do you think social media will destroy capitalism now?

[Sparagmos]

If it's supplemental to a mainly capitalist system, then it's a safety net. If it's mandated for all to have it as a replacement to private health insurance, aka Bernie Sanders, then it becomes socialism.

So social security, roads, the fire department, Medicare, and public parks are socialism, because they aren’t supplemental but the main provider of such services?

 

[Kaon]

The current problem with Medicaid is that it is typically only available for children and disabled adults and NOT for those who simply cannot afford better health insurance. All of those people have to do without health insurance at all, particularly in states that did not expand Medicaid. Even the ACA only reimburses those with the lowest income and so there are large numbers of people who make too much to qualify for ACA reimbursement but yet are unable to afford paying for health insurance on their own. And those who make less than $12K a year no matter how many hours they work also do not qualify for ACA because the idea was that they would be covered under Medicaid, but that only works for the states that expanded Medicaid.

So we have a HUGE number of U.S. citizens who have fallen into, and live in the cracks and are unable to receive any help with medical care.

That is because your health is exploited for profit, even though we like to think medicine is innocent and neutral. Hospitals are for profit; is there more money in curing someone, or making them chronic?

You need a perfect leadership to have workable socialism, it fails otherwise.

You need corrupt leadership to have workable capitalism where humans are the commodity, it fails otherwise.

We get what we accept.

 

[Albion]

Not capital C communist (which refers to a political party) but the communism as laid out by Marx and Engles in their Manifesto. TRUE Marxism.

Well, just remember that what you are calling "true" Marxism is a fiction. It never has existed and will never exist.

It is a prediction, that's all. Marx (and Engels) made that about an imaginary future; and the theoretical communist phase of the future serves as an alibi for their totalitarian dictatorship (socialism) projected to come immediately after the present governments are overthrown. To paraphrase the claim, "Yes, there will be oppression, political murder, and dictatorship...but look! It will all fade away sometime or other and we will have paradise on Earth for the survivors."

 

[gaara4158]

I do think that socialism is good the poster I was responding to said that social security was a part of a capitalist economy, and I disagreed.

Ah, good! What I would add, then, is that social programs can exist within an overall-capitalist economy without making the whole thing “socialism.” The Right tends to frame the discussion as “capitalism vs socialism” rather than “how much socialism is necessary to keep everyone prosperous under a capitalist economy?” Part of that strategy is to demonize socialism and then label everything they don’t care about that’s publicly-funded as “socialism,” which is what I was afraid you were doing. Very happy to be shown I was wrong!

 

[Albion]

Ah, good! What I would add, then, is that social programs can exist within an overall-capitalist economy without making the whole thing “socialism.” The Right tends to frame the discussion as “capitalism vs socialism” rather than “how much socialism is necessary to keep everyone prosperous under a capitalist economy?”

The reason that "the Right" frames the discussion in that way is because what you are advocating--capitalism without the whole thing being socialism--is what we have NOW!

Therefore, any discussion of change has to center on the promises of socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, either one of which might become the next president, to move from *a capitalist society with some socialism* towards just socialism, period.

 

[bekkilyn]

The reason that "the Right" frames the discussion in that way is because what you are advocating--capitalism without the whole thing being socialism--is what we have NOW!

Therefore, any discussion of change has to center on the promises of socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, either one of which might become the next president, to move from *a capitalist society with some socialism* towards just socialism, period.

What we have now leaves too many in the cracks and fewer and fewer people prosper as the favored 1% continue to benefit from the increasing transfer of wealth from the rest of the country to themselves. We can certainly add in a few more "socialist" programs and improve the programs that currently exist without destroying conservative America's favorite idols. There is not a single candidate, Democratic, Republican, or otherwise, including Bernie and Warren, who is proposing eradicating capitalism in favor of pure socialist.

When you have nothing left of your own and you are sitting broken on the curbside of the street after the corporatists and billionaires have taken it all, and you are *still* required to pay taxes and yet get nothing at all back for them, are you still going to be holding tight to that "Trump is God" sign? Please wake up!

 

[hellothere]

do you think social media will destroy capitalism now?

Social media only exists because of capitalism.

 

[Aldebaran]

So social security, roads, the fire department, Medicare, and public parks are socialism, because they aren’t supplemental but the main provider of such services?

Those are governmental functions within a capitalist system, although certain ones such as Social Security (which is on the road to collapse) is one I wouldn't include from your list.

 

[Aldebaran]

When you have nothing left of your own and you are sitting broken on the curbside of the street after the corporatists and billionaires have taken it all, and you are *still* required to pay taxes and yet get nothing at all back for them, are you still going to be holding tight to that "Trump is God" sign? Please wake up!

That sort of rhetoric isn't helpful. First of all, there are no billionaires or corporatists that are going to "take it all". The scenario you paint, however, is already what's being seen in places like Venezuela, North Korea, and Japan (where suicide is higher than in the USA, even without guns). So if socialism is able to keep people from ending up "on the curbside", why is it not working in places where it's already implemented?
And please, don't bother making the "But we're going to do it RIGHT this time!" argument, which is no different than simply saying, "Just trust us".

 

[bekkilyn]

That sort of rhetoric isn't helpful. First of all, there are no billionaires or corporatists that are going to "take it all". The scenario you paint, however, is already what's being seen in places like Venezuela, North Korea, and Japan (where suicide is higher than in the USA, even without guns). So if socialism is able to keep people from ending up "on the curbside", why is it not working in places where it's already implemented?
And please, don't bother making the "But we're going to do it RIGHT this time!" argument, which is no different than simply saying, "Just trust us".

