[Crantag]

What a government needs actually is not 'capital', but rather 'surplus'.

As I understand it, under theoretical communism in that government draws surplus directly from production.

Strictly speaking, China actually still abides this through state-owned enterprises, despite the existence of competing private capitals in the same sectors.

This actually shows that state-owned enterprise and private enterprise are not mutually exclusive, under communism.

(I already know that I will get pushback on 'today China is Communist', so let me just reiterate that point.)

[QatzelOk]

You seem to think chatting is the key to a great society. It's a damn site easier to chat in a car than on a bike. Cars aren't the problem any more than computers are. They're a means to an end, full stop.

You don't seem to realize how anti-social car cultures are. By putting everyone in metal boxes and making roads too dangerous for young people, we have become a miserable, fat bunch of dummies, whose only daily companion is a bartender or parking lot attendant.

The guy of your age in your clique sitting beside you in your car doesn't need instructions from you. But the people you whiz by... might. Your car is private space - strangers keep out!

Even in some innercity hoods in Montreal, kids ask me to help them fix their bikes, people in cars role down their windows to ask directions, other cyclists exchange pleasantries, I run into old friends or new sex partners spontaneously...

But in the burbs, none of this happens. It's socially dead, and 80% of Canadians live with this social deadness, which is why they seem so idiotic when travelling in Cuba. They quickly form a social clique at the hotel and then stay drunk by the pool for as much time as possible, venturing outside occasionally in order to share in-group prejudices about the inferiority of the outsiders (ordinary Cubans) who socialize naturally with everyone because they grew up learning how to do this.

By the way, my grandfather - who traveled a lot in the navy - taught me how to socialize with everyone. Otherwise, I would never have learned this from my TV-watching, trend-following parents.

[Stormsmith]

Crantag

It depends. Look at Puerto Rico. They've been without power for some time and won't be energised tomorrow. They haven't got the power poles they require. They could import wooden ones, or they could wait and grow them. If they opt for growing them, they'll have to settle on what their natural environment supports, for good or bad. Or they could opt for underground wiring, but they don't seem to be talking about that option.

[Stormsmith]

You don't seem to realize how anti-social car cultures are. By putting everyone in metal boxes and making roads too dangerous for young people, we have become a miserable, fat bunch of dummies, whose only daily companion is a bartender or parking lot attendant.

I disagree. Everyone spends a certain amount of time in private or near private conditions, such as at work, at home on a winter night, etc. And yet, we have little conversations or coffee breaks, or luncheons or something with coworkers and/or clients. We go home and call friends. When the weather's fair, we go out and interact with people, walk the dog and chat with other dog owners, talk about gardens, etc. We stop at sidewalk cafes and sometimes have a natter. And as we've said before, families with kids join sports teams etc. Then there stuff for adults such as skiing, skating, fishing, etc. People are social critters, and many of us enjoy all kinds of activities. You like biking, I prefer horses, and we all benefit from social exchange. You think cars eliminate that? I think they facilitate it.

The guy of your age in your clique sitting beside you in your car doesn't need instructions from you. But the people you whiz by... might. Your car is private space - strangers keep out!

No no no. We pick up hitchhikers all the time.

But in the burbs, none of this happens.

Yes it does. I suggest you re read your wisdom thread

[Crantag]

Crantag

It depends. Look at Puerto Rico. They've been without power for some time and won't be energised tomorrow. They haven't got the power poles they require. They could import wooden ones, or they could wait and grow them. If they opt for growing them, they'll have to settle on what their natural environment supports, for good or bad. Or they could opt for underground wiring, but they don't seem to be talking about that option.

What I meant was to distinguish surplus from capital.

When companies (effectively and efficaciously) spend money on anything related to business, they are are investing in capital.

But when a government taxes production, they are reaping a surplus.

The concepts are connected because investment leading to fruitful production produces a surplus (from which a share may go to paying taxes).

However, I agree with what you say being relevant. It seems like deficient capital investment there leads to deficient tax receipts (government share of surplus), which leads to deficient infrastructure spending.

[AFAIK]

You seem to think chatting is the key to a great society. It's a damn site easier to chat in a car than on a bike. Cars aren't the problem any more than computers are. They're a means to an end, full stop.

If you're driving a car and you stop to chat with a driver going the opposite direction you'll block the road unlike pedestrians and cyclists who can easily stand to one side, innit.

[Stormsmith]

What a government needs actually is not 'capital', but rather 'surplus'.

