I'm confused, USA is now a communist country?

[gamb00ler]

On 8/8/2024 at 8:27 PM, Alidiver said:

This is ASIAN NOW.

Go and discuss America elsewhere.

The exits are clearly marked if by some misfortune you found yourself here.

[Cameroni]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I sometimes agree with Libertarians - except then I wonder what is their solution to the inevitable emergence of monopolies (which eliminate competition).

 

The economies of the western world are highly regulated today not just on socialist principle but also to avoid monopolies. They do not always succeed of course.

[Cameroni]

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I want to commend you on your commenting style. Although we disagree on some things, you have never used insulting, derogatory language in our exchanges like most people on these forums. Thanks for that. 

 

I of course thought the same of your comments, thoughtful and interesting.

[WDSmart]

11 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

On 8/8/2024 at 2:49 PM, WDSmart said:

In pure socialism, there would be no unemployment because there would be no employment.

 

On 8/8/2024 at 3:01 PM, susanlea said:

Nobody works? 

@susanlea It's really astounding how resistant you are to trying to learn something you don't know.  That's probably because somehow you've convinced yourself you know almost everything.  AN is so unlucky to be saddled with a Dunning-Kruger poster child.

No, in socialism, everyone who is able to work works, but they are not "employed." They do not receive a salary. If you do dishes to help your family, you aren't "employed" to do them. You do them to benefit your family, not only to benefit yourself as you would if you were employed in a capitalistic society.

[Danderman123]

On 8/8/2024 at 7:24 PM, TedG said:

Name a Democrat who does not lie. 

Democratic politicians are mostly attorneys. This means when they lie, it's typically a lie by omission - prosecutors do this a lot, they only talk about one side of the evidence.

 

Republicans used to lie cleverly, but Trump just makes stuff up out of nothing.

[susanlea]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

No, in socialism, everyone who is able to work works, but they are not "employed." They do not receive a salary. If you do dishes to help your family, you aren't "employed" to do them. You do them to benefit your family, not only to benefit yourself as you would if you were employed in a capitalistic society.

I will do dishes once a year then. You buy beers daily.

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, susanlea said:

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

No, in socialism, everyone who is able to work works, but they are not "employed." They do not receive a salary. If you do dishes to help your family, you aren't "employed" to do them. You do them to benefit your family, not only to benefit yourself as you would if you were employed in a capitalistic society.

I will do dishes once a year then. You buy beers daily.

As usual, I don't understand your reply. I can only respond, "I do dishes multiple times daily and haven't had a beer in at least five years, maybe more." I do drink a little brandy almost every evening before going to bed.

[susanlea]

Just now, WDSmart said:

As usual, I don't understand your reply. I can only respond, "I do dishes multiple times daily and haven't had a beer in at least five years, maybe more." I do drink a little brandy almost every evening before going to bed.

You wanted socialism. I'm agreeing with you. Give me 5 beers a day please.

[WDSmart]

6 minutes ago, susanlea said:

You wanted socialism. I'm agreeing with you. Give me 5 beers a day please.

In socialism, you only get what you need. The government determines or at least approves your requests about what you need. So, if you believe you need five beers every day, you'd have to put in a request for that, kind of like getting a prescription. 

I think your request above will open up an opportunity to really discuss what socialism is and how it would work. I encourage you to continue to pursue this.

[susanlea]

Just now, WDSmart said:

In socialism, you only get what you need. The government determines or at least approves your requests about what you need. So, if you believe you need five beers every day, you'd have to put in a request for that, kind of like getting a prescription. 

I think your request above will open up an opportunity to really discuss what socialism is and how it would work. I encourage you to continue to pursue this.

I need food and shelter. Can you provide it please?

[WDSmart]

7 minutes ago, susanlea said:

I need food and shelter. Can you provide it please?

Yes, the government in a socialist economy would provide everyone with food and shelter as best it could. You might not get the type of food or shelter you would like, but you would get the type that the government believes meets your needs, and that would not be based on what you contribute to society.

