Socialists?

[wellthathappened]

bunch of shit

I like how you mask subjective views as objective facts.

 

[Y2K Baby]

I like how you mask subjective views as objective facts.

That's just politics, retar.do.

 

[HolocaustDenier]

Nothing that requires the labor of another human being can be a right. If your "right" compels another to act, it is slavery.

 

[Emperor Julian]

There is a massive difference between a necessary service like armies and police, courts, and businesses. You cant compare cops to a department of caffeinated beverages subsuming all coffee companies. Show me a society that has everything run by companies.

Who said anything about a department of caffinated beverages? A goverment service Department of caffinated beverages ensure that the Nestle don't replace 50% of the coffee with sawdust will do fine .

So you want to be able to vote for every single public office and you think that will make things run well? To what level? are you talking local elections for your head of the local department of caffeinated beverages or the entire thing, and will you do this for every single new government monopoly?

Well their's no need monopoly under democratic socialism because private business is still permited, you can argue for certain services to be state controlled for example public transport but their's little practical incentive to create a state monopoly. For example local goverment in the area I live in maintains overall control over the local tram network which remain cheeper and frankly more efficiant than the privitised bus service.
And for those services which are state controlled you can pretty much vote for the people who hold such companies accountable.

Define barely functional? And profits coming in means the system is working, that they are providing a product people want. Your citation is a business that went defunct in 9 years. No one is talking about unregulated anything so its not relevant here. Just outline your ideal system for me of socialism.

Nestle, American internet service providers, Mylan drug company. No it means it's working for the company-to explore your arguement, if a department of caffeinated beverages was linging their pockets with cash racked in and their product was overpriced shit by your standards but was providing product and didnt implode would it count as a success?
I used the company as an obvious example of Abuse, I can think of more up to date examples and refered to Nestle. Plus you're only half correct, the company itself was bought up into another one so it didnt go away it was just absorbed by another company, which im sure is a consolation to all those people born without legs. Actually it's quite relavent, Democratic socialism is effectively defined by increased regulation rather than the removal of corporations, the biggest point of contention is what products are actually necessities so cannot be trusted to corporation. For example I consider Electricity a vital neccesity and consider the false economy costs of privitized transport a massive problem.
To answer their is no ideal system of democratic socialism, especially as a democratic society some short sighted fool can just burn the system down if they get voted in-which the Tories have been doing with a great of success since the 80's. But ideally some state controlled services depending on neccesity backed up by strong regulatory practices to prevent corporate abuse. As I said previously once we both agree on some state services we're effectively just arguing where the buck stops. I'm perfectly happy for Nestle and Starbucks to continue making shitty coffee and turn a profit, I'd just like the goverment to make them stop using child laboursince they can't be trusted to do it themselves and make them pay their taxes.

I like how you mask subjective views as objective facts.

Well I've provided examples, rationale and even a citation but you're are correct my politics is subjective as opposed to everyone else who are using indisputable FACTS AND LOGIC.

Nothing that requires the labor of another human being can be a right. If your "right" compels another to act, it is slavery.

By that logic enforcement of property law is slavery, assuming you conceed that Granny probably needs the cops to stop someone stealing her stuff.

 

[ButterBar]

Who said anything about a department of caffinated beverages? A goverment service Department of caffinated beverages ensure that the Nestle don't replace 50% of the coffee with sawdust will do fine .

When you said you are a socialist. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Congratulations, you arent one because we already have the FDA doing exactly what you want.

Democratic socialism is effectively defined by increased regulation rather than the removal of corporations,

Social Democracy, you mean. Democratic Socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production under an elected ruler. Venezuela, for example, is a Democratic Socialist nation. If you dont actually want to have the government owning all major private corporations, you aren't a socialist.

For example I consider Electricity a vital neccesity and consider the false economy costs of privitized transport a massive problem.

Wait so you think cars are a massive problem? You know the best mass transportation in the world is private right?

As I said previously once we both agree on some state services we're effectively just arguing where the buck stops.

Services stop at police, emergency services, the military and maybe roads.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

Services stop at police, emergency services, the military and maybe roads.

Ah, a neo-confederate libertarian.

Hey if you had a medical emergency, wouldn't you want a real doctor who actually graduated medical school to see you? Or are you just okay with your care being provided by an unlicensed sawbones.