I was wondering about when the #whataboutism of Venezuela, etc. was going to appear when such countries are completely irrelevant to the points being made in the thread.

 

[Aldebaran]

I was wondering about when the #whataboutism of Venezuela, etc. was going to appear when such countries are completely irrelevant to the points being made in the thread.

The points in this thread have been about capitalism versus socialism. Venezuela is a failed socialist state, and therefore relevant to the thread. How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela is an example of what happens under socialism and doesn't become "irrelevant" just because it doesn't support socialism.

 

[Kaon]

The points in this thread have been about capitalism versus socialism. Venezuela is a failed socialist state, and therefore relevant to the thread. How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela is an example of what happens under socialism and doesn't become "irrelevant" just because it doesn't support socialism.

Venezuela is a failed socialist state partly because the West keeps creating proxy wars, destabilizing the economy and inserting puppet regimes without considering collateral. But, that is just part of the geopolitical game. You cannot have a decent socialist state without perfect leadership. Socialism is an idealism, but it is definitely the ideal "government" if the leadership is perfect.

On the other hand, Capitalism works well with corruption - in fact, it needs corruption to thrive. Specifically, Capitalism depends on "word of mouth"/credit, and ego so much so that one puts the capital before the human commodity. As long as people look out for themselves, capitalism stays competitive and works.


Right now, no one has to worry about socialism because global corporatism has indisputable dominance on this plane of existence.

 

[bekkilyn]

The points in this thread have been about capitalism versus socialism. Venezuela is a failed socialist state, and therefore relevant to the thread. How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela is an example of what happens under socialism and doesn't become "irrelevant" just because it doesn't support socialism.

And all the other countries that are relevant to the thread...you know those countries that are basically capitalistic with some socialism...the type of socialism that we're actually talking about on this thread...yes, those...did they all just magically disappear from the earth so that an irrelevant country such as Venezuela is the only other country left to talk about?

 

[bekkilyn]

Right now, no one has to worry about socialism because global corporatism has indisputable dominance on this plane of existence.

And they laugh while they siphon all of our wealth to them while distracting us with fears of "socialism".

 

[Aldebaran]

And all the other countries that are relevant to the thread...you know those countries that are basically capitalistic with some socialism...the type of socialism that we're actually talking about on this thread...yes, those...did they all just magically disappear from the earth so that an irrelevant country such as Venezuela is the only other country left to talk about?

It's just one of the most recent. People tend to forget history far too easily, so bringing up the ones most recent seem to be about all that will get their attention. The Maoism of communist China, or the national socialism of Nazi Germany could be referenced instead, but what's the use if more recent examples, such as Venezuela are going to be ignored?

 

[Sparagmos]

Ah, good! What I would add, then, is that social programs can exist within an overall-capitalist economy without making the whole thing “socialism.” The Right tends to frame the discussion as “capitalism vs socialism” rather than “how much socialism is necessary to keep everyone prosperous under a capitalist economy?” Part of that strategy is to demonize socialism and then label everything they don’t care about that’s publicly-funded as “socialism,” which is what I was afraid you were doing. Very happy to be shown I was wrong!

Lol yeah, I agree with your analysis 100%

 

[bekkilyn]

It's just one of the most recent. People tend to forget history far too easily, so bringing up the ones most recent seem to be about all that will get their attention. The Maoism of communist China, or the national socialism of Nazi Germany could be referenced instead, but what's the use if more recent examples, such as Venezuela are going to be ignored?

Yes they are entirely irrelevant because no one is talking about setting up a system even remotely like Venezuela or communist China. Better and more recent examples would be countries in Scandinavia, parts of Europe, or Canada.

 

[Albion]

Venezuela is a failed socialist state partly because the West keeps creating proxy wars, destabilizing the economy and inserting puppet regimes without considering collateral.

Oh, if it were not for that familiar and untrue claim, Socialism would have to account for its own track record, wouldn't it? Having to do this doesn't say much for the alleged benefits of that system.

Plus, there is no way that any "destabilized economy," even if that were true, necessitates the wholesale violation of human rights such as has occurred in Venezuela and every other Socialist state.

Don't forget the Socialism isn't just the destruction of the upper classes. That much is part of the promise Socialism makes. But when it also destroys the rest of society, that's Socialism as it really is.

 

[gaara4158]

The reason that "the Right" frames the discussion in that way is because what you are advocating--capitalism without the whole thing being socialism--is what we have NOW!

Therefore, any discussion of change has to center on the promises of socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, either one of which might become the next president, to move from *a capitalist society with some socialism* towards just socialism, period.

Well, no. You’re suggesting that the current system is something like 49/51 socialist/capitalist, and any shift towards more socialism tips us into an overall-socialist state, and that’s just patently untrue. It seems you’ve bought into their deceptive framing.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes they are entirely irrelevant because no one is talking about setting up a system even remotely like Venezuela or communist China. Better and more recent examples would be countries in Scandinavia, parts of Europe, or Canada.

Ok, then let's look at Canada. Their health care system is often pointed to as to why we should have a socialist-style health cares system. However, the reality is that it should be pointed to as an example of why NOT to go that direction, whether it be a socialist style health care system, education, housing, etc.
Why Canada’s ‘best’ health-care system just got ranked last — again

Collapse of the Canadian Healthcare System

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/health-care-1.5170948