An example would be a ditch digger with a crippled spouse and two children would be assigned a two- or three-bedroom apartment and an allowance of two adults and two children's food supply, whereas a renowned scientist who was single would be assigned a studio or one-bedroom apartment. and one adult's food supply.

[RocketDog]

On 8/7/2024 at 3:10 PM, susanlea said:

Troll

Exactly. That's what this forum is for.

[JoseThailand]

On 8/9/2024 at 6:28 PM, susanlea said:

Vance

 

Lol

[ChicagoExpat]

On 8/8/2024 at 3:37 PM, WDSmart said:

I agree with that, but that is because humans are selfish. Socialism (communism, actually) should be our goal, but until we, as a society, respect and care for everyone regardless of their ability to contribute, it can never be fully enacted. We are not like an ideal human family where the breadwinners share everything with their children and fulfill their needs the best they can. We're more like a pride of lions, where, regardless of who kills the prey, the lead male eats until he's full, and then the rest of the pride fights over what's left. That's capitalism.

Capitalism is also if the others don't like what they're getting in the pride, they can go off and do their own hunting.

 

Socialism is that the lead male still eats til he's full, and then the rest get nothing.

[ChicagoExpat]

On 8/11/2024 at 6:59 AM, WDSmart said:

No, in socialism, everyone who is able to work works, but they are not "employed." They do not receive a salary. If you do dishes to help your family, you aren't "employed" to do them. You do them to benefit your family, not only to benefit yourself as you would if you were employed in a capitalistic society.

I'm actually shocked anyone still flogs this discredited ideology, and the religious belief that undergirds it -- the perfectibility of human nature.

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Capitalism is also if the others don't like what they're getting in the pride, they can go off and do their own hunting.

 

Socialism is that the lead male still eats til he's full, and then the rest get nothing.

Your first point isn't unclear, but it isn't capitalism. It depends on what you mean by "doing their own hunting." If the society in question had a socialist economy, anyone could go off on their own and hunt, but they would bring their kills back and share them with the others. If the society in question had a capitalist economy, anyone could go off and hunt and completely control their kills.

Your second point is incorrect. Socialism is where the kill is shared with everyone else according to their needs. For example, crippled adults who couldn't hunt at all would get the same portion as healthy adults. 

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

I'm actually shocked anyone still flogs this discredited ideology, and the religious belief that undergirds it -- the perfectibility of human nature.

I'm sorry you're "shocked" at recommending actions that would discourage selfishness and encourage giving benefits to all. 

I will admit pure socialism and especially communism are only goals and will never be completely realized because of what you reference above - human nature - which is inherently selfish (hubris). However, I do think that aspects of these economic systems should be mixed in with capitalism to soften its devastating effects on the weaker parts of the population.

[ChicagoExpat]

27 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I'm sorry you're "shocked" at recommending actions that would discourage selfishness and encourage giving benefits to all. 

I will admit pure socialism and especially communism are only goals and will never be completely realized because of what you reference above - human nature - which is inherently selfish (hubris). However, I do think that aspects of these economic systems should be mixed in with capitalism to soften its devastating effects on the weaker parts of the population.

Your arguments are all based on straw men.  Here are a few examples:  1) capitalism in its worst form -- your description reads like something from a communist pamphlet passed out on the corner and doesn't actually exist anywhere 2) socialism in its best and ideal form -- the reality is its always an abject failure, delivering equality only in the high quantity of the misery it apportions out, while needing a police state to enforce it and ensuring the bosses still eat first and longest at the trough 3) the reality of capitalist economies today -- you seem totally unaware that every single capitalist economy makes enormous efforts to "soften its devastating effects", ranging from minimum wages to unionization to anti-trust laws to environmental laws to affirmative action to heavy regulation to fire codes to social security to social health insurance to... the list goes on and on and on.

 

In short, you're arguing AGAINST something that doesn't exist in FAVOR of something that can never exist.