God damn big gubmint.

 

[ButterBar]

Ah, a neo-confederate libertarian.

A what now?

Hey if you had a medical emergency, wouldn't you want a real doctor who actually graduated medical school to see you? Or are you just okay with your care being provided by an unlicensed sawbones.

God damn big gubmint.

Has nothing to do with anything I said. I said services provided by the government. Im more than fine with regulating companies with things like licensing and making sure doctors are qualified. They can also go through a private medical school and be in a private hospital. Theres a difference between a service and a regulation.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

Has nothing to do with anything I said. I said services provided by the government. Im more than fine with regulating companies with things like licensing and making sure doctors are qualified. They can also go through a private medical school and be in a private hospital. Theres a difference between a service and a regulation.

Please explain to me why medical licensing is not a service to the population provided by state governments.

 

[ButterBar]

Please explain to me why medical licensing is not a service to the population provided by state governments.

Medical licensing is a regulation. You arent providing an economic service there as it actually serves to put a choke on providing medical services in the interest of increasing quality, and it isnt a public service as society as a whole doesn't pay for it, the individual pursuing their medical license does. You dont actually need medical licensing to be a doctor. Being a doctor just means you are employed to provide medical care to people. When we had little to no medical licensing a lot of the time barbers were also doctors, but making licensing a thing makes it so you cant be a doctor as a side gig to cutting hair in the interest of making it so that doctors are more qualified.

Police are a public service because everyone pays for it through taxes and they work to serve the whole of their jurisdiction by enforcing the law. licensing specifically isnt, but healthcare as a whole can be if it is put under a public system.

Regulation is broadly defined as imposition of rules by government, backed by the use of penalties that are intended specifically to modify the economic behaviour of individuals and firms in the private sector.

Medical licensing is a rule imposed by the government that contains criminal and civil penalties intended to modify the economic behavior of healthcare practitioners and consumers to ensure they meet a standard of quality in their care.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

and it isnt a public service as society as a whole doesn't pay for it, the individual pursuing their medical license does.

Uhh who do you think pays for the NPDB?

 

[ButterBar]

Uhh who do you think pays for the NPDB?

That isnt a medical license, thats a database for malpractice and complaints that can be used to revoke a license. That's another regulation. The license itself is still paid for largely by the person pursuing a medical degree.

 

[Emperor Julian]

When you said you are a socialist. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Congratulations, you arent one because we already have the FDA doing exactly what you want.

Well I never specifically stated my ideological slant in the thread, but it can be infered I'm a democratic socialist from our conversation so far and democratic socialism. But your statement gross simplification I'm actually in favour of decentralized economics with an emphasis on worker owned business but I'm willing to tolerate shitty mega corps as long as they're kept on a tight leash which not an uncommon sentiment amoung democratic socialism.
They're not doing a very good job though are they? Some of the shit which goes on in the US food industry is genuine disturbing to the point it's one of the primary fears of the trans atlantic trade pact. If I'd have been you I'd have used that one against me there.

Social Democracy, you mean. Democratic Socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production under an elected ruler. Venezuela, for example, is a Democratic Socialist nation. If you dont actually want to have the government owning all major private corporations, you aren't a socialist.

Well that's factually wrong because Certain types of socialism favour decentralized social structures.
I know this is a waste of time because no one ever admits error or even pulls back online but frankly if you're going to engage in semantic wrangling about what I actually am to such a degree then maybe it's time to call it a day? Not in the least because you didnt really touch on the our previous primary point of discussion-corporations are inherantly less trustworthy than goverment services, at all.

Wait so you think cars are a massive problem? You know the best mass transportation in the world is private right?

, c

I didnt mention cars at all, I mentioned privitised public transport. Maybe I should have been clearer. You don't say which service you're talking about so I'm going to guess japanise trains. Their seems to a lot complex cultural reasons why Japans trains arnt a total shit-show like all the other privitized services, culture seems to the primary one as does high demand and cost of train tickets so maybe their's something to be learnt from the japanise and the fact their trains arnt a bad joke like britains? Doesnt really change that fact that most private transport is shit.

I could do other examples a if you like? It's just one I experiance regularly so feel comformtable commenting on.

