sherpa Posted March 29 Posted March 29 1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said: The government giving people money for doing nothing is socialism. Social security is a form of socialism. Come on. Social Security is paid into by workers and employers. It is hardly the gov giving people money for doing nothing. It is an enforced IRA, with no individual control. 2
L Ron Burgundy Posted March 29 Posted March 29 1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said: The government giving people money for doing nothing is socialism. Social security is a form of socialism, it's in the title. I am 100% against all socialism. Handing illegal immigrants debit cards and paying for their hotels is the absolute epitome of socialism. You should get out of life what you put into it. Thank you for confirming I was right. A social program does not equal socialism. Ignorant. 1
4th&long Posted March 29 Posted March 29 1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said: The government giving people money for doing nothing is socialism. Social security is a form of socialism, it's in the title. I am 100% against all socialism. Handing illegal immigrants debit cards and paying for their hotels is the absolute epitome of socialism. You should get out of life what you put into it. You do realize you pay into social security don’t you? What you get out of it is based on what you put into it. Social security is the only govt benefit that pays for itself. You earned that money by working for it and putting money into it. If you don’t realize this please educate yourself. 1 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted March 29 Posted March 29 On 3/28/2024 at 11:23 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: I could make a good argument Liz Warren is a socialist. Members of "The Squad" in the House. Bernie Sanders. And without making a judgment about whether its good or bad policy, I could name policies such as wealth confiscation and income re-distribution as socialist dogma. Whether its of good value to society, Social Security Medicare, and Medicaid taxes force workers to pay a tax that redistributes funds to retirees and low income people. Or for that matter, any government interference in the lives of private citizens that legalizes the transfer of benefits without cost to one group at the expense or at consequence to another group that derives no benefit. While I don't want to do the homework necessary to identify the specific people responsible for those things, those are socialist and therefore they could be considered socialists. I think much of this is incorrect. A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, with the implication here being it to be true for a large majority of industries, if not the entirety of them. A democratic socialist is a specific type of socialist who wants to achieve this type of economic system peacefully, often gradually, and from the bottom up…i.e. via democracy. Under this definition, we don’t see a single socialist in the U.S. government at the national level. Bernie and The Squad are social democrats who occasionally use democratic socialist rhetoric for strategic reasons. Liz Warren is a liberal, not a progressive…let alone a socialist. Hmmm…perhaps I should go over a few more definitions?? A liberal is someone who believes in the necessity of wealth redistribution under the auspices of the social contract, but that this redistribution should come via taxation and free market-based solutions. A social democrat differs from a liberal in that more aggressive and direct intrusions into free market capitalism (and its guiding political system) are argued to be necessary so to achieve this wealth redistribution. A social democrat will therefore advocate for full nationalization and/or forced market interventions into industries related to the welfare state (health care, housing, education, etc.). The two main features distinguishing a social democrat from a liberal are probably advocacy for universal health care and not accepting corporate/big-money campaign donations. In terms of the political spectrum line: you can think of social democracy as the extreme right-wing limit of socialism, but it is not traditionally considered socialism unless industries beyond the social safety net are to be nationalized (such as energy industries). Social democracy, democratic socialism, all other types of socialism, and communism (so basically everything to the left of liberalism) are all technically subsumed into progressivism even though progressivism is considered synonymous with social democracy in the United States vernacular. Social democracy politics are considered far-left in the United States but center-right in many European countries. All of the aforementioned differ from American right-wingers (classical liberals, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) in their belief that, at least in some very general sense, Marx’s labor theory of value has merit. That is to say: capitalists inherently steal labor-based wealth from their workers in order to turn a profit, as the theory goes, and so at least some degree of wealth redistribution is needed to return at least some of that wealth. Glaring example: any successful CEO with his or her low-wage employees subsisting below the poverty threshold. Colloquially speaking, I guess you could say many of these dividing lines are arbitrary. All nations in the West have embraced mixed economies of some varying form. Moreover, nearly all right-wingers believe in nationalizing service industries like a national defense, police protection, fire protection, a postal service, and civil infrastructure usage. As others have already mentioned, by the way: Social Security is not an example of socialism. There really isn’t even a wealth redistribution element to it…it’s more like a specific kind of government-mandated wealth management. 2 1
4th&long Posted March 29 Posted March 29 27 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: I think much of this is incorrect. A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, with the implication here being it to be true for a large majority of industries, if not the entirety of them. A democratic socialist is a specific type of socialist who wants to achieve this type of economic system peacefully, often gradually, and from the bottom up…i.e. via democracy. Under this definition, we don’t see a single socialist in the U.S. government at the national level. Bernie and The Squad are social democrats who occasionally use democratic socialist rhetoric for strategic reasons. Liz Warren is a liberal, not a progressive…let alone a socialist. Hmmm…perhaps I should go over a few more definitions?? A liberal is someone who believes in the necessity of wealth redistribution under the auspices of the social contract, but that this redistribution should come via taxation and free market-based solutions. A social democrat differs from a liberal in that more aggressive and direct intrusions into free market capitalism (and its guiding political