Socialism: What do we do now?

[Petrolheadia]

I'm skeptical about neo-liberalism being a complete failure. Freer markets have undeniably raised global living standards and has lifted tons of people out of poverty. In economics, self sufficiency is inefficiency. It doesn't make sense to produce a good that can be gotten for cheaper overseas. Lower prices for goods enable Americans to be able to purchase more things from other industries besides groceries or basic goods like clothing. People claim that they want to "buy American" but when given opportunities to do so- they continually choose to buy foreign goods because the allure of "spending less to get more" is too good to pass up.

Free markets have created the illusion of wealth. It is also known as consumerism or conspicuous consumption. Seizing the means of production and collectivizing them is, IMO, the only legitimate alternative to neoliberalism.

consumerism (n.) - a fancy term a communist uses when it's apparent communism can't produce the capitalist standard of living; high standard of life, population's needs met.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nevermind that for many people, the idea of exclusionary nationalism is as repulsive as global capitalism, and adopting it with the accompanying policies will also deny the rights, interests, and justice for a lot people. But I suppose the opinion of filthy rootless cosmopolitans just don't count.

Then those people don't have the interest of the proletariat of their nation and socialism in mind, they're more concerned with social liberalism and pushing that agenda despite it alienating numerous sectors of the working class.

You'd make a trash socialist.

Never try to influence the revolution kthx

[Imperializt Russia]

Free markets have created the illusion of wealth. It is also known as consumerism or conspicuous consumption. Seizing the means of production and collectivizing them is, IMO, the only legitimate alternative to neoliberalism.

consumerism (n.) - a fancy term a communist uses when it's apparent communism can't produce the capitalist standard of living; high standard of life, population's needs met.

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

[The Grim Reaper]

consumerism (n.) - a fancy term a communist uses when it's apparent communism can't produce the capitalist standard of living; high standard of life, population's needs met.

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

I've owned my current phone for...four years, I think, and my phone prior to that for five. Only reason I replaced the one before that was because it was a Nokia flipphone and it was a fair jump from that to a smartphone. I intend to keep this phone until it proper dies or until I get fucked by operating system shenanigans.

I'd wager a bet that most phone upgrades are because of damage to the phone that can't be repaired because of planned obsolescence (i.e. iPhone screens are a fantastic example, or iPhones in general nowadays), and the "might as well" when you pay off your phone on contract and the screen's fucked anyway. I can't imagine most people really caring about any phone specs beyond the screen and the camera - I sure as hell have never been fussed about whether my phone can run a reddit app or the NS mobile site.

The next question, of course, is if the entire smartphone supply chain is sustainable under a socialist system of production (which, again, wouldn't as hell absolve capitalism for hiding the impact of said supply chain on people lower down on the food chain), but we can surely begin by agreeing on some common ground that 'maybe' consumerism describes a not-entirely-necessary facet of the human condition when it's moving labour and land from agriculture to mining bauxite and fucking diamonds for rings and mid-year phone upgrades, even if some of us are going to insist on not letting go of the toys.

[Saiwania]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

Don't buy that new iPhone and Apple won't produce more of it, if no one is buying- the price will fall. I certainly don't buy new hardware every few years. My current laptop- has served me for almost 5 years now, I intend to use it for 3 more years if Windows 7 isn't end of life until 2020. Perhaps I could extend the life of the hardware out even more, should I reformat it with a current Linux OS.

I treat a PC much like one would a car, only instead of "driving it" for 20 years, I probably keep one around for more than 5 years but less than 10. Still a workhorse that can be used for the long haul- unless if it was a cheap buy or piece of junk with weaker hardware specs to begin with.

It does seem that you can get a good computer for less in this day and age- than how it was even 5 years ago. Currently advertised products come with better CPU, more RAM, more hard drive space, and everything. A lot of things have become more expensive over time with inflation, but electronics is not one of these generally speaking; so far as the US market is concerned.

My phone is from 2010 and so long as AT&T still gives phone service to it, I don't exactly need to replace it, even if it isn't a smart phone. I've already acquired another phone which is a smartphone from somebody else who didn't want it, but the cost of ownership is still too high in my opinion- where it doesn't make sense for me to get an Internet data plan for it, unless if that is your only source for internet service and the smartphone supports tethering.