As I understand it, under theoretical communism in that government draws surplus directly from production.

I understood your point. I enjoy your posts

If you're driving a car and you stop to chat with a driver going the opposite direction you'll block the road unlike pedestrians and cyclists who can easily stand to one side, innit.

And this uses up what per cent of your week?

[AFAIK]

You can't have a chance encounter in a car, you can on foot, bike or public transport.

[Truth To Power]

What I meant was to distinguish surplus from capital.

But because you hold a graduate degree in economics, you can't. Your "education" in the discipline erased your intellectual capacity to make valid economic distinctions, because valid economic distinctions do not serve either the financial interests of the privileged or the political agenda of the socialist left.

When companies (effectively and efficaciously) spend money on anything related to business, they are are investing in capital.

So when companies pay bribes, they are investing in capital: "political capital." When they pay CEOs billions for warming their chairs while the Fed kites the stock market for them, it's "human capital." When they obtain a patent or copyright monopoly that prevents wealth production, that's "intellectual capital." Etc.

But when a government taxes production, they are reaping a surplus.

But government doesn't always have to tax production to obtain revenue. That's another distinction your graduate "education" in economics very carefully and thoroughly removed your capacity to make.

The concepts are connected because investment leading to fruitful production produces a surplus (from which a share may go to paying taxes).

Only to the extent that the privilege holders who appropriate all of that surplus are paying the taxes (which they aren't).

However, I agree with what you say being relevant. It seems like deficient capital investment there leads to deficient tax receipts (government share of surplus), which leads to deficient infrastructure spending.

That is where graduate degrees in economics lead: through the looking glass to Backwards Land. The less tax is levied on investments in "capital" like land, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc., the greater their market value, and the more must be "invested" in them to buy them. The relation between such "capital" investments and tax revenue is therefore inverse, not direct as your economics "education" has misinformed you.

That is what comes of an "economics" that cannot distinguish between investment in ACTUAL CAPITAL, which adds to production, and purchases of privileges, which only entitle their owners to TAKE FROM production.

[Crantag]

TruthtoPower, your desire to stalk me on here is becoming annoying.

You have one goal, and that is to argue, which is why you never even address anything I said, you merely make up something to disagree with.

You have no debating skills whatsoever, and there's a pretty good chance this is the last time I respond to you.

The only alternative would be to essentially go over all of your posts and proof read them for their blatant misrepresentations and mischaractarizations, which I don't think I'll be entertaining.

[Stormsmith]

Crantag

I stopped reading TTP amongst others ages ago. Life is short. I've got better things to spend my time doing.

[QatzelOk]

You can't have a chance encounter in a car, you can on foot, bike or public transport.

You have posted this solid retort twice in this thread, but both times, stormsmith just drove on by.

The reason drivers always stop and ask cyclists or pedestrians for directions is because other drivers have no time for anything civic. In fact, for most suburbanites, the civic part of lifed (citizen, society, community) has been reduced to dog-walking and mall-shopping, along with getting drunk on your boat with your clique. How boring and dummy-producing.

[noemon]

I disagree. Everyone spends a certain amount of time in private or near private conditions, such as at work, at home on a winter night, etc. And yet, we have little conversations or coffee breaks, or luncheons or something with coworkers and/or clients. We go home and call friends. When the weather's fair, we go out and interact with people, walk the dog and chat with other dog owners, talk about gardens, etc. We stop at sidewalk cafes and sometimes have a natter. And as we've said before, families with kids join sports teams etc. Then there stuff for adults such as skiing, skating, fishing, etc. People are social critters, and many of us enjoy all kinds of activities. You like biking, I prefer horses, and we all benefit from social exchange. You think cars eliminate that? I think they facilitate it.

I know you live somewhere in the fields, but have you always lived in a farm outside a city/town/village-centre?

Qatzel has a point, urban planning has changed significantly. When a new settlement is built, it is built without a saloon, barber, bank, restaurants and city council services, it is built solely of houses and all the residents of those houses are expected to go to the main city-centre to service their needs, this reduces communication within that neighbourhood, it promotes driving down to the main city centre, clogging up the streets and generally eroding social behaviour. I am guessing that the reason town planners no longer build new towns but simply housing blocks is that they are serving the interests of the existing towns. For the whole of human history when a town grew too large a new town was built, it is only in the past 30-50 years when this has stopped happening and when a town grows too big instead of finding a new town, planners build new homes without the appropriate services to call it a town but simply a suburban neighbourhood lacking even the basic elements of neighbourhood and in the UK you cannot even traverse the new "neighbourhood" as there is only one way in and out so as to avoid traffic and thus promote quiet.