system) are argued to be necessary so to achieve this wealth redistribution. A social democrat will therefore advocate for full nationalization and/or forced market interventions into industries related to the welfare state (health care, housing, education, etc.). The two main features distinguishing a social democrat from a liberal are probably advocacy for universal health care and not accepting corporate/big-money campaign donations. In terms of the political spectrum line: you can think of social democracy as the extreme right-wing limit of socialism, but it is not traditionally considered socialism unless industries beyond the social safety net are to be nationalized (such as energy industries). Social democracy, democratic socialism, all other types of socialism, and communism (so basically everything to the left of liberalism) are all technically subsumed into progressivism even though progressivism is considered synonymous with social democracy in the United States vernacular. Social democracy politics are considered far-left in the United States but center-right in many European countries. All of the aforementioned differ from American right-wingers (classical liberals, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) in their belief that, at least in some very general sense, Marx’s labor theory of value has merit. That is to say: capitalists inherently steal labor-based wealth from their workers in order to turn a profit, as the theory goes, and so at least some degree of wealth redistribution is needed to return at least some of that wealth. Glaring example: any successful CEO with his or her low-wage employees subsisting below the poverty threshold. Colloquially speaking, I guess you could say many of these dividing lines are arbitrary. All nations in the West have embraced mixed economies of some varying form. Moreover, nearly all right-wingers believe in nationalizing service industries like a national defense, police protection, fire protection, a postal service, and civil infrastructure usage. As others have already mentioned, by the way: Social Security is not an example of socialism. There really isn’t even a wealth redistribution element to it…it’s more like a specific kind of government-mandated wealth management. Great post! And from what I’ve seen on here way over the majority of these guys heads. Mind blown!🤯 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 29 Posted March 29 29 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: I think much of this is incorrect. A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, with the implication here being it to be true for a large majority of industries, if not the entirety of them. A democratic socialist is a specific type of socialist who wants to achieve this type of economic system peacefully, often gradually, and from the bottom up…i.e. via democracy. Under this definition, we don’t see a single socialist in the U.S. government at the national level. Bernie and The Squad are social democrats who occasionally use democratic socialist rhetoric for strategic reasons. Liz Warren is a liberal, not a progressive…let alone a socialist. Hmmm…perhaps I should go over a few more definitions?? A liberal is someone who believes in the necessity of wealth redistribution under the auspices of the social contract, but that this redistribution should come via taxation and free market-based solutions. A social democrat differs from a liberal in that more aggressive and direct intrusions into free market capitalism (and its guiding political system) are argued to be necessary so to achieve this wealth redistribution. A social democrat will therefore advocate for full nationalization and/or forced market interventions into industries related to the welfare state (health care, housing, education, etc.). The two main features distinguishing a social democrat from a liberal are probably advocacy for universal health care and not accepting corporate/big-money campaign donations. In terms of the political spectrum line: you can think of social democracy as the extreme right-wing limit of socialism, but it is not traditionally considered socialism unless industries beyond the social safety net are to be nationalized (such as energy industries). Social democracy, democratic socialism, all other types of socialism, and communism (so basically everything to the left of liberalism) are all technically subsumed into progressivism even though progressivism is considered synonymous with social democracy in the United States vernacular. Social democracy politics are considered far-left in the United States but center-right in many European countries. All of the aforementioned differ from American right-wingers (classical liberals, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) in their belief that, at least in some very general sense, Marx’s labor theory of value has merit. That is to say: capitalists inherently steal labor-based wealth from their workers in order to turn a profit, as the theory goes, and so at least some degree of wealth redistribution is needed to return at least some of that wealth. Glaring example: any successful CEO with his or her low-wage employees subsisting below the poverty threshold. Colloquially speaking, I guess you could say many of these dividing lines are arbitrary. All nations in the West have embraced mixed economies of some varying form. Moreover, nearly all right-wingers believe in nationalizing service industries like a national defense, police protection, fire protection, a postal service, and civil infrastructure usage. As others have already mentioned, by the way: Social Security is not an example of socialism. There really isn’t even a wealth redistribution element to it…it’s more like a specific kind of government-mandated wealth management. I think a lot of those definitions regarding socialism are theoretical. The major distinction between economic systems boils down to whether you advocate government driven or mandated solutions or free market or private enterprise solutions. 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted March 29 Posted March 29 2 hours ago, KDIGGZ said: The government giving people money for doing nothing is socialism. Social security is a form of socialism, it's in the title. I am 100% against all socialism. Handing illegal immigrants debit cards and paying for their hotels is the absolute epitome of socialism. You should get out of life what you put into it. You only qualify for Title 2 benefits if you have worked and paid taxes for at least ten years. This is called being "insured". Or are married to someone that has. People can and do stop paying social security taxes. Usually folks who work under the table, contractors, some union jobs, and railroad workers. There are stupid, lazy people who think social security is an unconditional entitlement payout, aka socialism. They also tend to be shocked when they call in and find out they are not "insured" because they have not paid enough into the system. Or because they've paid nothing in at all.
