Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, NucksRuleYou said:

 

The fact you don't even understand what socialism is, yet try to convince me you know what you are talking about proves how uneducated you are. Nice try.

 

Maybe instead of embarrassing yourself, watch the video I posted, which was put together by someone who is well-educated. Brushing it off is "some youtube video" doesn't make you smart. It makes you sound afraid to have your views challenged.

I don't know how new you are to CDC or this forum for that matter, but this has been discussed so many times over the years. The only difference is those that held your point of view actually provided facts and evidence on why they felt so passionate about their position. You have yet to do so all I see is anger and swearing and telling other people they are uneducated. Calling others uneducated that don't share your viewpoint would be as ridiculous as me saying hey, let's compare annual salaries. Grow up and provide some facts and proof if you want to get my attention.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Ryan Strome

[NucksRuleYou]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

This utter nonsense that corporations don't pay anything lol

 

And you two speak of uneducated is actually fitting. Corporations at a federal, provincial and municipal level pay more in taxes than you will in your entire life. What is your issue that if somebody wants to work a little harder they make more money than you? What is your issue that if somebody wants to spend more time in university they will make a little more money than you? There is opportunities all throughout this country where you can make big money. Go do it rather than trying to convince everybody else They should pay more so you can work less.

 

This is why I said you were uneducated. Because, you know, you are! NOWHERE did I even mention that I am against someone working harder than me and having some more money than me. Enough with the strawmen.

 

Not only do you not understand what socialism is, you don't even fully understand capitalism, either.

[Satchmo]

Socialism on paper has many appealing aspects. Socialism in practice not so much.

 

Capitalism has had some success perhaps because it recognizes greed.   Any political system designed and enacted by humans will be impacted and eventually altered by greedy humans.  

 

Capitalism may have been the most successful because it factors in greed right away.  Democratic capitalism sprinkles in a bit of altruism here and there.

 

Capitalism sucks.   I'm not convinced other options suck less.

 

Couple of other points:

 

- In order for any political system to work it has to be accepted by the majority of the people.  (Sometimes that acceptance comes after guns are pointed but that does not mean the acceptance will last.)   It's almost like you guys are trying to convince us to become Coyotes fans. 

 

- Please stop demanding that we read stuff.   Our opinions are already educated.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, NucksRuleYou said:

 

This is why I said you were uneducated. Because, you know, you are! NOWHERE did I even mention that I am against someone working harder than me and having some more money than me. Enough with the strawmen.

 

Not only do you not understand what socialism is, you don't even fully understand capitalism, either.

Yeah, I don't think that's the case at all. You're the one here arguing for socialism yet you haven't told anybody a thing about it or a fact or any evidence on why it would work. You are just in here yelling loud. I'm going to do like Bob and peace out. This is actually just wasting my time. I can see the type of individual I'm dealing with.

[NucksRuleYou]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

I don't know how new you are to CDC or this forum for that matter, but this has been discussed so many times over the years. The only difference is those that held your point of view actually provided facts and evidence on why they felt so passionate about their position. You have yet to do so all I see is anger and swearing and telling other people they are uneducated. Calling others uneducated that don't share your viewpoint would be as ridiculous as me saying hey, let's compare annual salaries. Grow up and provide some facts and proof if you want to get my attention.

 

Take your own advice. Telling me that rich people love capitalism and don't want socialism is not an argument. Keep your attention to yourself because you have nothing to offer.

[Chicken.]

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, NucksRuleYou said:

 

Take your own advice. Telling me that rich people love capitalism and don't want socialism is not an argument. Keep your attention to yourself because you have nothing to offer.

If you honestly think $100,000 a year is rich. Wow

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Chicken. said:

Or without entering threads You know you will regret and then like a bad habit, you just can't let it go.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Ryan Strome

[NucksRuleYou]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

If you honestly think $100,000 a year is rich. Wow

 

Yeah, I'm done with you. Do what you said you were going to do like your buddy and get lost.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, NucksRuleYou said:

 

Yeah, I'm done with you. Do what you said you were going to do like your buddy and get lost.

