Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

For whom? The 1% or the 47%?

 

So, in this dream world of yours, do all the workers produce the same amount of goods? Do they all make the same income? Do they have quotas? Is there any incentive to create? Is there any competition?

I am a self-employed person. I have one employee. She is free to work elsewhere and her skill demands a certain wage. In your capitalist nightmare, who is holding me captive? Who am I holding captive?

IMO, your a fruit-loop.

 

Two million years of stable, stateless, classless society? Wow, that has got to be the most far out comment I've seen on this or any other forum., but thanks for playing anyway; I know I was amused.

 

Coercive capitalism and voluntary socialism are oxy morons. O'er here we live in a capitalist society, but the freedom inherent permits many to live in socialist communes.

O'er there, socialism is enforced. And the socialism (that exists) over here is enforced. It doesn't work without government's heavy hand or a religion.

 

Don't be a jerk about it! He just got millions and hundreds mixed up. Totally understandable.

 

I didn't get anything mixed up, tribalism (a stateless, classless society) has been tested through 2 million years of evolution.

 

You mean a lack of written law means that a society is lawless?

 

Questerr referenced a Kibbutz, which is expressly socialistic/communistic. Webrockk linked to the issues with it. The point from people on our side is that there is conflict with these systems, as they rail against human nature.

 

The point is that it isn't about just one person leaving. The point is that such attempts fall to pieces because many leave - just as webrockk pointed out with the example of the kibbutz.

Everybody makes for themselves, and sells to others - and others buy according to their ability to buy. This is VERY different.

Absolutely not. Capitalism is the best representation of human nature, as it allows the individual to reap what they sow, and not contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need.

 

Not sure about failing, just changing. Socialism and capitalism should coexist. Problem is the ebb and flow of each part. Maybe its still in the development stage.

 

WTF. Does "working for the 47%" mean that a system has to take the production of the 1%?

I'm talking about a system which doesn't discriminate on the basis of capability.

Which works best for society AS A WHOLE - and stop being obtuse, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

If you wish to institute socialism on a strictly voluntary basis, you're welcome to it. If you think that's possible, I wish you luck. You will quickly realize that there is only one type of person who voluntarily wishes to engage in Socialism: the type who needs to take more than they give.

And because of that, no form of Socialism has succeeded without mandating participation from those who would normally produce more than they consume. There would be no point.

 

LOL. Not being obtuse at all. Which system works better. That depends on where you want the weath to accumulate. All the way to the top 1% or spread through all the workers as well, the 47%. As 1 will work exclusively to moving all the wealth upwards. 1 attempts to move it more to the workers. A combination that works for both groups is better overall. Or else you have those with everything and most with little.

 

That's what the Constitution was about. The proper amount of Socialism was described in the enumeration of powers of the Federal Government. More than that means that Socialism was trying to take more control - and all that has happened as a result is far more debt, and dysfunction.

There has been no ebb of Socialism since our inception. All that has taken place is various insipid strategies to implement it, notably with the increase in Federal Power as a result of the Civil War; the institution of the Federal Reserve so that Socialists can print money (read: redistribute their actions on the people and enslave them) to pay for their expansionism, and FDR, who put in place many Socialistic policies which are now funded by that FED.

If you want an ebb, end these things. The problem with our system is that it is has been infected with this parasite for too long, and we're paying the price for it.

 

There is no legitimate Central Command Entity which should worry about "spreading" wealth. Wealth should be the accomplishment of the individual, for the individual. There will always be rich and poor and people in the middle as a result, because there will always be people of various capacities to succeed.

It is natural and it should not be screwed around with. Socialism simply spreads the misery around, reducing the prosperity of everyone.

 

They're just trying to own everyone and everyting in order to feel relaxed and comfortable and finally secure about telling/asking some beautifull boy/girl to suck their dick.

That is a very interesting moment in evolution. Somewhere along the line it got okay to suck the dick of a good one if he would kill an enemy during the iceage, after which all the women would f*ck him.

Today we got a bad fusion of neanderthal with d*ck sucking corneholes...

Which can be forgiven if those toads will colonize new planets.

 

How about you do your drugs somewhere else.

 

The philosophy is appealing in theory, yet lacks the empirical substantiation to be a viable system of governance for society. For me, libertarian market socialism remains a dream of the distant future.

 

Two different modes of production can not coexist.

 

Who mentioned lawless? I'm talking about statelessness.

 

I'll take that as a no

 

...you're seriously comparing cooperative communes to marriage? Please tell me you're joking.

 

What does Cuba have to do with what I said?

 

What are you talking about, "over" where?

 

Obviously if you think tribal society was a thriving economic system, you and I have a different concepts of a thriving economy