Democratic Socialism in the U.S and How to Pay for It?

[Great Minarchistan]

REALLY?

You telling me a successful business owner couldn't afford this?

Clearly it’s too costly to uphold safety standards for employees, I mean, industry totally collapsed after the introduction of labor laws. ;^}

Read my point straight, I said that industrialists can't afford every sort of safety currently available when the accumulated capital is extremely scarce.

[Torrocca]

Clearly it’s too costly to uphold safety standards for employees, I mean, industry totally collapsed after the introduction of labor laws. ;^}

Read my point straight, I said that industrialists can't afford every sort of safety currently available when the accumulated capital is extremely scarce.

[Great Minarchistan]

Ending something untrue with QED doesn't make it any less untrue.

Basic human rights aren't something to be accomplished, they just exist. No capital needs to be accumulated for workers to be afforded freedom from being trapped in machines. We didn't have to go through a period of using child labour in order to accumulate enough capital to eliminate child labour, we just prioritised using children to accumulate capital over respecting the right of children to not work.

Get real. Asking for "basic human rights" on poor places like Ethiopia where all resources possible are being used to avoid a total catastrophe by starvation will yield a good laugh from those around you. Not that human rights are important, they're pretty much dwarfed by natural and fundamental rights inherent to the country's Constitution.
tl;dr: Paraphrasing Frank Underwood, "You are entitled to nothing. [...] you build your future, it isn't handed to you."

[Wysten]

1. Except it really isn't.

2. Just like the Soviet Union wasn't true Communism, nor China, nor Vietnam, nor any of the hundreds of other socialist and proclaimed "Communist" states in the world both past, present, and future.

3. In fact, by your definition, the only true "Communism" that was ever attempted on a national level was CNT FAI, and even that's debated as it was more of a syndicalist system.

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

[West Leas Oros 2]

1. Except it really isn't.

2. Just like the Soviet Union wasn't true Communism, nor China, nor Vietnam, nor any of the hundreds of other socialist and proclaimed "Communist" states in the world both past, present, and future.

3. In fact, by your definition, the only true "Communism" that was ever attempted on a national level was CNT FAI, and even that's debated as it was more of a syndicalist system.

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

Tbf, “communism” is not a monolithic concept, neither is “socialism” or “capitalism”. Not every communist agrees with all of those ideals.

[Torrocca]

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

No they're not.

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

Tbf, “communism” is not a monolithic concept, neither is “socialism” or “capitalism”. Not every communist agrees with all of those ideals.

I don't consider Marxist-Leninists and their derivatives to be real Communists, but I digress.

[Firaxin]

REALLY?

You telling me a successful business owner couldn't afford this?

The GDPpc in Britain, 1700 was eighteen times lower than the current level (yes, adjusted for inflation). Plus capital accumulation doesn't happen solely on a yearly basis, but rather over time i.e. the capital stock by then was pretty much depleted.

Look I can give you the fact that they couldn't do everything we have today, as technological advancements are required for many of them, but they had to have at least been able to allow workers to leave after 8 hours of work.

[Hammer Britannia]

1. Except it really isn't.

2. Just like the Soviet Union wasn't true Communism, nor China, nor Vietnam, nor any of the hundreds of other socialist and proclaimed "Communist" states in the world both past, present, and future.

3. In fact, by your definition, the only true "Communism" that was ever attempted on a national level was CNT FAI, and even that's debated as it was more of a syndicalist system.

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

1. OK then, the USSR is communism now. Why? Because a Communist on NationStates said so.
2. But, nah, a system of government where government actively sucks businesses and businesses suck government is "acshcutally tru capitalizm guys, totallly"

[West Leas Oros 2]

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

I actually agree, in regards to the state, at least. A society simply cannot function without an effective governing body, something anarchism could not effectively create.

[Great Minarchistan]

Read my point straight, I said that industrialists can't afford every sort of safety currently available when the accumulated capital is extremely scarce.

For some awkward reason Amazon has a high job turnover rate, therefore being almost instantly avoided by workers.

[Torrocca]

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

1. OK then, the USSR is communism now. Why? Because a Communist on NationStates said so.
2. But, nah, a system of government where government actively sucks businesses and businesses suck government is "acshcutally tru capitalizm guys, totallly"

1. Nah.
2. It definitely is, going off the Smithian idea that Capitalism and the country are inherently intertwined :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

Look I can give you the fact that they couldn't do everything we have today, as technological advancements are required for many of them, but they had to have at least been able to allow workers to leave after 8 hours of work.

Could they? Back in a time where overhead costs were so large relative to accumulated capital that you had to spread it out through higher worktime?

[Skarten]

You know, it could work.
I mean, aren't you american gringos with obesity problems? Socialism would fix that in a second! You'll be as thin as a african child that appears on these facebook posts!
And while we're at it, let's just tax the rich 100% (I'm sure they'll stay here), get rid of the military and skyrocket the debt!

HOOORAY FOR SOCIALISM!



USSR Anthem Starts playing

Ah, the smell of straw in the morning.

Ah,the smell of r/woosh in the morning.

Also socialism still doesn't work

[West Leas Oros 2]

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

No they're not.

Tbf, “communism” is not a monolithic concept, neither is “socialism” or “capitalism”. Not every communist agrees with all of those ideals.

I don't consider Marxist-Leninists and their derivatives to be real Communists, but I digress.

Uh, Torrocca, that sounds an awful lot like a no true Scotsman.

[Torrocca]

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

I actually agree, in regards to the state, at least. A society simply cannot function without an effective governing body, something anarchism could not effectively create.

>TFW self-governance isn't governance

oof

For some awkward reason Amazon has a high job turnover rate, therefore being almost instantly avoided by workers.

