of production owned by the states there is then no Socialism anywhere.  The tenet without which there is no socialism is that tenet. You don't get your own private definition of socialism , hell your as bad as the right wing is in doing that crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jbander said:

Nonsense. Total complete nonsense. Without the means of production owned by the states there is then no Socialism anywhere.  The tenet without which there is no socialism is that tenet. You don't get your own private definition of socialism , hell your as bad as the right wing is in doing that crap.

 

What part of the state owning the means of production being 1/330,000,000 ownership being zero ownership do you not understand?

 

State ownership is simply one giant monopoly over the whole means of production.  It's like amazon x 10000000000000000.  That is NOT socialism.  You can kick n scream all you want, but it's state capitalism.

 

Chomsky said:

 

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism. They destroyed socialism within weeks! You know. They didn't wait. By 1918 it was finished. And they knew it. You know. Like, it's not a secret; they knew it. I mean, in fact, Lenin as soon as, you know, as soon as he sort of got grips of things, he moved to what he called "state capitalism". Which is what it was. It had nothing to do with socialism. 

 

No, Russia's about the most anti-socialist place you can imagine, since 1918. It had wage-labor, had super-exploitation, had no element of worker's control or involvement or participation. What's that got to do with socialism? It's the exact opposite on every point.

 

I mean, unless you're committed to being part of the Western propaganda system, there's nothing to say about that issue, except to laugh.

 

If Chomsky and I are dispensing nonsense, then prove it with something other than assertions and insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bludog said:

 

Thanks for that.

 

Yeah we have to watch those pretty boys (kennedy and reagan).  Beto worries me too for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 5:34 AM, Bluenami said:

 

FWD to 57:28 if it's not already cued.

 

Transcript:

 

We should recognize what I think is true, I've written about it plenty myself, that the Bolshevik Revolution, was really a coup, was really a counter-revolution, which placed state power in the hands of a highly authoritarian anti-socialist group which within a couple of months had destroyed the factory councils, had destroyed the Soviets, had dismissed the Constituent Assembly (because they knew they were gonna lose) and have eliminated every popular movement; and had done exactly what Trotsky said: turned the country into a labor army under the control of the maximal leader. That was mid 1918. And since then there hasn't been a shred of socialism in the Soviet Union!

Now of course they called it "socialism", but they also called it "democracy", you know, they were "people's democracies", "the purest form of democracy", they were "socialism". The West, the big propaganda system in the world, of course, just laughed at the "democracy" part, but it loved the "socialism" part because that's a way to defame socialism. So if you think that the fall of the Soviet Union is a blow to socialism, you ought to also think, on the same grounds, that it's a blow to democracy. After all, they call themselves democracies too, so why isn't it a blow to democracy? Makes as much sense. It's only when it gets filtered through the Western propaganda system that it's not a blow to democracy, but it is a blow to socialism. 

But, you know, there's actually no reason to play that game. Whether you play it in Dissent [the magazine] or in the Nation [the magazine] or on the Right or anywhere else, expose it for the fraud that it is. 

[Someone asks question]

What ideology? The ideology of totalitarianism? Yeah it's deeply flawed. I mean, they were the initial modern totalitarians. 

[Asks another question]

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism. They destroyed socialism within weeks! You know. They didn't wait. By 1918 it was finished. And they knew it. You know. Like, it's not a secret; they knew it. I mean, in fact, Lenin as soon as, you know, as soon as he sort of got grips of things, he moved to what he called "state capitalism". Which is what it was. It had nothing to do with socialism. 

Socialism... I mean we can argue about... there's no point arguing about what the word means, but what it always meant at the core was that producers take control of production, working people take control of production: what's sometimes called industrial democracy, that was the absolute core of it. Well, you know, there was more socialism in Germany, in Western Europe, than there was in Russia. 

No, Russia's about the most anti-socialist place you can imagine, since 1918. It had wage-labor, had super-exploitation, had no element of worker's control or involvement or participation. What's that got to do with socialism? It's the exact opposite on every point. 

As I say, the West liked to call that "socialism" while laughing at the fact that they called themselves "Democrats", but that's for purely propaganda reasons. I mean, unless you're committed to being part of the Western propaganda system, there's nothing to say about that issue, except to laugh.

Outstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

 

The policies which FDR originated and were carried on until roughly through the 1970s, were a form of social democracy;  With a glaring absence of universal health care.  I am in favor of social democracy which has been proven to work here and overseas. 

Just want to plug the Commonweal which is the origin of socialism, goo socialism, not faux ronald regan socialism for only the wealthy.

 

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bluenami said:

Yeah we have to watch those pretty boys (kennedy and reagan).  Beto worries me too for that reason.

 

So far, Beto strikes me as another corporate democrat.  I heard him answer a question about health care, on NPR, with maddening, non-committal platitudes ...  As evasive as a politician can get.  Which means to me that he probably favors the insurance companies more than doctors and patients.  But the shallow charm that can fool so many, is always on display.