Even though I am 33, quite young and was raised in Piraeus, the port of Athens, a significantly large city, but a large city composed of little towns(neighborhoods) of the classic style I was raised in a real neighbourhood that did not require any use of a car as we had city-council, post, police, bank, restaurants, shops all within walking distance, me and my friends spent all are days outdoors playing basketball after school, now my children only have sleepovers and we live in a city(Cambridge) much smaller than Piraeus with a much higher standard of living and more rural as well but in a suburban neighbourhood even though we are a single mile away from the city-centre which is hilarious really.

In Greece and I suspect in Cuba too, socialisation is on a very different level due to significantly different town planning, you know all your neighbours intimately, the men and women are all a daily group in the local cafes and even in old people's homes where noone lives inside but everyone spends their days watching telly. The old-people's homes are cafeterias for elders, they go there for 2-3 hours take the piss out of each other and then walk back home. And that is because people live within these 2-3 blocks, everything they do is within these 3 blocks, doctors, bakers, markets, shops, farmers markets, everything, so these 3 blocks of neighbourhood is an entire city alive. I guess it is very difficult to understand what Qatz is describing if you have not experienced it. This however is detrimental to large corporations who find it difficult to establish economies of scales when they have to deal with so many micro-towns and in Greece with its thousands of islands requiring boat travel every 500 people or so on average it is even worse/better than most other countries.

[QatzelOk]

...I was raised in a real neighbourhood that did not require any use of a car as we had city-council, post, police, bank, restaurants, shops all within walking distance, me and my friends spent all are days outdoors playing basketball after school, now my children only have sleepovers and we live in a city(Cambridge) much smaller than Piraeus with a much higher standard of living and more rural as well but in a suburban neighbourhood even though we are a single mile away from the city-centre which is hilarious really. ...

I grew up in a normal, North American suburb. But for three summers, I lived with a family in France in a small, fishing village with a much lower population and standard of living then my city-region.

Guess what? I found that the French fishing village was a lot more fun for kids (I was a preteen) because you could walk everywhere- shops, swimming pool, handball court, church, harbor, etc - and run into lots of people along the way who often stop to chat.

I think these three summers made me unable to appreciate Canadian suburbs at all. And seeing that Cuba still has this traditional civic culture made me weep tears of joy.

[Tainari88]

Crantag

It depends. Look at Puerto Rico. They've been without power for some time and won't be energised tomorrow. They haven't got the power poles they require. They could import wooden ones, or they could wait and grow them. If they opt for growing them, they'll have to settle on what their natural environment supports, for good or bad. Or they could opt for underground wiring, but they don't seem to be talking about that option.

Stormsmith, you don't understand how bad it is with Puerto Rico. Colonialism is a cancer of the worst sort for a society. You can't make any decisions locally, it is paralyzing in the extreme. The Governor of the island (the highest office you may hold locally in Puerto Rico) has to run everything by the Panel they have now who oversees every move Puerto Rico makes. It favors bankers and corporations exclusively. PREPPA...is the electricity authority there. They have known for decades that the grid was horrible, in bad shape, run down, and had running brown outs. They charged a lot more for electricity in Puerto Rico than the most consumeristic New York power user. In a population that makes half of what the poorest average wage earner makes in Mississippi (the poorest state of the union in the USA). Imagine paying 3 times what a New Yorker pays for electricity making super poverty wages, for a service that is horrifically maintained, unreliable and bad and not up to date or modern or eco-friendly? It is corruption. Plain and simple. All of our public utilities have been sold off piece by piece to private investors from all over the world. None of them reinvest their profits in serving the Puerto Rican worker. None. For years we were not allowed to tax any private corporations in Puerto Rico. At all. So there was no revenue to be had taxing large banks, business and corporations. How does one fund things like teacher pensions, construction and maintaining of roads, etc? You can't Stormsmith.