Oh no! It's an internet bully. 

[NucksRuleYou]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Oh no! It's an internet bully. 

 

The bully calling me a bully.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, NucksRuleYou said:

 

The bully calling me a bully.

How on earth am I a bully? I just second Bob's call for Facts and proof of your position. Don't get so angry guy. Just offer the facts and proof. I mean maybe you're right. Maybe I should join your team but I need to have facts and proof before I do it no? I feel like you're convincing me the stalinist way..

[NucksRuleYou]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

How on earth am I a bully? I just second Bob's call for Facts and proof of your position. Don't get so angry guy. Just offer the facts and proof. I mean maybe you're right. Maybe I should join your team but I need to have facts and proof before I do it no? I feel like you're convincing me the stalinist way..

 

I've seen your other posts on these forums. Your in no position to be calling others bullies.

 

Stop pretending you care about facts and proof. You've proven you will ignore any other viewpoint.

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, NucksRuleYou said:

 

I've seen your other posts on these forums. Your in no position to be calling others bullies.

 

Stop pretending you care about facts and proof. You've proven you will ignore any other viewpoint.

There is no way I could have proven that. You haven't offered any facts or evidence. Nothing! Seriously, you are trying to convince people by swearing and posting a YouTube video. Tell me why it makes for a better society. I'm asking you a rational question. In fact, you've been asked this twice and you and your partner can't answer this. I mean at least he tried. He just got called out for his bs.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Ryan Strome

[Canuckle]

5 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Socialism on paper has many appealing aspects. Socialism in practice not so much.

 

Capitalism has had some success perhaps because it recognizes greed.   Any political system designed and enacted by humans will be impacted and eventually altered by greedy humans.  

 

Capitalism may have been the most successful because it factors in greed right away.  Democratic capitalism sprinkles in a bit of altruism here and there.

 

Capitalism sucks.   I'm not convinced other options suck less.

 

Couple of other points:

 

- In order for any political system to work it has to be accepted by the majority of the people.  (Sometimes that acceptance comes after guns are pointed but that does not mean the acceptance will last.)   It's almost like you guys are trying to convince us to become Coyotes fans. 

 

- Please stop demanding that we read stuff.   Our opinions are already educated.

 

There's a difference between educated and indoctrinated.

 

Human greed ie. Self-interest is not some scientifically proven aspect of "human nature."   Humans are capable of all sorts of behaviors.

 

We are conditioned and socialized in a world with certain social structures in place-- We are in essence born into bondage and products of our environments.

 

The old nature vs. nurture debate is actually a false dichotomy. Even in terms of genetics at an epi-genetic level, genes are shaped by the external environment. Long story short, in a world that awards selfish, anti social behaviour, a world built on scarcity based private property schemes, greed becomes a natural by product. Not the other way around.

 

And if you change the conditions of the experiment, you get different results. Whether we're talking small scale in the laboratory or the large scale of society itself, you will get different results.

 

In fact the proof is everywhere all around us, even in ways people don't really recognize.

 

If there is a human nature, it's much more likely one of being social animals. For if we weren't inherently social animals, society and humankind wouldn't have survived as long as we have.

 

I posted this earlier but there is a book called "Mutual Aid:  a factor of evolution" that i recommend... well... everyone to read.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

 

Lastly, care to provide your definition

of the word socialism? When you say "socialism in practice not so much" what do you mean specifically?

 

The history of that word is extremely murky so it's good to know where you're coming from when you say those words.

 

Asking in good faith here.

[Ryan Strome]

No thanks. Race to the bottom!

 

 

Socialism

In a socialist economy, every member of society theoretically has equal ownership of the factors of production—natural resources, labor, capital goods, and entrepreneurship—as well as an equal share of the economic output. Based on the belief that human nature is inherently cooperative (rather than competitive), everyone in a socialist society receives a share of profit based on their own contribution, after a portion has been deducted for the common good. Meanwhile, those who cannot contribute are provided for. To facilitate the system, the government controls resources and allocates them where necessary, as in a command economy. Socialism thus eliminates poverty and provides equal access to services like health care and education, but opens itself up to the disadvantages of a command system—total government control over the economy that leads to decreased growth, little innovation, and potential economic instability.

