[B0ycey]

If the USA has a referendum and the majority votes for slavery. Does that become the law?
What if the majority votes to outlaw homosexuality?

You need to go back to the drawing board and rethink what you are saying.
I cannot understand why others (will not mention names) think you are correct on this one.

Well slavery and outlawing homosexuality were historic practices that occurred within Capitalism. They were aspects of the social contract in yesteyear. So I am of course going to be saying that neither should be made legal. And morally they shouldn't. However if they were democratically elected on a mandate, enforcing such laws cannot be classed as authoritarian. It is however a moral issue nonetheless. But I do find it ironic that you brought up two evils that actually were prevalent and historically linked to Capitalism to discredit Socialism.

[Julian658]

Well slavery and outlawing homosexuality were historic practices that occurred within Capitalism. They were aspects of the social contract in yesteyear. So I am of course going to be saying that neither should be made legal. And morally they shouldn't. However if they were democratically elected on a mandate, enforcing such laws cannot be classed as authoritarian. It is however a moral issue nonetheless. But I do find it ironic that you brought up two evils that actually were prevalent and historically linked to Capitalism to discredit Socialism.

Capitalism has no relationship to sexism or racism. Pure capitalism goes for excellency and who can do the best job. That is why the NBA is 90% black and the NFL 70% black. Whites are massively under represented. Why is that? Racism towards whites? My people the Latin Americans are virtually non existent in the NBA. Should I complain of racism? How about we try to learn the game?

Dude, America has a constitution that does not allow rule by mob majority when it comes to freedom. Are you American? This is basic stuff.

[B0ycey]

Capitalism has no relationship to sexism or racism. Pure capitalism goes for excellency and who can do the best job. That is why the NBA is 90% black and the NFL 70% black. Whites are massively under represented. Why is that? Racism towards whites? My people the Latin Americans are virtually non existent in the NBA. Should I complain of racism? How about we try to learn the game?

Dude, America has a constitution that does not allow rule by mob majority when it comes to freedom. Are you American? This is basic stuff.

Trying to say slavery wasn't part of Capitalism is someone who doesn't know history. Slaves were classed as property and guess what economic model deals with private property. Slaves were also important for the bourgeois and their profit margins in the plantation as unlike free men they didn't have to pay them. Again another aspect of Capitalism. Slaves made the system we have today. You think otherwise? That doesn't surprise me. Your historic education is merely Wikipedia it seems.

As for the constitution, that was made a possibility by revolution. You think the British cared about working class Americans as they threw their tea into the sea? America history is revolution. Change occurred because ordinary Americans in the 18th century had unfair tax against them. Very much like ordinary Americans today. Yet I suspect you were happy for people to fight for their best interests of yesteryear, but today you think they should just keep the status quo because it got us where we are today? Not that today is perfect of course, but America under a Nordic model would be very pleasing for most Americans and as fair as you can make a system today I would say. Smart even.

[Drlee]

Socialist nations were the worst for the environment in the 20th century.

Proof?

Pro Tip. Do not mention China. China is not a socialist country. IT is not a communist one either. We won that war long ago.

So where is your proof?

Capitalism has no relationship to sexism or racism. Pure capitalism goes for excellency and who can do the best job.

This is obviously untrue though it is a common myth. We don't shop at Walmart because they "do the best job". Our restaurants do not hire the "best fast food workers". The opposite is true.

Capitalism has no relationship to sexism or racism.

Again demonstrably untrue. You are not doing well Julian.

If the USA has a referendum and the majority votes for slavery. Does that become the law?

No. Not unless there is a constitutional amendment. If a constitutional amendment passes that reinstates slavery then yes.

What if the majority votes to outlaw homosexuality?

Our constitution does not change with a simple majority unless you do some really fuzzy math in the states. I hope that is your point.

1. He uses the term socialism when describing social programs that are paid for with the wealth created by capitalism.

There is no such thing as wealth creation. Start there.

2. He asserted that personal freedoms could be curtailed by vote in a democracy. He was very adamant about this.

They can. We could enslave all gingers and sell them to the highest bidder if enough people vote for it. And the real majority could, in theory be far less than 1% of the vote.

1. You fail to accept socialism has failed many times at a large scale, It only works in small communes. In 2019 Cuba decided to go along with private property and small businesses. That should tell you something. They will try follow the China template. capitalism works!

Why are you arguing that there is anyone here who does not believe that capitalism "works". It works great for me. I have a fancy house and posh car. The average Joe? Not so much.

2. You fail to understand that there is no equality among humans. Even identical twins with exactly the same DNA and parents achieve differently.

You keep wanting to assert the fallacy that equality has anything to do with biology or even equality of outcomes. It does not. This is your contrived argument not ours.