You have to rely on federal fund transfers from the USA government. That is the only way to survive. If that goes down or is cut off? You got to borrow from private investors like hedge fund managers and wall street speculators and venture capitalists. You have to. But you won't have bankruptcy relief if you can't get enough economic growth. So? You have a catch 22. Puerto Rico doesn't have political power in Washington DC. None. Pierluisi and now Jennifer Gonzalez can't vote on the floor on any legislation or bills. It is a very powerless, no vote, total dependent relationship in which very wealthy and powerful people make all the decisions in Puerto Rico without living there, without having any emotional. social or true investment there in terms of personal relationships. It is not their society but they want to profit from the society without any give or take. Give or take is about trade between sovereign nations and equal players to a certain degree. If you can't have that? You are at the mercy of the ones who call the shots. And they are not Puerto Ricans Stormsmith. They don't care about us. Never have.

That is colonialism. Being at the mercy of people who don't give a damn, and having no control over your own society. Your own nation. You have nothing. No real nation, no real power, no say so, no voice, and no hope. And you are going to have to accept it. Because the threat is if you don't? You will be shot, jailed, harassed, unemployed, marginalized, tagged as a terrorist, Anti-American under the influence of the Castro government, a leftist agitator who isn't grateful for the GREATNESS of speaking English and being privileged in the sense of how great it is to go to the USA and not be English speaking, and get a low paying job in the cold. You got to be damn grateful for that. Leave your native society and everything you know....and be damn grateful for that!

That is colonialism Stormsmith. Few people understand that unless you are a Syrian refugee or some kind of devastated economy or natural disaster. Few understand how bad that stuff is Stormsmith.

Let me get you some sources for you to comprehend how horrible it is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/busi ... icane.html

https://www.investors.com/politics/comm ... erto-rico/

There are a lot of links @Stormsmith dealing with the lack of democracy in that situation. But that is colonialism. The USA allows that to happen in not only Puerto Rico (we are the largest place in terms of population with that political and economic status but also the US Virgin Islands, Solomon Islands, Guam, Marianas Islands, American Samoa, etc. It is a pattern the USA gov't has Stormsmith in trying to secure their geopolitical and military positions in South America, Asia, and the Pacific. It is the need to build Empire. Something a democratic and representative democracy and with a republican based governmental system is supposed to refrain from doing. They are in contradiction to their stated mission in politics. Once that happens Stormsmith with a society? You got internal rot. You can't remain true to your stated principles and adopt the principles of the ex Empires you fought against (England and the old Monarchies and oligarchies of that nation) and you act the same as they do to smaller places? Less powerful nations? You become like they do.

Actions speak a lot louder than rhetoric. And don't think others don't notice these 'moves' they do.

[Hindsite]

Crantag

It depends. Look at Puerto Rico. They've been without power for some time and won't be energised tomorrow. They haven't got the power poles they require. They could import wooden ones, or they could wait and grow them. If they opt for growing them, they'll have to settle on what their natural environment supports, for good or bad. Or they could opt for underground wiring, but they don't seem to be talking about that option.

They should bury their power lines underground. This is the best time to do away with the old fashion poles. But they are probably too stupid to do that.

[QatzelOk]

,,,very wealthy and powerful people make all the decisions in Puerto Rico without living there, without having any emotional. social or true investment there in terms of personal relationships. It is not their society but they want to profit from the society without any give or take. Give or take is about trade between sovereign nations and equal players to a certain degree. If you can't have that? You are at the mercy of the ones who call the shots. And they are not Puerto Ricans Stormsmith. They don't care about us. Never have.

You're describing the same global capitalism that Cuba was forced to opt out of because... the USA refused to go along with this other type of national system.

Cubans have less consumer goods than Porto Ricans. But do you think that Cubans are happier?

I find it criminal that so many Porto Ricans might be forced - by poor governance - to relocate to very different places than they are used to. To have their unique culture sucked out of them so they can work at Walmarts in South Dakota for slave wages.

Is this the future Cuba missed out on when it left the Yanqui orbit in the 50s?

[Tainari88]

You're describing the same global capitalism that Cuba was forced to opt out of because... the USA refused to go along with this other type of national system.

Cubans have less consumer goods than Porto Ricans. But do you think that Cubans are happier?

I find it criminal that so many Porto Ricans might be forced - by poor governance - to relocate to very different places than they are used to. To have their unique culture sucked out of them so they can work at Walmarts in South Dakota for slave wages.

Is this the future Cuba missed out on when it left the Yanqui orbit in the 50s?