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-beto-orourke-not-progressive-enough-1207-20181206-story.html

Quote

Beto O'Rourke is not the progressive some imagine

-snip-

“While the Democratic base is coalescing around single-payer health care and free college, O’Rourke sponsored neither House bill,” Jilani wrote, “During his time in Congress, he never joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” Instead, O’Rourke is a member of the New Democrat Coalition, a centrist caucus with Clintonian views on health care, education and trade.

Where it comes to Medicare-for-all, O’Rourke has been carefully unclear about his stance:

-snip-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bluenami said:

 

What part of the state owning the means of production being 1/330,000,000 ownership being zero ownership do you not understand?

 

State ownership is simply one giant monopoly over the whole means of production.  It's like amazon x 10000000000000000.  That is NOT socialism.  You can kick n scream all you want, but it's state capitalism.

 

Chomsky said:

 

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism. They destroyed socialism within weeks! You know. They didn't wait. By 1918 it was finished. And they knew it. You know. Like, it's not a secret; they knew it. I mean, in fact, Lenin as soon as, you know, as soon as he sort of got grips of things, he moved to what he called "state capitalism". Which is what it was. It had nothing to do with socialism. 

 

No, Russia's about the most anti-socialist place you can imagine, since 1918. It had wage-labor, had super-exploitation, had no element of worker's control or involvement or participation. What's that got to do with socialism? It's the exact opposite on every point.

 

I mean, unless you're committed to being part of the Western propaganda system, there's nothing to say about that issue, except to laugh.

 

If Chomsky and I are dispensing nonsense, then prove it with something other than assertions and insults.

You can't make up your own definition of socialism , you saying that what? that the means of production isn't a tenet of socialism, You say that when that is the case that it is state capitalism , Your full of crap as simple as that, Here is the definition of socialism s of socialism, "

Socialism is an economic and political system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by the workers who run them and the people who depend on them, meaning the value made belongs to the people who make it, instead of a group of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.[1] There are two ways socialists think of the way society can own the means of making wealth: either the state (government of the country) is used or worker-owned cooperatives are used. Another important belief is that management and sharing are supposed to be based on public interests. Socialists believe that everything in society is made by the cooperative efforts of the people/citizens.

There are many kinds of socialism, so not one definition can apply to all of them; however, in all types, the workers own the means of production.["

    Your make believe definition is as bad as the right wings make believe definition of socialism TO REPEAT MYSELF YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM, THERE ALREADY IS ONE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the main tenets of socialism, Sorry buddy Webster says your totally wrong

Definition of socialism

 

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate it when peoples argument are based on there made up definition of their subject matter. It gets old, It is dominate in the right but you can find it in the left as we see also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jbander said:

You can't make up your own definition of socialism , you saying that what? that the means of production isn't a tenet of socialism, You say that when that is the case that it is state capitalism , Your full of crap as simple as that, Here is the definition of socialism s of socialism, "

 

Did you tell Chomsky he's full of crap too?  All hail jbander: holder of absolute wisdom!

 

Socialism... I mean we can argue about... there's no point arguing about what the word means, but what it always meant at the core was that producers take control of production, working people take control of production: what's sometimes called industrial democracy, that was the absolute core of it

 

12 hours ago, jbander said:

Socialism is an economic and political system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by the workers who run them and the people who depend on them, meaning the value made belongs to the people who make it, instead of a group of private owners.

 

That's precisely what I said.

 

12 hours ago, jbander said:

People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.[1] There are two ways socialists think of the way society can own the means of making wealth: either the state (government of the country) is used or worker-owned cooperatives are used.

 

Except that state-owned is not social and you can't seem to grasp that point.

 

If the state owns your production facility, what control do you have?  Zero.  <--- Refute that point please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jbander said:

I really hate it when peoples argument are based on there made up definition of their subject matter. It gets old, It is dominate in the right but you can find it in the left as we see also.

 

I really hate it when arrogant people think they know everything and then dogmatically proclaim professors are full of crap when they've been professing longer than you've been alive.

 

Chomsky holds a joint appointment as Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and laureate professor at the University of Arizona,[23][24] and is the author of over 100 books on topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. One of the most cited scholars in history, Chomsky has influenced a broad array of academic fields.

 

He's also holder of 42 honorary degrees.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Academic_achievements,_awards,_and_honors

 

Obviously he's full of crap and jbander is supreme holder of truth by virtue innate common sense, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bludog said:

 

So far, Beto strikes me as another corporate democrat.  I heard him answer a question about health care, on NPR, with maddening, non-committal platitudes ...  As evasive as a politician can get.  Which means to me that he probably favors the insurance companies more than doctors and patients.  But the shallow charm that can fool so many, is always on display.

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-beto-orourke-not-progressive-enough-1207-20181206-story.html

 

 

 

Yes I agree with you.  You have excellent spidey sense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 3:34 PM, Bluenami said:

The Patriotic Millionaires

From their website: " While it is undeniable that we need a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code, nothing significant is going to get done in the current political environment. However, there are some small actions we can take: eliminating the most egregious tax loopholes, increasing the number of tax brackets, defending the estate tax, and repatriating overseas assets. "

 

Although I can't argue with their  proposals, it seems a bit anemic to me. I am not a fan of brackets. It is inherently unfair to those at the bottom of each bracket, and  is an open invitation for tax avoidance. Not enough details to take them seriously.