Gee it might have to do with the lack of worker rights being afforded to workers? Who'd'a thunk?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Ah, the smell of straw in the morning.

Ah,the smell of r/woosh in the morning.

Also socialism still doesn't work

Mate, that is by far the saddest straw man I’ve ever seen.

[Torrocca]

No they're not.



I don't consider Marxist-Leninists and their derivatives to be real Communists, but I digress.

Uh, Torrocca, that sounds an awful lot like a no true Scotsman.

Nah, I'm coming at this from the interpretations Marxist-Leninists have of Marxism. That being, namely, a complete non-interpretation of what he actually had to say in the Communist Manifesto and in Das Kapital.

[Thanatttynia]

Ending something untrue with QED doesn't make it any less untrue.

Basic human rights aren't something to be accomplished, they just exist. No capital needs to be accumulated for workers to be afforded freedom from being trapped in machines. We didn't have to go through a period of using child labour in order to accumulate enough capital to eliminate child labour, we just prioritised using children to accumulate capital over respecting the right of children to not work.

Get real. Asking for "basic human rights" on poor places like Ethiopia where all resources possible are being used to avoid a total catastrophe by starvation will yield a good laugh from those around you. Not that human rights are important, they're pretty much dwarfed by natural and fundamental rights inherent to the country's Constitution.
tl;dr: Paraphrasing Frank Underwood, "You are entitled to nothing. [...] you build your future, it isn't handed to you."

Point being that capitalism rewards privileging the accumulation of capital over basic human rights (in your example, so as to avoid starvation.)

'Not that human rights are important' lol! Imagine thinking that each nation has a special right to define which human rights are important within the arbitrary imaginary lines that define their territory.

You're not supposed to base your political philosophy off Frank Underwood (who in any case is a second-rate Francis Urquhart.) I think you misunderstood that show.

[Great Minarchistan]

Gee it might have to do with the lack of worker rights being afforded to workers? Who'd'a thunk?

QED.

[Ifreann]

It's still better than what the right-"Libertarians" are proposing, friendo! You know it to be true c:

Fully automated luxury space capitalism?

Fully automated luxury gay space communism.

---

Give them what industrialists can give them.

Unless you mean for automation, I would suggest UBI until transhumanism is achievable.

Every man king achievable?

Every man a murderbot.

---

Huh, I guess that explains why Blair Mountain, Ludlow, and so on and so forth and so on and so forth and so on and so forth never happened, amirite??? :^)

The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, best-organized, and most well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War.[3]

The conflict occurred in Logan County, West Virginia, as part of the Coal Wars, a series of early-20th-century labor disputes in Appalachia. Tensions rose between workers and mine management, and for five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[4] who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired[5] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.[6]

The Ludlow Massacre was a labor conflict: the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards attacked a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914, with the National Guard using machine guns to fire into the colony.

Someone's mistaking who murdered who, take off your bias glasses :^)

The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, best-organized, and most well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War.[3]

The conflict occurred in Logan County, West Virginia, as part of the Coal Wars, a series of early-20th-century labor disputes in Appalachia. Tensions rose between workers and mine management, and for five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[4] who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired[5] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.[6]

The Ludlow Massacre was a labor conflict: the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel and Iron Company guards attacked a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914, with the National Guard using machine guns to fire into the colony.

"I-it was all the government! Pay no attention to the Pinkertons!"

[West Leas Oros 2]

I actually agree, in regards to the state, at least. A society simply cannot function without an effective governing body, something anarchism could not effectively create.

>TFW self-governance isn't governance

oof

For some awkward reason Amazon has a high job turnover rate, therefore being almost instantly avoided by workers.

Gee it might have to do with the lack of worker rights being afforded to workers? Who'd'a thunk?

Not effective governance, no. It sounds ironic, coming from a “fookin demsoc”, but I am of the belief that anarchism is inevitably doomed to failure because, news flash, it turns out that in the absence of a real authority, people generally do some shitty things.

[Thanatttynia]

1. But it is, according to a bunch of pro-free marketers around here.
2. There's a much better argument for those not being Communism than a Capitalist system acshcutally being "Corporatism" or whatever the word of the day is. Namely, in the fact that Communism advocates for a stateless, moneyless, classless society, and that none of those places were any of that at all.
3. I've literally never said that before lmao.

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

Checkmate, socialists, people who advocate non-lobster-based societies are all phonies

[Happsborough]

I think a great idea is to knock off a couple Bill from the military. Really, we don't much need that much anyway, even if we halve our spending we'd be in the top by a LARGE margin. Plus, our current numbers of vehicles and things (the REALLY expensive stuff) is fine, and by 220 or so will be even greater. That funding is basically sitting unused, and probably won't be for a long while. So, why not divert that, as well as a few tax adjustments (for the super-rich who are still getting continuous income and such) into at least a baseline social healthcare, and a greater healthcare system beyond that with rewards for those who pay, extra veteran benefits, etc.

[Wysten]

2. Cannot and will not happen because people are naturally drawn towards hierarchies and nations.

Checkmate, socialists, people who advocate non-lobster-based societies are all phonies

Tbf I'm more of a crab guy myself.

[Wysten]

I think a great idea is to knock off a couple Bill from the military. Really, we don't much need that much anyway, even if we halve our spending we'd be in the top by a LARGE margin. Plus, our current numbers of vehicles and things (the REALLY expensive stuff) is fine, and by 220 or so will be even greater. That funding is basically sitting unused, and probably won't be for a long while. So, why not divert that, as well as a few tax adjustments (for the super-rich who are still getting continuous income and such) into at least a baseline social healthcare, and a greater healthcare system beyond that with rewards for those who pay, extra veteran benefits, etc.

[Insert comment on how the US military is a minority in terms of spending]