Capitalism does not work. Socialism is preferable. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14877245
The wealth gap in our capitalistic USA is greater than its been since the 1930's. This is the result of a purely capitalistic society, which is an obvious problem for humanity. I hope it should be clear why having a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor is not the ideal way to have a functional society. This of course results in horribly abusive and inhumane treatment for hard working people. It results in a system that is unfair and unjust.

I do not understand the mentality of hardcore right wing extremists who insist that capitalism works. This idea must just have been crammed into their heads since they were young, and they don't seem able to comprehend just how stupid and problematic this philosophy is.

There is an irrational paranoia from the right to compare socialist policies to horribly abusive regimes like Russia or China. The connection between socialism and these regimes is simply non-existent. It seems like right wingers have just been programmed to believe that socialism results in an abusive regime, and this is simply false. Socialism is not the same thing as communism. They are very different ideologies.

People deserve the right to live in a world where they can pursue liberty and happiness without having it stolen from them by the people on the top. People deserve to keep what they earn through hard work. Capitalism, despite what right winged people will tell you, does not achieve this. Rather capitalism allows a small few to live highly immoral and greedy lives at the expense of the entire country.

I get angered by the irrational ideas present on the right. I would hope that these people please rethink their views. I see them all the time online, advocating absolute insanity and garnering shitloads of support in doing so. They are thoughtless, and driven by emotion over rationality. I hope to reason with them, but in my experience reasoning with an extremist is futile. I'll try to do what I can to change things around.
#14877372
I am new here. I call myself a progressive, like Abraham Lincoln was. I like MMT as the economic theory to use.

I'm not sure what you [personally, Agent Steal] mean by 'socialism'. It is used for a few different meanings.

Capitalism [in the modern sense] began as Feudalism was dying out. Therefore it benefited from the fact that Europe soon discovered how to sail all over the world and was militarily superior to most every place they went. Europeans were therefore able to exploit the resources of the whole world. Any economic system would have been able to do good for its people as a result of this flow of wealth into it from the rest of the world. The test of Capitalism as a good economic system is therefore biased in favor of, 'yes'.

Never the less, Capitalism my be a better system IF THERE WERE A FEW CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES. Constitutional because capitalists will always try to take control of the Gov. to change the rules to favor them over all others.

A few I would suggest are:
1] Elections [including the nomination process like primaries] are funded from tax dollars. This lets all ideas be able to compete equally.
2a] Elective districts need to have a few or several representatives, not just 1. This gives all the voters a chance to vote for someone who will win a seat in the legislature. [Voters can split their vote between a few reps., so the majority party in that district can run and win with a few candidates.] This also lets minor parties get into the legislature.
2b] The President maybe should be replaced with a Prime Minister. This removes this push toward a 2-party system.
3] The tax system must be very progressive. There should even be a high tax on "net worth" that starts at something like $500M. This keeps the wealthy from getting too wealthy. It also incentivises them to share more with their workers.
4] There needs to be a Universal Basic Income system. This keeps the 'poor' from being too poor.
5] There needs to be a Soc. Sec. system so the retired can live better than the people on UBI. That is give the retired a higher UBI [maybe how much depends on their lifetime earnings].
6] There must be a Universal Health Care payment and delivery system.

On a different note --
I can see that the world is headed toward a major ecological disaster. Global Climate Change is just one part of it. CO2 pollution is just a part of it, other chemicals are also terrible. Also topsoil erosion, population growth, economic growth that leads to more pollution, and resources are running out or getting harder to extract [causing more pollution]. etc.

Therefore, I see that these trends will need to be addressed. I'll not go into details. The problem is the World is finite, but growth at any percentage rate is always exponential. And exponential growth can not continue forever in a finite space. A 3% growth rate is a doubling every 24 years. This can't be sustained for long, in terms of the life of a nation rather than the life of a person. And even the 72 years of a person's life can see 3 doublings, or 2x2x2 = 8 times more 'whatever' we are looking at. And 72x2 years = 144 years; is 64 times more 'whatever'.

Some experts say we have just 2 more doublings to go before the shit hits the fan. This, of course, is only approximate. It could happen as soon as 1 doubling or after 2.5 doublings. For example, IIRC Peak Oil Production was reached about 12 years ago.
#14879920
Agent Steel wrote:The wealth gap in our capitalistic USA is greater than its been since the 1930's. This is the result of a purely capitalistic society, which is an obvious problem for humanity. I hope it should be clear why having a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor is not the ideal way to have a functional society. This of course results in horribly abusive and inhumane treatment for hard working people. It results in a system that is unfair and unjust.