 

On 3/20/2019 at 3:34 PM, Bluenami said:

Friedman was a genius and I wouldn't dismiss anything he says.

An evil genius, maybe. The idea that if we throw, shovel, bulldoze enough $$$ to the 'job creators' it would trickle down has been proven to be a failure for all but the top x%. It ignores the demand side.

 

Consequently:

  • 40% of Americans don’t have the cash to pay for an emergency expense
  • 11% of American adults simply could not come up with $400 at all, not with family, not with credit cards - nothing - unless they used money that they were already using to pay other bills like rent.
  • 25% have no retirement or pension savings

This wealth inequality is the result of Friedman's supply side economics. If people cannot afford to buy things, it does not matter how much money you shovel to the top x%. It just makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer. The overall economy suffers.

IMHO, the Keynesian economic principles that FDR used 90 years ago have a much better track record, than Friedman / Laffer /Reagon / Ryan trickle down, supply side scam perpetrated on our economy since the 80's.

 

The opposite of supply side economics is demand side economics.

Demand side economics is all about increasing demand in the consumer...

Raising minimum wages, reducing healthcare costs, lower/ middle class tax credits or tax cuts are ways to increase discretionary funds to drive consumer spending.

 

On 3/20/2019 at 3:34 PM, Bluenami said:

Were you the one who posted the spreadsheet last year about the flat tax and credit?  I hate the flat tax, but it's a good selling point for conservatives to latch onto.

Yes. An ideal,  fair, and progressive tax system would be a upwardly sloping line (no bracket 'steps'), from $0  to $xxx billion in income

I described this idea in my prior posts on the subject, where I analyzed IRS data, and census data to compare different tax policies...

 

the-equation-for-economic-justice
redistribute wealth:tax the rich 2.0

 

So far, no presidential candidate has embraced the idea of combining flat tax (regressive), with generous tax credits (progressive).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, bludog said:

..

 

I wanted you to see this https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-22/google-influenced-midterm-elections-may-have-cost-republicans-seats-study

 

Google Influenced Midterm Elections, May Have Cost Republicans Seats: Study

 

Google is a rich corporation, so why are they not supporting republicans?

 

This is my point about prosperity causing people to be benevolent.  Many of the rich republicans you cited are old, but I wonder how their kids would be since they were raised in the opulence.

 

So this goes back to Friedman's point about the free market working on its own.  And I think that's what Marx was saying as well: that eventually capitalism would evolve into socialism as prosperity uncovered new evil.

 

Dr. Melfi in the Sopranos mentioned that natural evolution:

 

Tony: You know what she says? This broad she's from Russia, dirt poor.  She had some kind of osocarma disease in her leg when she was nine.  She says that nowhere else in the world do people expect to be happy except for here in this country, and still we're not.  And we got everything. And when we're not, what do we do? We go to shrinks. For what, $6 or $7 a minute?

 

Melfi: There's some truth to what she says.  But should that be a source of shame? That when the desperate struggle for food and shelter is finally behind us we can turn our attention to other sources of pain and truth?

 

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-sopranos&episode=s04e11

 

As we get more prosperous, we'll uncover new evil.  Women's rights, handicapped's rights, homosexual's rights, right to healthcare, right not to work (ubi), and on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2019 at 5:30 PM, Bluenami said:

 

What part of the state owning the means of production being 1/330,000,000 ownership being zero ownership do you not understand?

 

State ownership is simply one giant monopoly over the whole means of production.  It's like amazon x 10000000000000000.  That is NOT socialism.  You can kick n scream all you want, but it's state capitalism.

 

Chomsky said:

 

It doesn't have anything to do with socialism. They destroyed socialism within weeks! You know. They didn't wait. By 1918 it was finished. And they knew it. You know. Like, it's not a secret; they knew it. I mean, in fact, Lenin as soon as, you know, as soon as he sort of got grips of things, he moved to what he called "state capitalism". Which is what it was. It had nothing to do with socialism. 

 

No, Russia's about the most anti-socialist place you can imagine, since 1918. It had wage-labor, had super-exploitation, had no element of worker's control or involvement or participation. What's that got to do with socialism? It's the exact opposite on every point.

 

I mean, unless you're committed to being part of the Western propaganda system, there's nothing to say about that issue, except to laugh.

 

If Chomsky and I are dispensing nonsense, then prove it with something other than assertions and insults.

There is a definition of socialism I gave it to you , you went shopping for someone who agreed with what you think socialism is , that's not how it works.Your goofy to suggest that Chomsky is the last word on socialism. That a hoot. Here is the definition SOCIALISM

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
 
BY the way why would you even consider Chomsky's opinion considering he is a libertarian socialist  a sympathizer of anarcho-syndocolism.  He is the last person in the world to define socialism. What a hoot you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...