K D Posted March 29 Posted March 29 1 hour ago, 4th&long said: You do realize you pay into social security don’t you? What you get out of it is based on what you put into it. Social security is the only govt benefit that pays for itself. You earned that money by working for it and putting money into it. If you don’t realize this please educate yourself. I'm not getting all of the money back that I put into it. Plus all of that money could have been invested. If I wanted it to go towards my retirement I should have that choice. It's not free market capitalism correct? So then what is it?
sherpa Posted March 29 Posted March 29 3 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: So then what is it? It's an enforced IRA, as I mentioned earlier.
L Ron Burgundy Posted March 29 Posted March 29 42 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: I'm not getting all of the money back that I put into it. Plus all of that money could have been invested. If I wanted it to go towards my retirement I should have that choice. It's not free market capitalism correct? So then what is it? Communism! 1
K D Posted March 29 Posted March 29 40 minutes ago, sherpa said: It's an enforced IRA, as I mentioned earlier. I don't want it, as mentioned. I'd much rather invest the money myself. Now they are saying it will be out of money. If you are telling me it's like an IRA then how could it run out? It would be gaining interest. Anything state run is a trainwreck, who would want that unless you are a complete idiot and need the government to take care of you
4th&long Posted March 29 Posted March 29 11 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: I don't want it, as mentioned. I'd much rather invest the money myself. Now they are saying it will be out of money. If you are telling me it's like an IRA then how could it run out? It would be gaining interest. Anything state run is a trainwreck, who would want that unless you are a complete idiot and need the government to take care of you Believe me I would rather invest my money also, but I’m am not going to jail for not paying SS. It will only be out of money because the politicians that everyone worships are stealing from it! And that goes for both sides!! 1
sherpa Posted March 29 Posted March 29 19 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: I don't want it, as mentioned. I'd much rather invest the money myself. Now they are saying it will be out of money. If you are telling me it's like an IRA then how could it run out? It would be gaining interest. Anything state run is a trainwreck, who would want that unless you are a complete idiot and need the government to take care of you Are you new to this? These arguments have been made for decades. It is going broke because the money deposited from both employees and employers has been used in the general funding of the government, and not separated for investment, as was the original intent. It was designed as a safety net that everyone employed would contribute to in order to prevent them from being completely indigent in old age. No surprises and nothing new here, 1
Doc Posted March 30 Posted March 30 56 minutes ago, sherpa said: Are you new to this? These arguments have been made for decades. It is going broke because the money deposited from both employees and employers has been used in the general funding of the government, and not separated for investment, as was the original intent. It was designed as a safety net that everyone employed would contribute to in order to prevent them from being completely indigent in old age. No surprises and nothing new here, So it's more like a Ponzi scheme now?
K D Posted March 30 Posted March 30 1 hour ago, sherpa said: Are you new to this? These arguments have been made for decades. It is going broke because the money deposited from both employees and employers has been used in the general funding of the government, and not separated for investment, as was the original intent. It was designed as a safety net that everyone employed would contribute to in order to prevent them from being completely indigent in old age. No surprises and nothing new here, I'm in my 30 years so forgive me if I don't know the ins and outs of this terrible system that I have little to no chance of utilizing in 30 years. So what you are saying is that it's not like an IRA at all and in fact it's a socialist system used by the government for socialist programs that don't make money and then they wonder why it's running out.