Living the frugal and cheap life and making smart investments, is the shrewd and wise way to live. In the end, chances are- you don't have to spend all of your wealth if you're not at say: minimum wage, and you might be able to do well for yourself. It mainly is a matter of choices.

[Imperializt Russia]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

I've owned my current phone for...four years, I think, and my phone prior to that for five. Only reason I replaced the one before that was because it was a Nokia flipphone and it was a fair jump from that to a smartphone. I intend to keep this phone until it proper dies or until I get fucked by operating system shenanigans.

I'd wager a bet that most phone upgrades are because of damage to the phone that can't be repaired because of planned obsolescence (i.e. iPhone screens are a fantastic example, or iPhones in general nowadays), and the "might as well" when you pay off your phone on contract and the screen's fucked anyway. I can't imagine most people really caring about any phone specs beyond the screen and the camera - I sure as hell have never been fussed about whether my phone can run a reddit app or the NS mobile site.

The next question, of course, is if the entire smartphone supply chain is sustainable under a socialist system of production (which, again, wouldn't as hell absolve capitalism for hiding the impact of said supply chain on people lower down on the food chain), but we can surely begin by agreeing on some common ground that 'maybe' consumerism describes a not-entirely-necessary facet of the human condition when it's moving labour and land from agriculture to mining bauxite and fucking diamonds for rings and mid-year phone upgrades, even if some of us are going to insist on not letting go of the toys.

Under a socialist system of production, there'd probably be no proprietary fittings and lots of plug-and-play upgrade potential.

It sounds like "competition", which you'd note, the capitalist smartphone market has done a very bad job of.

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

Don't buy that new iPhone and Apple won't produce more of it, if no one is buying- the price will fall.

My choices are completely irrelevant, because Apple has a colossal market share. This is a "feel good" adage, since it's clearly not borne out in practice.

[Republican Corentia]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

Don't buy that new iPhone and Apple won't produce more of it, if no one is buying- the price will fall.

That's a fallacious argument. One man refusing to buy an Iphone won't make the price drop.

BTW

No one cares how frugal you are - the theory of socialism is simply not just concerned with the wealth someone currently has, but is largely concerned with problems such as the fact that people who are the producers in society are generally those who don't see the wealth of their production.

[Petrolheadia]

consumerism (n.) - a fancy term a communist uses when it's apparent communism can't produce the capitalist standard of living; high standard of life, population's needs met.

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

[Petrolheadia]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

I've owned my current phone for...four years, I think, and my phone prior to that for five. Only reason I replaced the one before that was because it was a Nokia flipphone and it was a fair jump from that to a smartphone. I intend to keep this phone until it proper dies or until I get fucked by operating system shenanigans.

I'd wager a bet that most phone upgrades are because of damage to the phone that can't be repaired because of planned obsolescence (i.e. iPhone screens are a fantastic example, or iPhones in general nowadays), and the "might as well" when you pay off your phone on contract and the screen's fucked anyway. I can't imagine most people really caring about any phone specs beyond the screen and the camera - I sure as hell have never been fussed about whether my phone can run a reddit app or the NS mobile site.

The next question, of course, is if the entire smartphone supply chain is sustainable under a socialist system of production (which, again, wouldn't as hell absolve capitalism for hiding the impact of said supply chain on people lower down on the food chain), but we can surely begin by agreeing on some common ground that 'maybe' consumerism describes a not-entirely-necessary facet of the human condition when it's moving labour and land from agriculture to mining bauxite and fucking diamonds for rings and mid-year phone upgrades, even if some of us are going to insist on not letting go of the toys.

Let's not make what people want to own, because... fuck them?

[The Grim Reaper]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

Jesus Christ, that point must have frequent flier miles now.

[Petrolheadia]

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

Jesus Christ, that point must have frequent flier miles now.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Tesernia]

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

Jesus Christ, that point must have frequent flier miles now.

It's a decent point, though?

Being able to balance what you want with what you can realistically achieve is a rather important skill to have, yes.

Nobody's going to have the best phone ever. That's fine. If someone feels like they have to burn all their money on some next generation phone with an insufficient amount of testing time, that's their choice. If someone's sensible, they'll realize they won't realistically need that kind of retardedly powerful hardware, and buy a less expensive one.