Says the poster that is willing to take away liberty in the name of socialism. You put the rope in your neck, not me.

Please tell me what "liberty" socialists want to "take away"? I seem to have missed it.

[Julian658]

Proof?

Pro Tip. Do not mention China. China is not a socialist country. IT is not a communist one either. We won that war long ago.

So where is your proof?



This is obviously untrue though it is a common myth. We don't shop at Walmart because they "do the best job". Our restaurants do not hire the "best fast food workers". The opposite is true.



Again demonstrably untrue. You are not doing well Julian.



No. Not unless there is a constitutional amendment. If a constitutional amendment passes that reinstates slavery then yes.



Our constitution does not change with a simple majority unless you do some really fuzzy math in the states. I hope that is your point.



There is no such thing as wealth creation. Start there.



They can. We could enslave all gingers and sell them to the highest bidder if enough people vote for it. And the real majority could, in theory be far less than 1% of the vote.



Why are you arguing that there is anyone here who does not believe that capitalism "works". It works great for me. I have a fancy house and posh car. The average Joe? Not so much.



You keep wanting to assert the fallacy that equality has anything to do with biology or even equality of outcomes. It does not. This is your contrived argument not ours.




Please tell me what "liberty" socialists want to "take away"? I seem to have missed it.

I just learned you and Boycey think alike. Wow!
I will get to you later.

[noemon]

Proof?

Pro Tip. Do not mention China. China is not a socialist country. IT is not a communist one either. We won that war long ago.

So where is your proof?

I did not expect to hear this from you Drlee.

Whether China abides by the idealist or marxist vision of communism is irrelevant and academic.

China is officially a Communist/Socialist Dictatorship, she is either the top or the second top country in the world(depending on ones perspective) and she defines and will define what is "communist" and what isn't.

When pro-communists propagate their ideas, these need to be weighed by the countries who do practice(or practised) that very thing in reality, primarily China, Soviet Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and others.

And not weighed against some abstract ideal form that does not exist and is malleable according to anyone's whims.

That is a red line that cannot be crossed for argument's sake.

If commies want to make their case, they do need to convince people on whether they want to be more like China, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etcetera. Because THAT is what is communism in the real world.

Please tell me what "liberty" socialists want to "take away"? I seem to have missed it.

These countries are places where you cannot speak up against their rulers. They are totalitarian dictatorships, where a mere insinuation against the local or national authority will send you to a gulag or a "re-education" camp.

[Unthinking Majority]

Capitalism has no relationship to sexism or racism.

Racism and sexism can exist within capitalism, but I don't see how socialism can eliminate all racism and sexism. They both pre-date capitalism and will outlast capitalism. At best there might be some forms of racism/sexism that would be lessened or eliminated via socialism, but not all of it, and it's possible other forms might spring up.

[JohnRawls]

@Drlee

You are saying that there is no difference between Socialism and Capitalism and that Socialism doesn't take your freedoms away but reality is not really on your side.

Look at Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea right now or SU, Warshaw pact countries in the past. There is a stark difference in wellbeing and freedoms compared to those countries and capitalist Europe or US.

As for capitalism not working for the average joe, that is relatively hard to answer. Does it work as an ideal system? No it doesn't but it does work better than the socialist or communist alternatives for sure both in freedom and prosperity. History has proven that beyond any reasonable doubt. The only viable exception is Social Democracies who can be argued to be either socialist or capitalist. The honest answer here is that they are both I guess. What most of our local leftists propose is statist or hardcore versions of socialism or communism. That definitely doesn't work as intended.

[jimjam]

Show me a socialist nation that has a high standard of living and I will concede the point.

this is inherently a waste of time. for one, how, pray tell, is a standard of living measured? don't insult my intelligence by saying $. I would guess that $ is your method. a guy making $50k per year has twice the standard of living as a guy making $25k. another example of simple things for simple minds.

I took this pic on a recent trip to Cuba. looks like a nice "standard of living" to me.


this pic taken in Key West 90 miles away ………….. not so much


I respect your opinion. let us simply agree to disagree ( ), certainly an under used concept in today's United States.

[noemon]

The only viable exception is Social Democracies who can be argued to be either socialist or capitalist. The honest answer here is that they are both I guess.

I think that is being way too generous.

Social democracies are primarily capitalist economies with advanced social safety nets, that have been made possible by the success of the capitalist enterprises of these countries. We know which chicken & egg came first in all their cases. They were not socialist economies who grew wealthy enough to undertake capitalist enterprise. They were capitalist economies who grew wealthy enough to share/redistribute some of that wealth with society in general.

this is inherently a waste of time. for one, how, pray tell, is a standard of living measured? don't insult my intelligence by saying $. I would guess that $ is your method. a guy making $50k per year has twice the standard of living as a guy making $25k. another example of simple things for simple minds.
I took this pic on a recent trip to Cuba. looks like a nice "standard of living" to me.