Services stop at police, emergency services, the military and maybe roads.

Bad idea, I can think of multiple services which are needed, although this may be arguement about what qualifies as a 'service'. This isnt even a thing as I'm pretty sure most conservatives would see the need for civil courts and various goverment organization such as immigration control and whatnot. Not to mention paying public officials.
This isnt Feudal europe infrastructure is important.

 

[ButterBar]

Well that's factually wrong because Certain types of socialism favour decentralized social structures.
I know this is a waste of time because no one ever admits error or even pulls back online but frankly if you're going to engage in semantic wrangling about what I actually am to such a degree then maybe it's time to call it a day? Not in the least because you didnt really touch on the our previous primary point of discussion-corporations are inherantly less trustworthy than goverment services, at all.

I did. You didnt. I kept asking you to prove it, you couldn't. And all of that was in relation to thinking you were actually a socialist but instead you just dont know what the word means. Im not a fan of mega corps either. I dont like bailouts and subsidies. I like decentralized and localized industry. But I'm not a socialist. I am much more closely aligned with distributism which is completely different. Understand your own labels more. Socialism is public ownership, not private, of the means of production. That's how Marx defined it, that's how it has been defined. I was arguing about government owning the means of production versus private ownership, but if you dont actually buy into that it becomes pointless to argue it, and you aren't actually a socialist. Do I need to bring up Denmarks response to Bernie?

I didnt mention cars at all, I mentioned privitised public transport. Maybe I should have been clearer. You don't say which service you're talking about so I'm going to guess japanise trains. Their seems to a lot complex cultural reasons why Japans trains arnt a total shit-show like all the other privitized services, culture seems to the primary one as does high demand and cost of train tickets so maybe their's something to be learnt from the japanise and the fact their trains arnt a bad joke like britains? Doesnt really change that fact that most private transport is shit.

All public transpo ive used sucks. Its just proof you can have an amazing private transportation system. And no, all you said was transportation shouldnt be private. Cars fall under that.

Bad idea, I can think of multiple services which are needed, although this may be arguement about what qualifies as a 'service'. This isnt even a thing as I'm pretty sure most conservatives would see the need for civil courts and various goverment organization such as immigration control and whatnot. Not to mention paying public officials.
This isnt Feudal europe infrastructure is important.

Courts, immigration fall under law, im fine with that. Im fine with paying public officials, I just want a hell of a lot less.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I did. You didnt. I kept asking you to prove it, you couldn't. And all of that was in relation to thinking you were actually a socialist but instead you just dont know what the word means. Im not a fan of mega corps either. I dont like bailouts and subsidies. I like decentralized and localized industry. But I'm not a socialist. I am much more closely aligned with distributism which is completely different. Understand your own labels more. Socialism is public ownership, not private, of the means of production. That's how Marx defined it, that's how it has been defined. I was arguing about government owning the means of production versus private ownership, but if you dont actually buy into that it becomes pointless to argue it, and you aren't actually a socialist. Do I need to bring up Denmarks response to Bernie?

Well I provided multiple examples of how fundemntly untrustworthy corps are and my rational I'm not really sure what more you want, in contrast I had to guess you meant japan for a positive example of corporate controlled services. Marx is obviously one of the primary writters but he isnt the end all and be all since we've had over a 100 years of divergance, since it's not a religion doctrinal purity isnt an issue some private ownership is tolerable with a emphasis of worker controlled business in democratic socialism. You can get a ouji board and ask marx himself to talk shit if you like you'd still be wrong and engaging in pointless semantic wrangling.

All public transpo ive used sucks. Its just proof you can have an amazing private transportation system. And no, all you said was transportation shouldnt be private.

Incorrect, I've already provide one example of a functional public one. I'm not provided the direct referance because powerlevelling is bad. I said all public transportation should be private, key differance.

Courts, immigration fall under law, im fine with that. Im fine with paying public officials, I just want a hell of a lot less.

So we're already moving the bar up, How about administrative sectors of the goverment for example the IRS?

cars

If you're really arguing this is totally what I meant even though I just explicitly said I didnt, maybe it's time to call it a day because we're going into asinine bollocks which doesnt really relate to the crux of the arguement?