Leave people to learn that important lesson, or let them fall flat on their face.

[Republican Corentia]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

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

Read this before you keep posting.

[Imperializt Russia]

That eight models of iPhone are released every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when most people can't afford any.

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

Why should a phone have the insane price point that an iPhone does? Even with that price point, the Apple lineup is incredibly anti-consumer (despite its dependence on rabid consumerism to function as a brand) and still relies in slave labour, or what amounts to slave labour.

My new phone was a brand-new release at Christmas, has four times as many processor cores as my ailing laptop and cost a sixth what a new-model iPhone would have. Or Google's new flagship model.
Despite... not being less capable in any meaningful sense.

[The Grim Reaper]

Jesus Christ, that point must have frequent flier miles now.

It's a decent point, though?

Being able to balance what you want with what you can realistically achieve is a rather important skill to have, yes.

Nobody's going to have the best phone ever. That's fine. If someone feels like they have to burn all their money on some next generation phone with an insufficient amount of testing time, that's their choice. If someone's sensible, they'll realize they won't realistically need that kind of retardedly powerful hardware, and buy a less expensive one.

Leave people to learn that important lesson, or let them fall flat on their face.

The point is not about people who really really want phones and just can't afford to buy an iPhone? Like, do you really think this is about imagined whiny latte-sipping hipsters who want socialism to make iPhones cheaper?

This is about systematic market failure and its impact on labour-forces.

IR is not arguing that socialism is necessary to help protect college girls from being untied from Tumblr or any such bullshit. IR is arguing that consumerism itself, and the illusion of choice therein produced, is irrelevant to the discussion if the choice is fundamentally not being made by a significant portion of the workforce involved in a global economy - i.e. people who do not earn enough to own a phone. This isn't about socialism protecting idiot poors from accidentally choosing between an iPhone and central heating.

That you have the power to see capitalism 'innovate' eight models of iPhone every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when a lot people can't afford a smartphone at all. The illusion of choice only exists if one is /already in a position of power/, which means you either need to justify that power or concede the point instead of fallaciously generalizing the benefits of capitalism as a choice-facilitating system to everyone participating in a capitalist system.

I've owned my current phone for...four years, I think, and my phone prior to that for five. Only reason I replaced the one before that was because it was a Nokia flipphone and it was a fair jump from that to a smartphone. I intend to keep this phone until it proper dies or until I get fucked by operating system shenanigans.

I'd wager a bet that most phone upgrades are because of damage to the phone that can't be repaired because of planned obsolescence (i.e. iPhone screens are a fantastic example, or iPhones in general nowadays), and the "might as well" when you pay off your phone on contract and the screen's fucked anyway. I can't imagine most people really caring about any phone specs beyond the screen and the camera - I sure as hell have never been fussed about whether my phone can run a reddit app or the NS mobile site.

The next question, of course, is if the entire smartphone supply chain is sustainable under a socialist system of production (which, again, wouldn't as hell absolve capitalism for hiding the impact of said supply chain on people lower down on the food chain), but we can surely begin by agreeing on some common ground that 'maybe' consumerism describes a not-entirely-necessary facet of the human condition when it's moving labour and land from agriculture to mining bauxite and fucking diamonds for rings and mid-year phone upgrades, even if some of us are going to insist on not letting go of the toys.

Let's not make what people want to own, because... fuck them?

My allegation is that what people want to own is 'a functional phone', and what the market makes available is 'a functional phone that cannot be repaired, hence being an inefficient use of resources only maintained because competing with Apple in a capitalist society is like pissing in the rain and ignoring the flood because at least you have the freedom to point your dick up".

"Making what people want to own" is not what capitalism does. Capitalism makes what produces the most money, no matter how much capitalists do their best to equivocate those two points in a bizarre ouroborous. And that still has NOTHING TO DO with the point that, even if choice is desirable (which I'll happily concede is at the least not incorrect), and even if we make the assumption that capitalism produces genuine choice and not a superficial choice between the lowest-bidder highest-price production chains because it's an incredibly bad system for fostering competition and innovation (see: things like the internet and basically every counterexample people tend to provide that were invented in universities with public funding), it still doesn't justify the fact that capitalism only provides that choice in marketplaces that are profitable in the first place.