Honestly, you cannot be serious. I went to Cuba 2 years ago. No matter how you define "standard of living" I would not go there to live even if you paid me millions. Nor would I go to North Korea, China or Soviet Russia. The standard of living being sub-par by almost any definition that exists in the dictionary. But beyond that, these are countries you cannot trash your rulers or speak up against them. How can any free man or woman abandon that freedom? And in favour of what exactly? Feelgood psychology? "I'm a socialist now" What good is that?

Anyone can find 2 feelgood pictures but the reality is that gay people are much more comfortable in a western capitalist society than they have ever been in Cuba, Soviet Russia, China or North Korea.

Of course I have argued against America's casino capitalism for years in this forum and there is a case to be made against it very evidently but that does not necessitate trying to justify Cuba, China and the rest.

[Unthinking Majority]

this is inherently a waste of time. for one, how, pray tell, is a standard of living measured? don't insult my intelligence by saying $. I would guess that $ is your method. a guy making $50k per year has twice the standard of living as a guy making $25k. another example of simple things for simple minds.

I took this pic on a recent trip to Cuba. looks like a nice "standard of living" to me.

How does sitting next to an ocean or carrying hateful signs relate to capitalism or socialism?

Cuba has good education and healthcare, but economically it's still a poor country with a GDP per capita about average for a Latin American country.

People need to be fed, clothed, and housed, and live in sanitary conditions etc. I would think a successful society is one where a very small % of wealthy people don't horde most of the wealth while many millions of others struggle in sub-standard conditions. By that measure, the US is a failure, and Nordic countries do well.

Many western countries prove you don't need to be communist like Cuba to give people universal healthcare and equitable access to education. You can socialize those things within a capitalist economy.

[jimjam]

https://i.imgur.com/FFOt4LJ.jpg


Honestly, you cannot be serious. I went to Cuba 2 years ago. No matter how you define "standard of living" I would not go there to live even if you paid me millions. Nor would I go to North Korea, China or Soviet Russia. The standard of living being sub-par by almost any definition that exists in the dictionary.

Of course I have argued against America's casino capitalism for years in this forum and there is a case to be made against it very evidently but that does not necessitate trying to justify Cuba, China and the rest.

I was hardly trying to "justify" any culture. I was simply attempting to point out that "standard of living" is quite relative and I am certain it cannot be captured by anyone's dictionary. A key measure of "standard of living" for myself is, simply, peace of mind. I have known for many years that I stand way outside the so called "mainstream'. I usually do not let on and am content to fake it while following my own stars. Just discussing this here is way out of character for me but I have been laying in a hospital bed for days and am bored .

[Julian658]

this is inherently a waste of time. for one, how, pray tell, is a standard of living measured? don't insult my intelligence by saying $. I would guess that $ is your method. a guy making $50k per year has twice the standard of living as a guy making $25k. another example of simple things for simple minds.

I took this pic on a recent trip to Cuba. looks like a nice "standard of living" to me.

this pic taken in Key West 90 miles away ………….. not so much

I respect your opinion. let us simply agree to disagree ( ), certainly an under used concept in today's United States.

You idealize Cuba as a tourist. Talk to the Cuban Doc that grew up on the island. He is the one with a Beethoven avatar and extremely liberal in his views. He has posted about the misery in Cuba. That this is the best you can do is very telling. By the way Cuba is moving towards the center and as of 2019 will allow private property.

On February 24, 2019, Cuba adopted a new Constitution.1 The new
Constitution formally recognizes private-property ownership. From the
beginning of Socialism’s impact on Cuba, private-property ownership
had been legally abolished until Fidel Castro stepped down from power
in 2008.2 This new Constitution shows a departure from the socialist
grasp on the economy. Cuba likely recognizes that private-property
ownership is fundamental to economic growth in capitalist countries
and now seeks to benefit from the growth that accompanies a system of
private-property rights. Cuba is not the first socialist country to embark
on a process of property privatization.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/c ... ontext=jil

[Julian658]

Racism and sexism can exist within capitalism, but I don't see how socialism can eliminate all racism and sexism. They both pre-date capitalism and will outlast capitalism. At best there might be some forms of racism/sexism that would be lessened or eliminated via socialism, but not all of it, and it's possible other forms might spring up.

Capitalism itself is not racist. Can a bad capitalist can be racist? Yes. But, that is a human flaw that has nothing to do with capitalism. You are one among a few with common sense in this forum. Most people here are possessed by their ideology.

[JohnRawls]

I think that is being way too generous.

