Capitalism doesn’t imply that you should have coal mines with children… just that you can. Socialism doesn’t have to be ruthless top-down…What are you even talking about?
My point was that your statement was so vague and based on vibes that you could literally change a few words and make the opposite claim.
Socialism hasba strict definition of work to work place relationship. Joining a union doesnt mean you are going to own a piece of the company.
Hmmm, what if were to have just one big international union? One that could dictate the command of the entire global economy ? One with enough group bargaining power to perhaps control the means of production…?
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions. Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers. They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate. We can call it capitalism!
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions.
Like forbidding people to strike , forcing unions to utilize arbitration, destroying their fund raising capabilities, and sending in the national guard to murder the people who don’t capitulate? Yep sounds like capitalism…
Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers.
Lol, how does the government “give more worth to the most desired workers” when the workers themselves are the ones who create the wealth in the first place?
They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate.
Ahh yes, I love to be given a tiny portion of the wealth that I created.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers.
That’s pretty arguable… mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits.
How do they find these social programs…? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Lol, I don’t care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?
Capitalism doesn’t imply that you should have coal mines with children… just that you can. Socialism doesn’t have to be ruthless top-down…What are you even talking about?
My point was that your statement was so vague and based on vibes that you could literally change a few words and make the opposite claim.
Hmmm, what if were to have just one big international union? One that could dictate the command of the entire global economy ? One with enough group bargaining power to perhaps control the means of production…?
Like a some sort ruling body that sets rules for the unions. Something like a relationship between governments and workers where goods and services give more worth to the most desired workers. They can use the capital given to them in exchange for more goods and services at a competitive rate. We can call it capitalism!
Like forbidding people to strike , forcing unions to utilize arbitration, destroying their fund raising capabilities, and sending in the national guard to murder the people who don’t capitulate? Yep sounds like capitalism…
Lol, how does the government “give more worth to the most desired workers” when the workers themselves are the ones who create the wealth in the first place?
Ahh yes, I love to be given a tiny portion of the wealth that I created.
Bud, you can have a capitalist economy where the government cares for its workers. I can point to capitalist countries like Norway or Sweden on how a government can employ social programs where the population benefits. You are acting like capitalisms end is always the poor getting poorer when thats not always the case. However, i can see how you can come to that conclusion when your only position is ‘rich man bad’. If apple decided to split all its money with all its workers do you know how much each employee would make? Its about $20M per employee. Is that still ok or is that still too rich for you?
Give me an example of what a rivalrous socialist economy would look like without capitalism.
That’s pretty arguable… mixed economies can function adequately for a while, but theyre typically hampered by inflation and a constant press to privative socialized sectors which drains away at social monetary funds.
How do they find these social programs…? Oh yeah, by socializing massive aspects of their resources and economy.
Can you give me an example of post industrial capitalist nations with a shrinking inequality gap?
Lol, I don’t care about rich people, I care about the huge wealth inequality capitalism thrives upon. As you said, the workers of apple have created on average 20m in profits each, and yet how much of that will they ever see?
What would a socialist economy be rivalrous against if there is no capitalism?