Capitalism and infant industries are not savvy with each other, because capitalism shifts capital and labour to immediately profitable goods - this is why so many African countries struggle/d to feed themselves while still having significant agricultural exports and abundant arable land. It's because the agriculture they grow is worth more in money than it is in nutritional value, and it's just sold overseas while the local market is unprofitable. Sustainability takes a backseat when property owners can make more money leveraging their property for cash crops, and so a labourforce can simultaneously make the best personal decision (taking a job) whilst making the worst communal decision (supporting cash crops in competition for the resource commons of land with food crops, hence inflating the cost of food). The whole thing is exacerbated, of course, by the much more successful American agricultural industry, which is heavily subsidized, which is also paid to dump food as foreign aid in African nations whilst with the other hand propping up transnational corporations that perpetuate cashcow economies over sustainable locales.

A favourite counterexample right now, by the way, is SpaceX, which started off by buying Soviet government surplus rockets on Elon Musk's personal funds from the Paypal selloff, and is part of the same conglomerate as Tesla, which as the conservative automobile industry is happy to tell you (see: Lauren Fix) is totally dependent on electric vehicle subsidies to stay competitive. No, if you want a capitalist example of innovation, just take wait five years for the ninth generation Toyota Hilux.

The long and short of it is that you can't untie economics from international relations - the two are entirely intertwined. Capitalism functions by outsourcing its costs to countries for which capitalism can't function (i.e. the left-wing developing world), where central planning is used as a counterbalancing mechanism to support populations unable to support themselves.

[Saiwania]

My choices are completely irrelevant, because Apple has a colossal market share. This is a "feel good" adage, since it's clearly not borne out in practice.

Like I said, if people don't buy Apple's products for another company's, Apple will lose market share and their unsold inventory has nowhere to go but down in price, some profit being better than none. Apple can charge higher prices because apparently their customers overall, feel that their products are worth the price and they're able to pay it. I'm not going to begrudge that, it is Apple fans' own problem if they stick with Apple when there are cheaper alternatives. Apple is far from being some monopoly.

[Petrolheadia]

So they buy a cheaper phone that suits their budget more. Lots of choice - one of the main bonuses of competition.

Why should a phone have the insane price point that an iPhone does? Even with that price point, the Apple lineup is incredibly anti-consumer (despite its dependence on rabid consumerism to function as a brand) and still relies in slave labour, or what amounts to slave labour.

My new phone was a brand-new release at Christmas, has four times as many processor cores as my ailing laptop and cost a sixth what a new-model iPhone would have. Or Google's new flagship model.
Despite... not being less capable in any meaningful sense.

And because of competition, you can buy that better phone you are talking about.

It's a decent point, though?

Being able to balance what you want with what you can realistically achieve is a rather important skill to have, yes.

Nobody's going to have the best phone ever. That's fine. If someone feels like they have to burn all their money on some next generation phone with an insufficient amount of testing time, that's their choice. If someone's sensible, they'll realize they won't realistically need that kind of retardedly powerful hardware, and buy a less expensive one.

Leave people to learn that important lesson, or let them fall flat on their face.

The point is not about people who really really want phones and just can't afford to buy an iPhone? Like, do you really think this is about imagined whiny latte-sipping hipsters who want socialism to make iPhones cheaper?

This is about systematic market failure and its impact on labour-forces.

IR is not arguing that socialism is necessary to help protect college girls from being untied from Tumblr or any such bullshit. IR is arguing that consumerism itself, and the illusion of choice therein produced, is irrelevant to the discussion if the choice is fundamentally not being made by a significant portion of the workforce involved in a global economy - i.e. people who do not earn enough to own a phone. This isn't about socialism protecting idiot poors from accidentally choosing between an iPhone and central heating.

That you have the power to see capitalism 'innovate' eight models of iPhone every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when a lot people can't afford a smartphone at all. The illusion of choice only exists if one is /already in a position of power/, which means you either need to justify that power or concede the point instead of fallaciously generalizing the benefits of capitalism as a choice-facilitating system to everyone participating in a capitalist system.