Cubans are sovereign. If they decide that they want another system? They will do it for themselves. If you study the history of the Spanish speaking Caribbean islands? Cuba, PR and the DR in depth? All of them had American invasions and oppressive manipulations of the worst sort. Spain had lost almost all of its old colonies in the Americas over the nineteenth century Q. Only Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines remained near the end of the 19th century under the Spanish crown's control. The USA was near the end of its Manifest Destiny stage and the Indian wars, etc. It had Walker? Remember him? Who went to Nicaragua to declare Nicaragua part of the USA expansion etc. It was a very interesting time. Mark Twain thought the USA lost its 'republican principles' with all this imperial adventurism.

I think the Cubans made the right decision. If Castro was a puppet like Fulgencio Batista was? Would have taken the American money and would have negotiated some kind of deal with the American government. Much easier he would have had it if he was for sale. The problem the Americans had with Castro was he was not for sale. If he had been a corrupt drug dealing freak like many or some Ferdinand Marcos from the Phillipines? The USA would be singing 'we're in the money, we're in the money again!' Castro turned out to be a big pain the in the ass for them. BIG TIME. He was a nationalistic Cuban, far left politics and pro socialism no matter what. And he also was good at political survival. He was not into fancy baubles and drug dealer Swiss bank accounts. He was a hard nosed, unorthodox, Cuban nationalist with a Communist but undogmatic program and he was hard to depose. Hard to kill. Hard to negotiate with. Just HARD. I don't know how many times they tried to kill him off with chocolate shakes with poison, and exploding cigars.

They did not cover the state funeral in Havana because it did not have masses of Cubans in the streets hoping to destroy Fidel images and calling for 'freedom' from him. Many Cubans left Cuba because they wanted a consumeristic American lifestyle. Not because they had no ability to get an education or basic services in Cuba. Mexicans run across the border everyday for the same reasons. But? Since Mexico is capitalist? The Mexicans are swarming into the USA for the wrong reasons. Not because of fleeing Communist oppression but because they can't buy brand new shit a la American mall style. They live in poverty and need a job. That is not a good reason for the American gov't. Got to flee because Communism sucks and the people are being oppressed. The average Cuban has tons more formal education than the average Mexican does. But do they cover that on the news? No. It is not the right slant they want to give to the American public Q.

Cubans are told in the USA that they are lucky. But you talk to those frothing at the mouth Cuban exiles in Miami? They want to go back to a Cuba that is class conscious. They want the American Dream of middle class capitalist consumption in CUBA. Not in the USA. The Cubans want their homeland. Period. They don't want to live in exile. It amazes me that American dumbells don't get that. Cubans want their own society. They don't want to live in a culture that is not about them. American culture is American culture. It is not Cuban culture. Most people find meaning in their own cultures. They don't want to live in a culture that is not their native one. But the American public is so obtuse thinking that the entire world only finds meaning doing and living the lifestyle that the American consumer culture promotes all the damn day!! To the world. And it is false. Most immigrants nowadays can't afford all that shit. They barely make the rent. But that is what is promoted in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe. A bunch of bullshit. You speak about it very eloquently Q.

Puerto Ricans are going to be stuck with the Walmart jobs. Or jobs that suck. That is the reality. All this bullcrap about equality is exactly that. Q, you spell 'Porto Ricans' that is the colonial American spelling that had to be changed. You should always spell "Puerto Ricans' as the way I spell it. Porto Ricans is what Americans did to try to anglosize the island. It was changed long ago.

There is a little interesting historical note about Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was the original name of the city QatzelOk. It was the name of the port. It means Rich Port in English. San Juan Bautista or "St John the Baptist" was the name of the entire island long ago in 1521. The name of the city was Puerto Rico. The name of the island got switched out and the name of the city became San Juan. Flip flopped over time. It is interesting. La Nina, La Pinta, y la Santa Maria were the three Spanish caravels that Christopher Colombus sailed to Puerto Rico long ago. The original name of the island in the Taino Indian language is "Borinquen" or "Boriken" which means in the Taino language....."Land of the Noble Lord".....and some interpreted it as "Land of the Brave Lord."

Q, we call ourselves "Boricuas" after the Indian name. Not the Spanish one. If you want to be politically correct and affectionate with a Puerto Rican? You call them 'Boricuas'. So? Will you call me "boricua" Q?

[QatzelOk]

... American culture is American culture. It is not Cuban culture. Most people find meaning in their own cultures. They don't want to live in a culture that is not their native one. ...

I would argue that American culture doesn't really exist. That what you find in the USA and many other parts of the Americas.... is a commercial non-culture based on suburban isolation and mass media brainwashing.