[Bob Long]

44 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

You've mistaken socialism for capitalism, unfortunately.

Nah.

 

What I think you could be missing is the fact that socialism kills personal choice for too many people. It's why it's always failed.

 

A capitalist market economy combined with a strong social safety net is the most successful model people have developed.

 

Your ideas have to be abstracted beyond practicability to be sold to people.

 

 

[Satchmo]

28 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

There's a difference between educated and indoctrinated.

 

Human greed ie. Self-interest is not some scientifically proven aspect of "human nature."   Humans are capable of all sorts of behaviors.

 

We are conditioned and socialized in a world with certain social structures in place-- We are in essence born into bondage and products of our environments.

 

The old nature vs. nurture debate is actually a false dichotomy. Even in terms of genetics at an epi-genetic level, genes are shaped by the external environment. Long story short, in a world that awards selfish, anti social behaviour, a world built on scarcity based private property schemes, greed becomes a natural by product. Not the other way around.

 

And if you change the conditions of the experiment, you get different results. Whether we're talking small scale in the laboratory or the large scale of society itself, you will get different results.

 

In fact the proof is everywhere all around us, even in ways people don't really recognize.

 

If there is a human nature, it's much more likely one of being social animals. For if we weren't inherently social animals, society and humankind wouldn't have survived as long as we have.

 

I posted this earlier but there is a book called "Mutual Aid:  a factor of evolution" that i recommend... well... everyone to read.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

 

Lastly, care to provide your definition

of the word socialism? When you say "socialism in practice not so much" what do you mean specifically?

 

The history of that word is extremely murky so it's good to know where you're coming from when you say those words.

 

Asking in good faith here.

Nope.  I'm just not going to go there.  Take that as you will, and flame away as you wish.

 

 

It's not that I don't think I could debate all this.  I just don't think it would result in anything either of us would be happy with, or that it would accomplish much.   And recent experience shows it would chew up a great amount of time (which is in very short supply for me today.)

 

I said what I said and stand by it.  That's how I feel. You have every right to disagree.

 

See you at puck drop. Go Canucks Go  

 

Edit: in addition to what I said above, another factor in my refusal is that the opening line of your post really pissed me off.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Satchmo

[Playoff Beered]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

That's for sure. I was in the US politics thread trying to discuss the oligarchical power structure and how it affects the US system and  @Bob Long

 @Playoff Beered

 

we're doing the funniest fucking chicken dance I've ever seen in my life.   If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport they'd clean up the gold in every category. No doubt about it.

 

You're so full of it. Asking for a working example is a funny fucking chicken dance, huh? And you still haven't provided any examples, even though you specifically stated someone should make this thread for exactly that reason. You and @NucksRuleYou are nothing but angry blowhards.

BEEP BEEP

Edited October 11, 2023 by Playoff Beered

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, Satchmo said:

Nope.  I'm just not going to go there.  Take that as you will, and flame away as you wish.

 

 

It's not that I don't think I could debate all this.  I just don't think it would result in anything either of us would be happy with, or that it would accomplish much.   And recent experience shows it would chew up a great amount of time (which is in very short supply for me today.)

 

I said what I said and stand by it.  That's how I feel. You have every right to disagree.

 

See you at puck drop. Go Canucks Go  

 

Edit: in addition to what I said above, another factor in my refusal is that the opening line of your post really pissed me off.

 

Look. You want to make a claim of being "educated" on the topic but then quickly follow it with similar tired old cold war speak? What do you expect.

 

I provided the opportunity to explain your definition of the term. If you want to say "in practice not so much" so you obviously have some idea in mind when you say that. Back it up. That's just how you "feel" ? Feelings don't matter here. But facts do.

 

Let's keep it there.

 

But if you want to bow out that's fine. I expect you'll refrain from commenting further on the topic in the thread... right?