 

[ButterBar]

Well I provided multiple examples of how fundemntly untrustworthy corps are and my rational I'm not really sure what more you want, in contrast I had to guess you meant japan for a positive example of corporate controlled services. Marx is obviously one of the primary writters but he isnt the end all and be all since we've had over a 100 years of divergance, since it's not a religion doctrinal purity isnt an issue some private ownership is tolerable with a emphasis of worker controlled business in democratic socialism. You can get a ouji board and ask marx himself to talk shit if you like you'd still be wrong and engaging in pointless semantic wrangling.

You provided anecdotes. I provided anecdotes. Why cant it be how fundamentally untrustworthy people in power are? Yes, there are socialist nations that allow small amounts of private ownership. The difference is you said that you would be fine with megacorps if they were just regulated a bit more. How in the fuck is that socialism? Wouldn't you agree that is more in line with social democracy?

Social democracy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Incorrect, I've already provide one example of a functional public one. I'm not provided the direct referance because powerlevelling is bad. I said all public transportation should be private, key differance.

All public transportation IVE used sucks. Read motherfucker. Now you think all public transpo should be private?

So we're already moving the bar up, How about administrative sectors of the goverment for example the IRS?

No, I just didn't provide a comprehensive list. IRS should be slashed to shit and income tax shouldn't be a thing. I already said that we should still have members of the public sector, just a hell of a lot less in the bureaucracy.

 

[Emperor Julian]

You provided anecdotes. I provided anecdotes. Why cant it be how fundamentally untrustworthy people in power are?

Because they're overall more trustworthy than corporations, damning with faint praise as that is. Also citing actual corporate crimes isnt an anecdote it's an example, it's just short of a citation because the conversation is pretty informal and I can't be bothered.

Yes, there are socialist nations that allow small amounts of private ownership. The difference is you said that you would be fine with megacorps if they were just regulated a bit more. How in the fuck is that socialism? Wouldn't you agree that is more in line with social democracy?

No I said I'm willing to tolerate their existance, in the same sense as I'm willing to tolerate many things which I find godawful... I'd genuinly prefer it if they didnt exist and would probably eliminate if I felt it was the easiest route.

Social democracy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Er thanks for a wiki link I guess?

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All public transportation IVE used sucks. Read motherfucker. Now you think all public transpo should be private?

Yes I know and I've used plenty which work fine 'motherfucker'. No of coarse not.

No, I just didn't provide a comprehensive list. IRS should be slashed to shit and income tax shouldn't be a thing. I already said that we should still have members of the public sector, just a hell of a lot less in the bureaucracy.

large complex organizations require bureaucracy, annoying as that are you're essentially exchanging an theorectically socially altruistic goverment beurocracies to a series of corporate beurocracies whose primary purpose is the maximisation of profits. Unless you're able to contruct a system where the disolution of state power does not give corporations a free reign this is an inevitable conclusion which would be quite the achievement I'll admit.

 

[ButterBar]

Because they're overall more trustworthy than corporations, damning with faint praise as that is. Also citing actual corporate crimes isnt an anecdote it's an example, it's just short of a citation because the conversation is pretty informal and I can't be bothered

Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Overall more trustworthy my ass.

No I said I'm willing to tolerate their existance, in the same sense as I'm willing to tolerate many things which I find godawful... I'd genuinly prefer it if they didnt exist and would probably eliminate if I felt it was the easiest route.

So you have vastly more in common with social democrats than democratic socialists. Everything youve said is much closer to that because you dont want everything to be publically owned.

large complex organizations require bureaucracy, annoying as that are you're essentially exchanging an theorectically socially altruistic goverment beurocracies to a series of corporate beurocracies whose primary purpose is the maximisation of profits. Unless you're able to contruct a system where the disolution of state power does not give corporations a free reign this is an inevitable conclusion which would be quote the achievement I'll admit.

Kill the welfare state and enact anti-trust legislature, end subsidies and corporate favoritism. It has a name, its called distributism.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Overall more trustworthy my ass.

Hitler ate sugar.

Abraham lincoln, Winston churchill,Nelson Mandela

I do have to ask though-do you genuinly believe a corporation would conduct itself more ethically than world leaders in general-not specifically tyrants but a sort of mean average. if it gained the comparitive level of power of Stalin?