OK. Capitalism is unjust. Why?
I do not understand the mentality of hardcore right wing extremists who insist that capitalism works.

Have you ever been in a typical supermarket in a capitalist country and a socialist country? That should make it clear.
This idea must just have been crammed into their heads since they were young, and they don't seem able to comprehend just how stupid and problematic this philosophy is.

Maybe they've just seen how much better life is in advanced, democratic capitalist countries than in socialist ones.
There is an irrational paranoia from the right to compare socialist policies to horribly abusive regimes like Russia or China. The connection between socialism and these regimes is simply non-existent.

That is clearly false.
It seems like right wingers have just been programmed to believe that socialism results in an abusive regime, and this is simply false.

No, it's historical fact.
Socialism is not the same thing as communism. They are very different ideologies.

We haven't seen communism on a large scale. The so-called communist countries like the USSR and PRC were all socialist, not communist.
People deserve the right to live in a world where they can pursue liberty and happiness without having it stolen from them by the people on the top.

Yes, but that world is geoist, not socialist.
People deserve to keep what they earn through hard work.

And that isn't socialism, either.
Capitalism, despite what right winged people will tell you, does not achieve this.

Neither does socialism. Only geoism allows people to earn what they can and keep what they earn.
Rather capitalism allows a small few to live highly immoral and greedy lives at the expense of the entire country.

So does socialism.
I get angered by the irrational ideas present on the right.

I get more angered by the irrational ideas present on the left, because they pretend to defend the interests of the people, but unlike the right, don't even have the justification of success in providing for the people's material wants.
I would hope that these people please rethink their views.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
I see them all the time online, advocating absolute insanity and garnering shitloads of support in doing so.

And you see it here, too, by the socialist left.
They are thoughtless, and driven by emotion over rationality.

Like socialists.
I hope to reason with them, but in my experience reasoning with an extremist is futile.

Mine too. And capitalists and socialists are both extremists.
I'll try to do what I can to change things around.

Start by challenging your own irrationality: read all my posts in this forum.

But you can start here: capitalism works better than socialism because when capitalists steal land from everyone else, it doesn't reduce the amount of land available for production; by contrast, when socialists steal capital from its producers, it DOES reduce the amount of capital available for production. It's that simple.
#14923256
@Agent Steel , discussing Marxism in most advanced Western European countries is much different from discussing it in the USA. Unlike us, the people of the European countries have not been subjected to the enormous barrage of anti-Marxist propaganda that we have. Only in the US is there a virtual taboo on such discussion. Think has been distorted here to the point where if we consider making any comment on Marxism, socialism, or communism in polite company, we are to immediately feel stupid and intimidated to the point of silence for just thinking of it. The ready-made objections are many. And so are the lies of that propaganda that serve very well to confuse us so that even if we try, we will find the divisions and confusion so daunting that discussion is stifled.

For example, TTP brought up his ideas of socialism and communism but the problem is that he actually thinks that one or both of them have actually existed! NEITHER has ever existed as a national model. Communists in Russia and China tried to implement "communist" theories to establish socialism, which is an economy in which workers put an end to private ownership and control of the means of production by substituting collective worker ownership and control. As such we have never seen a stable, finished, functioning national economic system of that type. Before such an economy could be established in either of those countries, capitalism gradually took control.

So what we really need is to dare hold open, informed, honest discussions to educate the working class and break the bonds of capitalist propaganda.
#14923258
Steve_American wrote:I am new here. I call myself a progressive, like Abraham Lincoln was. I like MMT as the economic theory to use..

Your ideas sound great. But the question is, who is going to bring about the changes you listed? Congress isn't going to do it. I don't think you will be able to find an answer other than "the people".

As a group, politicians are absolutely scared to death of "people power". If you pay attention long enough you will see repeating proof that politicians talk and act to divert and stop any thought of the public acting collectively to accomplish anything politically, because political power ultimately rests in the hands of the people. And that scared the shit out of them.

Remember when Obama was campaigning? He often said "I need you with me folks! I can't do this alone! We can only do this together!" But what he meant was "vote for me". Because as soon as he took office, his approach changed to something like "thanks, but I've got it from here" and we never again heard him call on the people to stand with him and "make it happen".

I figure if just 5-8 percent of the American population would show up in the streets and scream and yell and demand change, we would get what we want, and all the faster if there was a strong workers' organization or two or three behind them, like there was in 1920. And until we have such organizations and people standing with them, all the great ideas like yours are meaningless.
#14923259
@Senter So the solution is to replace capitalist propaganda with socialist propaganda? The problem with both on a purely ideological level is they don’t care what people want. When your ideology is based upon what all people need then you are showing you don’t care what people want. This is why international ideology fails over and over.
#14923265
One Degree wrote:@Senter So the solution is to replace capitalist propaganda with socialist propaganda? The problem with both on a purely ideological level is they don’t care what people want. When your ideology is based upon what all people need then you are showing you don’t care what people want. This is why international ideology fails over and over.