1 hour ago, Playoff Beered said:

 

You're so full of it. Asking for a working example is a funny fucking chicken dance, huh? And you still haven't provided any examples, even though you specifically stated someone should make this thread for exactly that reason. You and @NucksRuleYou are nothing but angry blowhards.

BEEP BEEP

 

 

I'm not getting in a car with you. Lol

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

Nah.

 

What I think you could be missing is the fact that socialism kills personal choice for too many people. It's why it's always failed.

Yah. You've mistaken capitalism for socialism.

 

Talking about "choice" is pretty rich. What choices do people have under capitalism? The ability to buy 400 different flavours of ice creams?

 

Working people don't have much choice at all when it comes to the economic determinism built into the system. End of story.

 

Secondly, if you want to say "socialism does this or that" I'll pose the same question to you as I did the other user.

 

Define socialism.

 

If you want to talk like you KNOW what it is, what it does, what it can or cannot do, let's put your knowledge to the test.

 

Thirdly, no. That's not why "it's always failed."  And the claim is wrong to begin with.  It hasn't always failed. Christ socialism is all around you and you don't even realize it.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

A capitalist market economy combined with a strong social safety net is the most successful model people have developed.

 

No. That's certainly what the beneficiaries of the system sure love to tell themselves and others though.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

Your ideas have to be abstracted beyond practicability to be sold to people.

 

Not really. All you have to do is get people to actually look at it without all that indocrinated cold war bs preventing them from giving it a chance.

 

And once they realize what it is, they realize why people like yourself and the state fight so hard against people knowing it. 

 

Knowledge is power.

@Bob Long

 

___________

 

Why are all my comments being merged into one @Ribs

 

What's going on here? lol

Edited October 11, 2023 by Canuckle

[Bob Long]

41 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Look. You want to make a claim of being "educated" on the topic but then quickly follow it with similar tired old cold war speak? What do you expect.

 

I provided the opportunity to explain your definition of the term. If you want to say "in practice not so much" so you obviously have some idea in mind when you say that. Back it up. That's just how you "feel" ? Feelings don't matter here. But facts do.

 

Let's keep it there.

 

But if you want to bow out that's fine. I expect you'll refrain from commenting further on the topic in the thread... right?

 

 

I'm not getting in a car with you. Lol

Yah. You've mistaken capitalism for socialism.

 

Talking about "choice" is pretty rich. What choices do people have under capitalism? The ability to buy 400 different flavours of ice creams?

 

Working people don't have much choice at all when it comes to the economic determinism built into the system. End of story.

 

Secondly, if you want to say "socialism does this or that" I'll pose the same question to you as I did the other user.

 

Define socialism.

 

If you want to talk like you KNOW what it is, what it does, what it can or cannot do, let's put your knowledge to the test.

 

Thirdly, no. That's not why "it's always failed."  And the claim is wrong to begin with.  It hasn't always failed. Christ socialism is all around you and you don't even realize it.

 

 

No. That's certainly what the beneficiaries of the system sure love to tell themselves and others though.

 

 

Not really. All you have to do is get people to actually look at it without all that indocrinated cold war bs preventing them from giving it a chance.

 

And once they realize what it is, they realize why people like yourself and the state fight so hard against people knowing it. 

 

Knowledge is power.

 

Social programs are not socialism as a political governance structure. Is that where you're off the rails?

 

Who do you define as "working people"? E.g., what income or education level does that mean for you?

 

You say you want to 'fight the state' but all you are arguing for is an inferior governance model. 

 

Again I challenge you, show me a simple example of a socialist government being successful. 

 

I'll even help you. Tommy Douglas helped bring in a terrific social program. But he did it within a capitalist economy. Show me a similar example now, but with a truly socialist government running things. 

 

And if you can't, just admit it. If it's all still in the realm of theory, just say so. 

 

 

 

[Satchmo]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

 

Look. You want to make a claim of being "educated" on the topic but then quickly follow it with similar tired old cold war speak? What do you expect.