Let's not make what people want to own, because... fuck them?

My allegation is that what people want to own is 'a functional phone', and what the market makes available is 'a functional phone that cannot be repaired, hence being an inefficient use of resources only maintained because competing with Apple in a capitalist society is like pissing in the rain and ignoring the flood because at least you have the freedom to point your dick up".

"Making what people want to own" is not what capitalism does. Capitalism makes what produces the most money, no matter how much capitalists do their best to equivocate those two points in a bizarre ouroborous. And that still has NOTHING TO DO with the point that, even if choice is desirable (which I'll happily concede is at the least not incorrect), and even if we make the assumption that capitalism produces genuine choice and not a superficial choice between the lowest-bidder highest-price production chains because it's an incredibly bad system for fostering competition and innovation (see: things like the internet and basically every counterexample people tend to provide that were invented in universities with public funding), it still doesn't justify the fact that capitalism only provides that choice in marketplaces that are profitable in the first place.

Capitalism and infant industries are not savvy with each other, because capitalism shifts capital and labour to immediately profitable goods - this is why so many African countries struggle/d to feed themselves while still having significant agricultural exports and abundant arable land. It's because the agriculture they grow is worth more in money than it is in nutritional value, and it's just sold overseas while the local market is unprofitable. Sustainability takes a backseat when property owners can make more money leveraging their property for cash crops, and so a labourforce can simultaneously make the best personal decision (taking a job) whilst making the worst communal decision (supporting cash crops in competition for the resource commons of land with food crops, hence inflating the cost of food). The whole thing is exacerbated, of course, by the much more successful American agricultural industry, which is heavily subsidized, which is also paid to dump food as foreign aid in African nations whilst with the other hand propping up transnational corporations that perpetuate cashcow economies over sustainable locales.

A favourite counterexample right now, by the way, is SpaceX, which started off by buying Soviet government surplus rockets on Elon Musk's personal funds from the Paypal selloff, and is part of the same conglomerate as Tesla, which as the conservative automobile industry is happy to tell you (see: Lauren Fix) is totally dependent on electric vehicle subsidies to stay competitive. No, if you want a capitalist example of innovation, just take wait five years for the ninth generation Toyota Hilux.

The long and short of it is that you can't untie economics from international relations - the two are entirely intertwined. Capitalism functions by outsourcing its costs to countries for which capitalism can't function (i.e. the left-wing developing world), where central planning is used as a counterbalancing mechanism to support populations unable to support themselves.

Capitalism does not support infant industries. It supports competitive industries, and if an infant industry has a price/quality o

In the African nations, a simple export tax would be a solution, because it'd just make trading inside the country more profitable. The existence of situations where straightforward free markets don't work doesn't mean capitalism is 100% bad - it just sometimes needs adjusting.

One can fully compete with Apple - just ask Samsung, LG or HTC.

Also, good you mentioned the Hilux. Would it go past the 1st generation from 1967, without Nissan, Mitsubishi, Ford, Mazda, Land Rover, Chevrolet, Dodge, etc. attacking its position in the midsize pickup market?

[Tesernia]

The point is not about people who really really want phones and just can't afford to buy an iPhone? Like, do you really think this is about imagined whiny latte-sipping hipsters who want socialism to make iPhones cheaper?

It certainly feels like it a lot of the time, given who it is that's whining about it.

This is about systematic market failure and its impact on labour-forces.

The systematic market failure I'm seeing is the exodus of industry into countries where people literally don't have the slightest of ideas about what their labor is worth. Which is more of a damning thing for a globalized world than a capitalist economy.

IR is not arguing that socialism is necessary to help protect college girls from being untied from Tumblr or any such bullshit. IR is arguing that consumerism itself, and the illusion of choice therein produced, is irrelevant to the discussion if the choice is fundamentally not being made by a significant portion of the workforce involved in a global economy - i.e. people who do not earn enough to own a phone. This isn't about socialism protecting idiot poors from accidentally choosing between an iPhone and central heating.

I really don't care about the global workforce. I care about the workforce in the country that I live in. And most of those can afford these luxuries, to some extent.