Social democracies are primarily capitalist economies with advanced social safety nets, that have been made possible by the success of the capitalist enterprises of these countries. We know which chicken & egg came first in all their cases. They were not socialist economies who grew wealthy enough to undertake capitalist enterprise. They were capitalist economies who grew wealthy enough to share/redistribute some of that wealth with society in general.



Honestly, you cannot be serious. I went to Cuba 2 years ago. No matter how you define "standard of living" I would not go there to live even if you paid me millions. Nor would I go to North Korea, China or Soviet Russia. The standard of living being sub-par by almost any definition that exists in the dictionary. But beyond that, these are countries you cannot trash your rulers or speak up against them. How can any free man or woman abandon that freedom? And in favour of what exactly? Feelgood psychology? "I'm a socialist now" What good is that?

Anyone can find 2 feelgood pictures but the reality is that gay people are much more comfortable in a western capitalist society than they have ever been in Cuba, Soviet Russia, China or North Korea.

Of course I have argued against America's casino capitalism for years in this forum and there is a case to be made against it very evidently but that does not necessitate trying to justify Cuba, China and the rest.

They are indeed capitalist societies that grew to become rich enough to spread in to more advanced welfare programs. My point is not that capitalism is worse as socialism but that socialism has many useful ideas and parts that can be used within the capitalist framework. A lot of the things you personally use were created by socialists or because of socialists and you just don't think about it anymore and take it for granted: Insurances of any sort, pensions or assistance to the elderly, standardized working day and working day rules etc. Funnily enough, socialist ideas have made capitalism a better system and this socialist vs capitalist competition actually improved capitalism. Democracy and liberalism had a lot to do with it also but that is besides the point. Arguing that if socialism had democracy or liberalism to some degree is whataboutism.

[noemon]

They are indeed capitalist societies that grew to become rich enough to spread in to more advanced welfare programs. My point is not that capitalism is worse as socialism but that socialism has many useful ideas and parts that can be used within the capitalist framework. A lot of the things you personally use were created by socialists or because of socialists and you just don't think about it anymore and take it for granted: Insurances of any sort, pensions or assistance to the elderly, standardized working day and working day rules etc. Funnily enough, socialist ideas have made capitalism a better system and this socialist vs capitalist competition actually improved capitalism. Democracy and liberalism had a lot to do with it also but that is besides the point. Arguing that if socialism had democracy or liberalism to some degree is whataboutism.

National insurance, universal healthcare, education and the 8-hour workday have been instituted by fascists in most of Europe.

Certainly the case in all the Club Med countries as well as in all of Northern Europe.

[Julian658]

This is obviously untrue though it is a common myth. We don't shop at Walmart because they "do the best job". Our restaurants do not hire the "best fast food workers". The opposite is true.

You pose as a conservative republican and then you open your mouth. That is a bad move Doc! People shop at Wall Mart because they are looking for a deal. That Wall Mart looks like a shytehole or the employers are A-holes is not the issue. Customers are looking for the best value. That is capitalism.

Our constitution does not change with a simple majority unless you do some really fuzzy math in the states. I hope that is your point.

I am not Boyce. Could you explain this to Boyce. He thinks all you need is simple majority in a democracy.

There is no such thing as wealth creation. Start there.

Only a socialist would believe this BS. The ones that do not think there is wealth creation are lower than whale shit in the bottom of the ocean when it comes to intellectual capacity.

Please tell me what "liberty" socialists want to "take away"? I seem to have missed it.

Ask your comrade Boyce.

[Verv]

I believe it is because the American oligarchs failed to live up to the expectations for their empire.

They ended up funding themselves via the federal government, setting up yellow tape and market inhibitors, and they are just generally debauched people.... and this description was applicable in the nineteenth century.

Capitalism and laissez-faire ideology has looked more and more weak, as well, since the government and capital have also gone woke. People realized that the system they supported does not conserve the traditions that they appreciate.

So, why have loyalty to such ideologies that failed and provide us with poor end games.

[noemon]

I believe it is because the American oligarchs failed to live up to the expectations for their empire.

They ended up funding themselves via the federal government, setting up yellow tape and market inhibitors, and they are just generally debauched people.... and this description was applicable in the nineteenth century.

While Soviet, Cuban and Chinese oligarchs are offering so much more.

What a great future we could all have just by emulating these beacons of totalitarianism and darkness.

[Verv]

While Soviet, Cuban and Chinese oligarchs are offering so much more.

What a great future we could all have just by emulating these beacons of totalitarianism and darkness.

Naturally, they do not offer more at all.

It is entirely possible for there to be no society where the elites are giving us a proper standard for emulation.

Though, perhaps, there are some countries out there where the elites are generally worth emulating. I just do not know of it.

This is just my explanation of why Capitalism has generally lost credibility in the West.