sherpa Posted March 30 Posted March 30 3 hours ago, KDIGGZ said: I'm in my 30 years so forgive me if I don't know the ins and outs of this terrible system that I have little to no chance of utilizing in 30 years. So what you are saying is that it's not like an IRA at all and in fact it's a socialist system used by the government for socialist programs that don't make money and then they wonder why it's running out. No I'm not saying it's a socialist system. It's supposed to be like an IRA as you and your employer contribute to it based on your income up to a certain level, and then when you decide to draw benefits, those benefits are based on your career earnings. All designed to prevent people who don't save from becoming indigent in their old age. The fact is that if the gov was held to the same accounting principles that corporations are, they'd be shut down and arrested in a minute. They do this with scores of tax revenue. Remember a couple months ago when the guy in the White House was whining about airline baggage fees and other expenses for air travelers? The single biggest charge on tickets by far is taxes, and they tax everything; fuel, cargo, route segments, arrival and departure taxes, with additional fees for international ops, frequent flyer fees and others. This was to fund the "Aviation Trust Fund," now called the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund," which handles facilities and operations among other things for the nation's airspace system. They show a balance, but that is nowhere near the amount of money they collect. Guess where that other money goes? Into the general fund. That's the way the system "works." 1 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 30 Posted March 30 (edited) 6 hours ago, sherpa said: No I'm not saying it's a socialist system. It's supposed to be like an IRA as you and your employer contribute to it based on your income up to a certain level, and then when you decide to draw benefits, those benefits are based on your career earnings. All designed to prevent people who don't save from becoming indigent in their old age. The fact is that if the gov was held to the same accounting principles that corporations are, they'd be shut down and arrested in a minute. They do this with scores of tax revenue. Remember a couple months ago when the guy in the White House was whining about airline baggage fees and other expenses for air travelers? The single biggest charge on tickets by far is taxes, and they tax everything; fuel, cargo, route segments, arrival and departure taxes, with additional fees for international ops, frequent flyer fees and others. This was to fund the "Aviation Trust Fund," now called the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund," which handles facilities and operations among other things for the nation's airspace system. They show a balance, but that is nowhere near the amount of money they collect. Guess where that other money goes? Into the general fund. That's the way the system "works." Without somw drastic changes like reining in government spending and getting control of debt we're all screwed. But things are headed in the wrong direction at a faster rate. Neither major party is going to lead the necessary changes. The economy no longer supports the programs and cost structure of the past. Its time for a complete new vision. That vision needs to drive much smaller and more localized government. But I fear nothing will change and nothing is going to stop the mother of all financial and social disasters from happening. Maybe in a few months, maybe a few years. Changes will be forced by circumstances and necessity, not by choice. For now it's spend, spend, spend, until the party ends and the bill comes due. The road here leads to a more modest standard of living and lifestyle for most and will drive even nmore social and political unrest. I get the sense much of the youngest generation is already aware of this and already living this new reality while their elders have yet to catch on to the coming trainwreck. Edited March 30 by All_Pro_Bills
ComradeKayAdams Posted March 30 Posted March 30 18 hours ago, 4th&long said: Great post! And from what I’ve seen on here way over the majority of these guys heads. Mind blown!🤯 Thanks! I’m glad you liked! A few clarifications: 1. In my definition of “socialism,” bottom-up management structures like worker cooperatives can also be substituted with top-down ones managed by the government. The operative phrase in the definition is “owning the means of production.” Who has ownership of the enterprise? Who is collecting the profit or who is benefiting from the enterprise’s services? Under socialism, it should be the collective workers or the inclusive citizenry. 2. Marx’s labor theory of value obviously doesn’t hold up to any quantitative rigor in modern economics, but the “spirit” of the theory endures. Over the past four decades of neoliberalism, we know that labor productivity has increased (based on GDP, hours worked, and other metrics from the BLS and the BEA) while inflation-adjusted wages have remained relatively stagnant (especially for the working class) compared to that of the wealthiest 1%. 3. When I say capitalists “steal” labor-based wealth from workers, I’m not necessarily making a moral judgment. Unless we return to the days of strictly barter economies, some degree of labor exploitation is needed to run any profitable enterprise…no matter the type of economic system. 18 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I think a lot of those definitions regarding socialism are theoretical. The major distinction between economic systems boils down to whether you advocate government driven or mandated solutions or free market or private enterprise solutions. But what’s the distinction between a “theoretical” definition and an “actual” definition?? I’m using definitions that will help you communicate in places, such as Europe, where actual socialists are elected with regularity. If you choose a “practical” definition for use in the United States and among right-wing communities, then you’ll need to make non-arbitrary distinctions between government-driven or government-mandated solutions that are to be called socialist and those that are not. Upon doing so, you may find that many or most Republicans end up classified in some way as socialists, too. And if everyone’s a socialist, then no one is a socialist! Also, good luck getting everyone to agree on a common definition outside the academic one…and without agreed-upon definitions of words, society inevitably descends into a kind of human sacrifice/dogs-and-cats-living-together form of mass hysteria…eeek!! FYI, there are models of socialism in which effectively no government authority exists. Libertarian socialism and social anarchism are two such examples. 1 1 2
The Frankish Reich Posted March 30 Posted March 30 4 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: 2. Marx’s labor theory of value obviously doesn’t hold up to any quantitative rigor in modern economics, but the “spirit” of the theory endures. Over the past four decades of neoliberalism, we know that labor productivity has increased (based on GDP, hours worked, and other metrics from the BLS and the BEA) while inflation-adjusted wages have remained relatively stagnant (especially for the working class) compared to that of the wealthiest 1%. This is getting close to Picketty's argument, which I find pretty compelling on its surface, but so far not really supported by most good examinations of economic history.
Recommended Posts