So you have vastly more in common with social democrats than democratic socialists. Everything youve said is much closer to that because you dont want everything to be publically owned.

This seems an oddly important issue to you that keep trying to draw back too. Most likely because you're primary is going to so badly you've had to go to Hitler to try and make corporations look good. But no I've stated that Ideally I want worker owned business ala democratic socialism, I just don't really see it as viable or more accuratly can't think of a way of implimenting it without a humanitarian crisis.

Hypothetically even if was a Social democratic as opposed to a Democratic socialist, we'd effectively still be having the same discussion we're you're currently down to two points and one of them is Hitler. so I'm bemused that it's such an imporant point of contention.

Kill the welfare state and enact anti-trust legislature, end subsidies and corporate favoritism. It has a name, its called distributism.

Anti-trust legislature would rapidly become eroded and corporate favoritism would become the norm once it becomes clear you've decimated the counter balances. They'd simply fund shitty people to get us back to square one. Although they'd probably happy to keep the welfare state gone despite the humanitarian and crime disaster which would ensue. Although the house of cards subsidies removal would entail might provide some black comedy.
Terrible idea.

 

[ButterBar]

Hitler ate sugar.

Abraham lincoln, Winston churchill,Nelson Mandela

I do have to ask though-do you genuinly believe a corporation would conduct itself more ethically than world leaders in general-not specifically tyrants but a sort of mean average. if it gained the comparitive level of power of Stalin?

I dont want anyone with the power of Stalin. Im not trying to make corporations look good. I just dont see the state as benevolent. People are generally pretty shitty. The reason I bring them up because they make the most evil corporations look like school yard bullies. Every government, without exception, gets up to and does shitty things. The more power you hand them, the more shitty and impactful they can be.

Anti-trust legislature would rapidly become eroded and corporate favoritism would become the norm once it becomes clear you've decimated the counter balances. They'd simply fund shitty people to get us back to square one. Although they'd probably happy to keep the welfare state gone despite the humanitarian and crime disaster which would ensue. Although the house of cards subsidies removal would entail might provide some black comedy.
Terrible idea.

Welfare doesnt stop crime or prevent a humanitarian disaster. Federal welfare wasnt implemented during the great depression till 1935. The death rate took a slight increase after welfare, and had no change during the great depression as before it. If we can handle the worst economic crisis without people dying in significant numbers without federal welfare, I think we can handle it now. Furthermore, I just stated that anti-trust paw should be enacted, that there should be in place. What does welfare have to do with checking the power of companies?

 

[Emperor Julian]

I dont want anyone with the power of Stalin. Im not trying to make corporations look good. I just dont see the state as benevolent. People are generally pretty shitty. The reason I bring them up because they make the most evil corporations look like school yard bullies. Every government, without exception, gets up to and does shitty things. The more power you hand them, the more shitty and impactful they can be.

The state has negative qualities and can produce tyrants but no corporation has even gained the level of power required to engage in such systematic abuse (yet) so the point is redundant. However with comparative levels of power they consistantly conduct themselves in morally repulsive ways in contrast with goverment institutions which can do often act altrustically. To put it in context it would be like arguing against the prosecution of an organized by citing police corruption.

Welfare doesnt stop crime or prevent a humanitarian disaster. Federal welfare wasnt implemented during the great depression till 1935. The death rate took a slight increase after welfare, and had no change during the great depression as before it. If we can handle the worst economic crisis without people dying in significant numbers without federal welfare, I think we can handle it now. Furthermore, I just stated that anti-trust paw should be enacted, that there should be in place. What does welfare have to do with checking the power of companies?

Well i had a quick glance the only soarce on the subject was homicide rates and that shows an overall dramatic net reduction of homocide in the following years, and the added complication of the removal of proabition and the ascendance of the FBI makes it difficult to discern which social event is responsible so you might be right. By contrast Poverty and violent crime are increasingly dramatically within the UK since austerity.

I strongly disagree the increased urbaninzation, loss of jobs to abroad and increasing automisation of labour would create a total shit show 10 minutes into this brave new world.

The anti-trust law woud quickly be overidden as increased corporate influence comes in. Power vacumns don't endure.

Well you brought it up so I thought i'd comment on it.