 

I provided the opportunity to explain your definition of the term. If you want to say "in practice not so much" so you obviously have some idea in mind when you say that. Back it up. That's just how you "feel" ? Feelings don't matter here. But facts do.

 

Let's keep it there.

 

But if you want to bow out that's fine. I expect you'll refrain from commenting further on the topic in the thread... right?

 

 

I'm not getting in a car with you. Lol

Ok here we go again (quickly 'cos I gotta go.)

 

Never said I was educated at some high level.  Educated certainly.   The comment I made was mostly due to pain from being constantly urged to read things.

 

Socialism on paper: Marx, Engels, Lenin.   I'm sure your list is much longer.   I have not read any of that stuff since the late seventies so that may be another thing you will question.   I think they all propose some good stuff.

 

Socialism in practice:  Well Russia.  Not in Cold War speak as that does not apply.  (Good chirp though).   Russia gave birth to socialism but with Bolsheviks as midwife.  it went down hill from the get go.   Stalin and his cronies made it worse.  Then came the cold war.

 

There are many other countries that could be discussed, but I gotta go.

 

If/when you respond, please explain this line:

There's a difference between educated and indoctrinated.

 

If you do have time, please also explain the differences between the phrases 'I think' and 'I feel' in conversational English.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Satchmo

[Ribs]

50 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Look. You want to make a claim of being "educated" on the topic but then quickly follow it with similar tired old cold war speak? What do you expect.

 

I provided the opportunity to explain your definition of the term. If you want to say "in practice not so much" so you obviously have some idea in mind when you say that. Back it up. That's just how you "feel" ? Feelings don't matter here. But facts do.

 

Let's keep it there.

 

But if you want to bow out that's fine. I expect you'll refrain from commenting further on the topic in the thread... right?

 

 

I'm not getting in a car with you. Lol

Yah. You've mistaken capitalism for socialism.

 

Talking about "choice" is pretty rich. What choices do people have under capitalism? The ability to buy 400 different flavours of ice creams?

 

Working people don't have much choice at all when it comes to the economic determinism built into the system. End of story.

 

Secondly, if you want to say "socialism does this or that" I'll pose the same question to you as I did the other user.

 

Define socialism.

 

If you want to talk like you KNOW what it is, what it does, what it can or cannot do, let's put your knowledge to the test.

 

Thirdly, no. That's not why "it's always failed."  And the claim is wrong to begin with.  It hasn't always failed. Christ socialism is all around you and you don't even realize it.

 

 

No. That's certainly what the beneficiaries of the system sure love to tell themselves and others though.

 

 

Not really. All you have to do is get people to actually look at it without all that indocrinated cold war bs preventing them from giving it a chance.

 

And once they realize what it is, they realize why people like yourself and the state fight so hard against people knowing it. 

 

Knowledge is power.

@Bob Long

 

___________

 

Why are all my comments being merged into one @Ribs

 

What's going on here? lol

 

If you make a certain number of comments at the same time the system will just automatically group them together.

[Canuckle]

@Bob Long

 

"Social programs are not socialism as a political governance structure. Is that where you're off the rails?"

 

Never said they were. In fact I would greatly oppose the claim "socialism is when the government does stuff."

 

I'm still asking you to define the term though. And yes, socialism is still around you.

 

"Who do you define as "working people"? E.g., what income or education level does that mean for you?"

 

Social stratification may be defined differently depending on who you subscribe to. For example Max Weber views it though a lense of class, status and power.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification

 

But in Marxist terms it's about ones relationship to capital-- the property/ labour relationship.

 

In otherwords, those that have to sell their labor to another to survive, and those that don't.

 

Income levels, education levels don't matter so much as the fundamental relationship between property-- Exploited proletariat with nothing to sell but their labour is all the same regardless of the particular division of labour creating something for someone else to profit from.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

 

"You say you want to 'fight the state' but all you are arguing for is an inferior governance model."

 

Ah, I think you just answered my question from earlier. It appears you think I'm advocating state ownership of the means of production? And that is "socialism" ?