 

 

[WDSmart]

14 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Your arguments are all based on straw men.  Here are a few examples:  1) capitalism in its worst form -- your description reads like something from a communist pamphlet passed out on the corner and doesn't actually exist anywhere 2) socialism in its best and ideal form -- the reality is its always an abject failure, delivering equality only in the high quantity of the misery it apportions out, while needing a police state to enforce it and ensuring the bosses still eat first and longest at the trough 3) the reality of capitalist economies today -- you seem totally unaware that every single capitalist economy makes enormous efforts to "soften its devastating effects", ranging from minimum wages to unionization to anti-trust laws to environmental laws to affirmative action to heavy regulation to fire codes to social security to social health insurance to... the list goes on and on and on.

 

In short, you're arguing AGAINST something that doesn't exist in FAVOR of something that can never exist.

 

 

Our country (the USA and most other countries, including Thailand) has a mixed economic system, which can be called a "Keyensian" system. It is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Examples would be anything described as "private," like a "private club" or "private school," is based on capitalism. Anything described as "public," like a "public park," a "public library," or a "public school," is an example of socialism. Most of the arguments around economies are just what percentage of each that mix should be. 

I am arguing for an increase in the percentage of socialist features, which would, of course, mean a decrease in the percentage of capitalistic features. I use "pure" socialism and "pure capitalism" as examples of the extremes. The actual economy is somewhere in the middle.

[ChicagoExpat]

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Our country (the USA and most other countries, including Thailand) has a mixed economic system, which can be called a "Keyensian" system. It is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Examples would be anything described as "private," like a "private club" or "private school," is based on capitalism. Anything described as "public," like a "public park," a "public library," or a "public school," is an example of socialism. Most of the arguments around economies are just what percentage of each that mix should be. 

I am arguing for an increase in the percentage of socialist features, which would, of course, mean a decrease in the percentage of capitalistic features. I use "pure" socialism and "pure capitalism" as examples of the extremes. The actual economy is somewhere in the middle.

Public goods are NOT examples of socialism.  The have been around since humans built cities, millennia before "socialism" was thought of.  You're confusing causation and correlation.

[WDSmart]

6 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

Public goods are NOT examples of socialism.  The have been around since humans built cities, millennia before "socialism" was thought of.  You're confusing causation and correlation.

Public goods and services are examples of socialism. And yes, they have been around since humans evolved. Before the term "socialism" was used, we would have just called that "family care" or "tribalism."

Socialism is all the members of a society contributing to it to the best of their ability, and then the society fulfilling everyone's needs to the best of its ability.

You're confusing actions and classification.

[ChicagoExpat]

34 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Public goods and services are examples of socialism. And yes, they have been around since humans evolved. Before the term "socialism" was used, we would have just called that "family care" or "tribalism."

Socialism is all the members of a society contributing to it to the best of their ability, and then the society fulfilling everyone's needs to the best of its ability.

You're confusing actions and classification.

So you're defining anything positive done, really, for any reason, as "socialism."  OK, I think this conversation has exhausted its usefulness, if there ever was any.

[WDSmart]

29 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

So you're defining anything positive done, really, for any reason, as "socialism."  OK, I think this conversation has exhausted its usefulness, if there ever was any.

 

29 minutes ago, ChicagoExpat said:

So you're defining anything positive done, really, for any reason, as "socialism."  OK, I think this conversation has exhausted its usefulness, if there ever was any.

No, I'm defining socialism as anything done by the individual for the community for which they do not expect nor receive any special treatment or reward.

I agree that this conversation is getting us nowhere, and I'm disappointed with that. At least you'll probably agree with me that the question asked in the title of this forum, "I'm confused. USA is now a communist country?" is "no."

[ChicagoExpat]

16 hours ago, WDSmart said:

At least you'll probably agree with me that the question asked in the title of this forum, "I'm confused. USA is now a communist country?" is "no."

On that we agree.  Not yet anyway!  😁