This kind of 'American culture' is actually the absence of culture, and the absence of any kind of functioning community.

This is what visionaries like Fidel Castro (Ho Chi Min, Mao Tse Tung, etc.) were fighting against. They were fighting against a capitalist system that destroys cultures and communities, and replaces them with empty-fields of bungalows and paranoid mercenaries.

It's a great thing that Fidel Castro and the Cuban people have managed to preserve some kind of cooperative community while the rest of the world slowly turned into brain-dead consumer dummies full of isolation and mindlessness.

I with boricuas (and Quebecois) could experience the same level of community and cooperation as Cuba, but how is that possible under the current Western capitalist system based on income inequality and mass media brainwashing?

[Tainari88]

I would argue that American culture doesn't really exist. That what you find in the USA and many other parts of the Americas.... is a commercial non-culture based on suburban isolation and mass media brainwashing.

This kind of 'American culture' is actually the absence of culture, and the absence of any kind of functioning community.

This is what visionaries like Fidel Castro (Ho Chi Min, Mao Tse Tung, etc.) were fighting against. They were fighting against a capitalist system that destroys cultures and communities, and replaces them with empty-fields of bungalows and paranoid mercenaries.

It's a great thing that Fidel Castro and the Cuban people have managed to preserve some kind of cooperative community while the rest of the world slowly turned into brain-dead consumer dummies full of isolation and mindlessness.

I with boricuas (and Quebecois) could experience the same level of community and cooperation as Cuba, but how is that possible under the current Western capitalist system based on income inequality and mass media brainwashing?

No such thing exists Q when you say people are living without culture. All human societies have to have culture. It is part of being human. The issue really is about what kind of culture one has in a particular human society. That is where your critique is very valuable. What does a particular ultra-commercially oriented market oriented and capitalistic superstructure society promote in its population? What is the purpose of such a culture?

Communism is based on an system where certain central tenets in Capitalism is challenged, replaced or destroyed. The issue one has with the current socialist societies is in what stages does it fulfill the ultimate goals of communism? The PRC has many aspects of state capitalism. Not a socialism that is very advanced and in which all the needs are met fully without a need for a central authority and a tight control because corruption, etc is dealt with well.

Cuba is interesting. It had to use the former USSR as a bargaining chip for survival against the USA's encroachment and wanting to get control back of Cuban governmental authority. You speak to Eastern European ex satellite's of the USSR's and many hate communism because they associate it with totalitarianism and oppressive laws and many things that favor the USSR and not their own national interests.

The most important thing that the new socialist governments accomplished in the 20th century was about experimenting with new superstructures rather than continuing with only capitalist models that favored private capital and private ownership. We are far from ideal socialist societies still.

For me an ideal socialist society would be one in which all citizen's needs are met comfortably. People have health care that is free and unversal, high quality educations from pre-school to post graduate education and trade professions, and great housing with art, aesthetic and beauty and comfort for all. Modern and ecologically sound transportation and energy resources. The maximum difference in income is only 3 times minimum wage. Mostly due to experience and expertise and not on profit access and socioeconomic status. I really think wages should be enough for what is a good life. For me a good life is relatively subjective but I would say you got a four person family....nuclear family for example? Wife, husband and two kids, or a married same sex couple and their children of 2 as well? They have three bedroom home, two bathrooms, an outdoor playground or patio, one car and hopefully no car and access to public transport that is free, and food that is very very healthy and delicious, lots of recreation, exercise, and social and artistic and hobbies in full development. Urban planning that is not alienated and suburban as you so well demonstrate. Security that means when you are at a job for 20 years or more you have a right to full pay and retire. If that is what you want to do. Also, many benefits.

Everyone. I would severely restrict these people who want ten homes and to possess billions of dollars. Can't do that shit. Period. Other people need resources. Greedy rich and over the top people in my society. No. Restricted. Accept that. You can travel and have fun and take vacation. You can buy lovely clothes and accessories, original art, etc. all within reason. Trying to be over the top and it becomes a control of others wages and lives? I will SPANK your ass into submission. No room for greed, exploitation or bullshit in a good socialist system.

The rewards should be about social contributions. You want extra recogintions? It will be social. You have special talents? Great. We recognize those with love and dedication. But you want billions to be the one calling the shots over millions of lives because your ego is ENORMOUS. No. Kicked in the ass.

That is pretty much it for me. Lol. I have a lot more details but for me if we are in that socialism it is great.