 

That is certainly not my position nor would I follow the red fascists of the USSR or the state capitalism of "Communist" China. That would be a gross misreading. I'm not a tankie dude.

 

I'm an anarchist.

 

See this is stuff we really need to unpack here. That murky history of socialism and what terms actually mean

 

"Again I challenge you, show me a simple example of a socialist government being successful."

 

Who ever said I was arguing against that?  "Socialist" and "government" are frankly oxymoronical terms when you get into it. But already thinking in terms of "state" and "government" control is already sending us astray.

 

"And if you can't, just admit it. If it's all still in the realm of theory, just say so."

 

Socialism is and always has been at the core THE WORKERS OWNING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

 

Can you think of anywhere that exists?

If you think it's "just theory" you haven't really been paying attention.

 

These organizations exist all over the place- they are all around you. Where top down structure, and labour exploitation does not occur.

 

How people go about implementing and growing these organization on a larger scale is another question. And there are obviously differing ideas on how to do that.

35 minutes ago, Ribs said:

 

If you make a certain number of comments at the same time the system will just automatically group them together.

 

Ah okay good to know . Thanks for reply. Appreciate it. : )

 

Also damn I didn't think I was replying all that fast to them all. Lol

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

@Bob Long

 

"Social programs are not socialism as a political governance structure. Is that where you're off the rails?"

 

Never said they were. In fact I would greatly oppose the claim "socialism is when the government does stuff."

 

I'm still asking you to define the term though. And yes, socialism is still around you.

 

"Who do you define as "working people"? E.g., what income or education level does that mean for you?"

 

Social stratification may be defined differently depending on who you subscribe to. For example Max Weber views it though a lense of class, status and power.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification

 

But in Marxist terms it's about ones relationship to capital-- the property/ labour relationship.

 

In otherwords, those that have to sell their labor to another to survive, and those that don't.

 

Income levels, education levels don't matter so much as the fundamental relationship between property-- Exploited proletariat with nothing to sell but their labour is all the same regardless of the particular division of labour creating something for someone else to profit from.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

 

"You say you want to 'fight the state' but all you are arguing for is an inferior governance model."

 

Ah, I think you just answered my question from earlier. It appears you think I'm advocating state ownership of the means of production? And that is "socialism" ?

 

That is certainly not my position nor would I follow the red fascists of the USSR or the state capitalism of "Communist" China. That would be a gross misreading. I'm not a tankie dude.

 

I'm an anarchist.

 

See this is stuff we really need to unpack here. That murky history of socialism and what terms actually mean

 

"Again I challenge you, show me a simple example of a socialist government being successful."

 

Who ever said I was arguing against that?  "Socialist" and "government" are frankly oxymoronical terms when you get into it. But already thinking in terms of "state" and "government" control is already sending us astray.

 

"And if you can't, just admit it. If it's all still in the realm of theory, just say so."

 

Socialism is and always has been at the core THE WORKERS OWNING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

 

Can you think of anywhere that exists?

If you think it's "just theory" you haven't really been paying attention.

 

These organizations exist all over the place- they are all around you. Where top down structure, and labour exploitation does not occur.

 

How people go about implementing and growing these organization on a larger scale is another question. And there are obviously differing ideas on how to do that.

 

Ah okay good to know . Thanks for reply. Appreciate it. : )

 

Also damn I didn't think I was replying all that fast to them all. Lol

 

OK so I'm not ignoring your other points but I'd like to pick up on this one idea because this is where I can't square what you're saying. (as far as definitions of "socialism" there are many - thats part of the problem imo).

 

You talk about people owning the 'means of production'. Not sure thats actually possible anymore with globalization but lets say it is for the sake of argument. 

 

One of the best ways that can happen is worker-owned co-ops, an economic idea that I love. Works exceptionally well. But it can't work well in a vacuum, it needs an organized market to operate in. 

 

But how is that compatible with anarchist political philosophy? how does an anarchist advocate for worker co-op's thriving in a global market economy? 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Bob Long