This strikes me as a variation on the theme of "tyranny of the majority". Democracy is the best we can have in my opinion. There will always be some people who object to what the majority wants, but is it better to yield to the minority? Somebody has to be disappointed in society.
#14923736
Senter wrote:Your ideas sound great. But the question is, who is going to bring about the changes you listed? Congress isn't going to do it. I don't think you will be able to find an answer other than "the people".

As a group, politicians are absolutely scared to death of "people power". If you pay attention long enough you will see repeating proof that politicians talk and act to divert and stop any thought of the public acting collectively to accomplish anything politically, because political power ultimately rests in the hands of the people. And that scared the shit out of them.

Remember when Obama was campaigning? He often said "I need you with me folks! I can't do this alone! We can only do this together!" But what he meant was "vote for me". Because as soon as he took office, his approach changed to something like "thanks, but I've got it from here" and we never again heard him call on the people to stand with him and "make it happen".

I figure if just 5-8 percent of the American population would show up in the streets and scream and yell and demand change, we would get what we want, and all the faster if there was a strong workers' organization or two or three behind them, like there was in 1920. And until we have such organizations and people standing with them, all the great ideas like yours are meaningless.

Exactly, the people need to take the power into their own hands.

Chaos is coming. If it isn't global warming it will be something else.

There are recurring trends in history. One of them is "the rich get greedier and greedier over time". After 80 to 100 years they get so greedy they system must be reset or it will collapse. One theory says this happened in American history in 1776, 1861, and 1929 thru 1945. It has been 89 years since 1929. It may be time now or soon. Certainly the greed of the wealthy seems to have reached a new peak.
#14923818
Steve_American wrote:Exactly, the people need to take the power into their own hands.

Chaos is coming. If it isn't global warming it will be something else.

There are recurring trends in history. One of them is "the rich get greedier and greedier over time". After 80 to 100 years they get so greedy they system must be reset or it will collapse. One theory says this happened in American history in 1776, 1861, and 1929 thru 1945. It has been 89 years since 1929. It may be time now or soon. Certainly the greed of the wealthy seems to have reached a new peak.

It sure looks like greed, but believing the problem is greed will lead us down the wrong path to a "solution". The truth is that in the sequence of economic systems, each one has a main strength and therefore purpose. The strength and purpose of capitalism is it's ability to develop productive capacity and innovate. And when that purpose is fulfilled, capitalism has trouble generating the one thing that keeps it going, and that is increasing profits. When it gets to that point, it keeps seeking growth and profits in any way it can get them, and that begins to look like greed.

If we think the problem is greed, then the solution is to moderate the greed by pushing politicians to fix it with regulations. But if we see that the problem is capitalism itself, and its need for compounded growth and profits, then the solution is to end capitalism and replace it with the next system.
#14923823
Senter wrote:It sure looks like greed, but believing the problem is greed will lead us down the wrong path to a "solution". The truth is that in the sequence of economic systems, each one has a main strength and therefore purpose. The strength and purpose of capitalism is it's ability to develop productive capacity and innovate.

Well said. And easily illustrated: Look at the weapons development that went from smoothbore muskets and black powder cannon to smart bullets and laser guided missiles in 200 years. Look at the space race that put the US on the moon in less than 10 years, look at the development of the personal computer.

And when that purpose is fulfilled, capitalism has trouble generating the one thing that keeps it going, and that is increasing profits.

Capitalism's dynamic requires reinvestment to function as a positive and progressive factor. It has saturated it's present environment and stalled (at which point it begins eating itself - greed). It must be redirected to a new environment. The only way to go is up and out. It's only waiting for someone to lead the way.

Zam
#14923911
Zamuel wrote:.... It must be redirected to a new environment. The only way to go is up and out. It's only waiting for someone to lead the way.

Zam

I'm unclear as to what you mean. What "new environment" is "up and out"?
#14923920
Senter wrote:I'm unclear as to what you mean. What "new environment" is "up and out"?

Never read anything by Cordwainer Smith? If you can pose the question, I can't believe you can't visualize the answer. Ask Mr. Spock to explain it to you.

Zam
#14923998
Zamuel wrote:Never read anything by Cordwainer Smith? If you can pose the question, I can't believe you can't visualize the answer. Ask Mr. Spock to explain it to you.

