If Capitalism Is A Success, Why Is There Still Socialism?

Your contention that socialism is totalitarian and capitalism is not is bogus. The difference at that level is insignificant.

 

You don't expect and want a reply to your posts?

So is Trump, McConnell, Obama, Breitbart, O'Reilley, The Heritage Foundation, etc etc etc.

Is that a criticism?

Let me get this straight.... We have been brainwashed all our lives by the media, by education, by politicians, by culture shaped by corporatists, ...... and that made me receptive to Marxist ideas?? You're apparently the one who remains entrenched in status quo establishment corporatist politics and culture and I'm "brainwashed" for having broken out of that deception and propaganda??? LOL!!!!

That is the way of the capitalist lackey who has no hope of ever being among the top capitalist who shape the economy and culture but who defend it against their own actual interests even as it crumbles around them.

 

What exactly are your goals?

Do you even care how we get there? What is that going to mean to the current society?

 

Must I explain this again? Sheesh. Ok.

My goal: a congress and presidency that are sympathetic to the need for as may incentives for worker-owned/worker-controlled co-ops as we already have for privately-owned businesses. Other countries like Spain and Italy and Germany have such legislation and we would do well to have it too.

 

If you would, please, because I don't think you are bing clear.

So you want to use the government. That we are supposed to separate from your socialist economy, to usher in this new era?

Why don't you think the co-ops are on an even playing field with private enterprise?

 

what?

Because they aren't. There are many items of legislation and many organizations like The Better Business Bureau, The Department of Commerce, Your local Chamber of Commerce in most cities, etc etc etc. - https://www.entmagazine.com/start-up-support.html

And for co-ops? Just about none. - list

 

Exactly!

At the end of the day it takes the threat of force to make someone provide that service (disguised as a "right") to someone else.

 

You want a government sympathetic to your cause. Yes or No?

There are fewer organizations because people don't want it. Nothing is stoping you from forming your own.

 

Yes. This one is not. Wrong president; wrong congress.

I wish. If people ran the country we wouldn't have fracking, poisoned drinking water, dumping of coal waste in streams, legislation making unions less powerful and less popular, the most expensive healthcare in the world by far, privatization of prisons and education, disempowerment of the EPA, extreme wealth and income inequality, a huge national debt, stagnation of the alternative energy effort, threats to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, un-affordability of higher education, employers paying for employee medical benefits, disregard of Native American rights and culture, and a minimum wage that badly needs to be raised..... for starters.

 

Wow, that's a lot to deal with there. Does this just stop within the sovereign borders of the US or do we have to apply this globally?

So it's more than just the employee-boss relationship.

Why doesn't the commune idea appeal to you? You would have to start somewhere right?

Why do you need to bring the firepower of the government on its citizens to bring your change?

 

Other than restoring our international relationships with our allies, why does it have to be global? What other countries do is largely none of our business. Cooperation is the key as is isolation of enemies like North Korea, and surveillance and smart policy toward Russia and China for example.

That view is part of the brainwashing by our media, politics, culture, education, etc. All things ultimately come down to the economic system and employee/employer relationship. This government either allows or caused these things when it promotes or protects the relationship we have, which is dedicated to private profit. You see, it isn't the profit that is the problem. It's the effects it has on the nation.

It doesn't appeal because it isn't realistic or workable. But you might see a startup of a business like Mondragon in a similar way. It can be considered to be sort of a "commune" in the business world I guess.

Please tell me where you get the idea that such firepower is needed or wanted. You will find it is just more anti-socialist propaganda by capitalists. And it is GARBAGE. Please get beyond such BS.

 

Why are you wearing a mask in your avatar? This is the internet. We can't see you anyway.

 

It has to be global for the same reason as this -

Everything comes down to what the market needs and how people provide it.

Any form of socialism requires some form of government to control the economy. The government exerts it's power through force or threat of force. That's not GARBAGE.

 

Socialism always fails and for some reason people always fall for it. Again and again. Again and again. The only reason we still have socialism is because people are stupid and power-hungry and malicious men will always take advantage of people's stupidity.

 

Well, I believe Marx said that it may turn out that with the U.S. being so powerful and dominant even in the late 1800s, that the world may have to wait for socialism until the U.S. turns socialist. To that extent I agree that you may be correct.

I can't argue with that!

Invariably, historically the use of force is initiated by the capitalist forces trying to stop socialism and the loss of their power and wealth, and of course the socialist forces must respond with force or lose the effort entirely. But think about Britain and how the monarchy agreed in the end to peacefully accept the transition and to accept a very, very limited and inconsequential role in the political life of the country. The revolutionary forces didn't just kill them.

 

Yeahright, just like capitalism always failed for about 100 years . . . . . . . -until it succeeded.

 

What do you mean? Capitalism has never failed and the only reason you are alive today is actually Capitalism.

 

Britain's revolution was not peaceful It was a centuries-long process that did involve a few wars. Including the wars, they had with us. That's not the kind of thing Marx intended.

 

Read up on the efforts from the 18th century to the late 19th century. Funny that righties don't want to know about it.

 

The divine powers of the market economy has ensured you haven't had to die from starvation, that you are safe and warm and that you have a computer with an Internet connection to post on this forum about how evil Capitalism is.

 

Right. First of all it was a revolution against feudalism and a monarchy to establish capitalism, and my point was that revolutionary forces don't initiate or seek or prolong violence. The violence comes from the powers-that-be and the revolutionaries respond as they must.

 

Tell that to the homeless all across our nation who live in cardboard boxes.

 

We can see how well that did in Venezuela.

 

It goes back further than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Revolutionaries respond to what? You are in control of your life. Our current society favors your idealism much more than it does mine.

 

Governments around the world start to prosper and think they can get their people a better more prosperous future. So they switched to socialism and it all falls apart. Oh well, people need to work there is no other way.