That you have the power to see capitalism 'innovate' eight models of iPhone every generation is kind of irrelevant to the standard of living when a lot people can't afford a smartphone at all. The illusion of choice only exists if one is /already in a position of power/, which means you either need to justify that power or concede the point instead of fallaciously generalizing the benefits of capitalism as a choice-facilitating system to everyone participating in a capitalist system.

Ｇｏｄｄａｍｎ， ｄｏ Ｉ ｌｏｖｅ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｗｅｒ ｏｆ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｙｏｕｒ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｆａｃｔｏｒｙ ｗｏｒｋｅｒ ｉｎ Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ ｗｈｏ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｌｉｋｅ ｔｏ ｋｅｅｐ ｔｈｅ ｍｅａｇｅｒ ｗａｇｅｓ ｈｅ ｍａｋｅｓ．

[Trotskylvania]

I really don't care about the global workforce. I care about the workforce in the country that I live in. And most of those can afford these luxuries, to some extent.

There is no such thing as a national workforce anymore. There hasn't been for generations.

The laws of capital accumulation have created a global market, with a global labor force. Wages and conditions in China affect wages and conditions in your own country.

[Saiwania]

There is no such thing as a national workforce anymore. There hasn't been for generations. The laws of capital accumulation have created a global market, with a global labor force. Wages and conditions in China affect wages and conditions in your own country.

Not really. Different countries still have different tax codes and labor laws from other nations. Does the US minimum wage ever get lowered, just because wages in Mexico or whatever are lower?

The only variable that has changed is that there are some people who are multinational workers, but those people are in the minority. Most of the US labor force isn't exactly illegal immigrants or people who've legally come in from Canada or overseas. Same is true for the German, French, UK labor market, etc.

Theoretically speaking, countries which have sweatshops aren't supposed to be like that for forever. Once a nation's economy grows to enough of an extent like China's have, that nation doesn't need the sweatshop jobs anymore, their wages are pushed up and the corporation moves onto the next poor country to set up shop. In this way, the entire world is supposed to eventually get to a point where there is much less poverty.

Economic development isn't a uniform process though, it takes a while and is gradual. National economies rise and fall all over the world for any number of reasons, but the hope is that there will be more rises than falls- in tandem with the "up and downs" of the business cycle. Free markets can grow a country out of poverty, but the benefits aren't immediate in that it doesn't take place overnight- and externalities have to be addressed.

Other than some downsides, I can't find a better system than capitalism, which works at growing GDP per capita- which is the standard of living measured in dollars. Deng Xiaoping's reforms for China were a resounding success, in that it made China into a rich country in only a few decades.

[Tesernia]

I really don't care about the global workforce. I care about the workforce in the country that I live in. And most of those can afford these luxuries, to some extent.

There is no such thing as a national workforce anymore. There hasn't been for generations.

The laws of capital accumulation have created a global market, with a global labor force. Wages and conditions in China affect wages and conditions in your own country.

This would be why I'm in favor of putting downright punitive tarriffs on nations that have such an overabundance of cheap labor, to such an extent that producing over there is no longer bringing in a profit.

But no. That wouldn't be nice.

[Orostan]

There is no such thing as a national workforce anymore. There hasn't been for generations.

The laws of capital accumulation have created a global market, with a global labor force. Wages and conditions in China affect wages and conditions in your own country.

This would be why I'm in favor of putting downright punitive tarriffs on nations that have such an overabundance of cheap labor, to such an extent that producing over there is no longer bringing in a profit.

But no. That wouldn't be nice.

Do you really think the United States of America with its corporate dominated congress would actually do that?

[Kramania]

Let your ideology die.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

consumerism (n.) - a fancy term a communist uses when it's apparent communism can't produce the capitalist standard of living; high standard of life, population's needs met.

Well, it is clear where you stand on the issue. Actually, referring to consumerism is a critique of capitalism.

[Michael Johnathan]

Just to clarify I hate socialism. I think it's a dumb idea, but I'll acknowledge it can work. Just on a smaller scale. Co-ops, for example, are phenomenal things. In my ideal world, everything would be a choice. Some businesses would be owned by the employees. Some by one or several individuals. And employees have the choice which they want to work for, buy from, sell to and so on. This is socialism, this is the free market.