Zam

I come here for rational, intelligent conversation. At this point you seem to be a crackpot and I don't respond to crackpots. It's up to you to show that I'm judging you wrongly.
#14924002
Senter wrote:It sure looks like greed, but believing the problem is greed will lead us down the wrong path to a "solution". The truth is that in the sequence of economic systems, each one has a main strength and therefore purpose. The strength and purpose of capitalism is it's ability to develop productive capacity and innovate. And when that purpose is fulfilled, capitalism has trouble generating the one thing that keeps it going, and that is increasing profits. When it gets to that point, it keeps seeking growth and profits in any way it can get them, and that begins to look like greed.

If we think the problem is greed, then the solution is to moderate the greed by pushing politicians to fix it with regulations. But if we see that the problem is capitalism itself, and its need for compounded growth and profits, then the solution is to end capitalism and replace it with the next system.

In other threads I have put forward my solution. Look for details there.

In general I proposed that taxes be made progressive again.
1] Top income bracket = 90% rate.
2] Corporations also have progressive brackets with the top 2 brackets being 45% and 90%. Yes, a huge jump to tax comp. that are "too big to fail" so they break themselves up to slash their tax rate.
3] An inheritance tax to keep a new aristocracy from developing.
4] A net worth tax with a 50% top rate for net worths over $500 million.
5] If corps. can't make too much profit they should pay their workers more so they can buy more so all companies can sell more.
6] After WWII I think the high tax rates encouraged investment because this reduced profits now, this might happen again.
Note I had to assume that some way could be found to keep corps. from using bookkeeping gimmicks to move a profit elsewhere.
Also the brackets are indexed to the poverty income line, i.e. some number like 500 times the pov. IL or 50 times it. If the poverty IL is increased then the brackets all go up. But, if the poverty income line goes up then the minimum wage goes up, the UBI goes up, and the wage paid in the "Employer of last resort program" goes up.
#14924011
Senter wrote:I come here for rational, intelligent conversation.

Then display a little rational intelligence.

At this point you seem to be a crackpot and I don't respond to crackpots. It's up to you to show that I'm judging you wrongly.

Nope, not interested. Toss the nugget back in the creek. "All that glistens is not gold" but only an idiot throws it away without finding out first. (just another crackpot observation.)
#14924081
Steve_American wrote:In other threads I have put forward my solution. Look for details there.

In general I proposed that taxes be made progressive again.
1] Top income bracket = 90% rate.
2] Corporations also have progressive brackets with the top 2 brackets being 45% and 90%. Yes, a huge jump to tax comp. that are "too big to fail" so they break themselves up to slash their tax rate.
3] An inheritance tax to keep a new aristocracy from developing.
4] A net worth tax with a 50% top rate for net worths over $500 million.
5] If corps. can't make too much profit they should pay their workers more so they can buy more so all companies can sell more.
6] After WWII I think the high tax rates encouraged investment because this reduced profits now, this might happen again.
Note I had to assume that some way could be found to keep corps. from using bookkeeping gimmicks to move a profit elsewhere.
Also the brackets are indexed to the poverty income line, i.e. some number like 500 times the pov. IL or 50 times it. If the poverty IL is increased then the brackets all go up. But, if the poverty income line goes up then the minimum wage goes up, the UBI goes up, and the wage paid in the "Employer of last resort program" goes up.

What is all that supposed to achieve? What's the goal?
#14924270
SolarCross wrote:What is all that supposed to achieve? What's the goal?

The goal is to get most of the advantages of capitalism, but to keep corporations from being huge and to keep people from being too rich.
Corporations are too big when they are too big to fail and try to subvert the will of the people with their money and power.
People are too rich when they can buy a Congressman with pocket change.
People are too rich when they can endow an entire Department at a major University so that they can decide what will be taught there.
I hope that things will be better if the same amount of wealth is spread out among 20 to 50 people instead of being owned by just 1 person.
I want to get back to --- Gov. of, by, and for *all* the People. Corps. are *not* people.
#14924443
Steve_American wrote:The goal is to get most of the advantages of capitalism, but to keep corporations from being huge and to keep people from being too rich.
Corporations are too big when they are too big to fail and try to subvert the will of the people with their money and power.
People are too rich when they can buy a Congressman with pocket change.
People are too rich when they can endow an entire Department at a major University so that they can decide what will be taught there.
I hope that things will be better if the same amount of wealth is spread out among 20 to 50 people instead of being owned by just 1 person.
I want to get back to --- Gov. of, by, and for *all* the People. Corps. are *not* people.


Prohibiting out of state ownership would accomplish more without using unfair taxation that lawyers of the wealthy would simply subvert anyway. Prevent them from accumulating it instead of encouraging it by seeing it as a revenue source.

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]