ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Subsidies are not socialism. Government ‘help’ being given to a privately owned business is not socialism.

Socialism is when the means and modes of production are collectively owned by the working proletariat instead of capital being privately owned. It’s about redefining the relationship between labor and capitol so that laborers own the product of their labor instead of selling that labor. It has nothing to do with the government giving out checks. There are socialists who are also anarchists. Government isn’t even a prerequisite of socialism.
There are also anarchists who believe in capitalism with no gov.

Gov "help" to a privately owned business (heading twd state capitalism?), esp long-term subsidies (farms, oil), seems closer to socialism than free market capitalism though.
 
Subsidies are not socialism. Government ‘help’ being given to a privately owned business is not socialism.

Socialism is when the means and modes of production are collectively owned by the working proletariat instead of capital being privately owned. It’s about redefining the relationship between labor and capitol so that laborers own the product of their labor instead of selling that labor. It has nothing to do with the government giving out checks. There are socialists who are also anarchists. Government isn’t even a prerequisite of socialism.
You damned comma-nist-heathen sumbich!
 
There are also anarchists who believe in capitalism with no gov.

Gov "help" to a privately owned business (state capitalism?), esp long-term subsidies, seems closer to socialism than free market capitalism though.
And, we're off and running!

 
There are also anarchists who believe in capitalism with no gov.

Gov "help" to a privately owned business (heading twd state capitalism?), esp long-term subsidies (farms, oil), seems closer to socialism than free market capitalism though.

Well, its not.

Subsidies are a market based solution to a positive externality problem. Farms get subsidies because they cannot capture all of the benefit of providing everyone with food. So we give them a subsidy to make sure that supply doesn't dry up. Just like how taxes can be a deterrent to supplying goods that produce a negative externality.

There is no such thing as a "free market." It's a toy model used in Econ 101 to explain basic supply and demand dynamics. A truly free market would eventually result in a single monopolistic firm controlling the entire economy.
 
Well, its not.

Subsidies are a market based solution to a positive externality problem. Farms get subsidies because they cannot capture all of the benefit of providing everyone with food. So we give them a subsidy to make sure that supply doesn't dry up. Just like how taxes can be a deterrent to supplying goods that produce a negative externality.

There is no such thing as a "free market." It's a toy model used in Econ 101 to explain basic supply and demand dynamics. A truly free market would eventually result in a single monopolistic firm controlling the entire economy.
Food market stability is obviously tops in importance.

But if the farm (or coal industry) would fail without the gov subsidy, then don't the people/gov kinda "own" the farm or coal industry? Production is dictated. The laborers are getting cheaper energy and US has crazy cheap food.

I get it that the state doesn't directly "own" any of the above, but it seems close, hybrid'ish. I guess i'm just angry about airlines, banks and auto stuff (cronyISM).

Regarding the definition, "the relationship between labor and capitol so that laborers own the product of their labor instead of selling that labor" - i'm wrong, you're right
 
Food market stability is obviously tops in importance.

But if the farm (or coal industry) would fail without the gov subsidy, then don't the people/gov kinda "own" the farm or coal industry? Production is dictated. The laborers are getting cheaper energy and US has crazy cheap food.

I get it that the state doesn't directly "own" any of the above, but it seems close, hybrid'ish. I guess i'm just angry about airlines, banks and auto stuff (cronyISM).

Regarding the definition, "the relationship between labor and capitol so that laborers own the product of their labor instead of selling that labor" - i'm wrong, you're right

It in no way shape or form means that the people own it. If you decide to pay someone's mortgage for them, that still doesn't mean that you now own their house. They may be dependent on you to keep the house, but it's still theirs until the title changes hands.

The word socialism has a definition. The government giving out subsidies does not fit that definition. When cronyism leads to the type of abuse that you are describing, that's obviously a problem, but it isn't socialism. It's corporate welfare.

For most people the definition of socialism is, "when the government does stuff I don't like."
 
Qanon now turning on trump. Saying he let them down and chickened out by refusing to declare martial law. Lol. Glorious
I think I saw somewhere, that whoever the originator was of the whole site, movement, whatever it is, has basically come out and said it was almost a joke. It's almost like it was a stunt or prank that Andy Kaufman used to pull.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TarHeelMark
Socialism exist. Some even embrace the concept. But we still are a republic.

You guys skipped right over an example that's close to state communism. We have state run prison work facilities where inmates are forced to work and earn like ten cents an hour. It's not exactly the gulags, but it isn't really much of a reform effort either.

The good ole USofA is under no immediate threat of becoming anything other than a corporate kleptocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
You guys skipped right over an example that's close to state communism. We have state run prison work facilities where inmates are forced to work and earn like ten cents an hour. It's not exactly the gulags, but it isn't really much of a reform effort either.

The good ole USofA is under no immediate threat of becoming anything other than a corporate kleptocracy.
Completely antithetical to Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, et al!
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10
I think I'm going to source some chinese made mittens and cash in on this one.

GettyImages-1230690429.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tarheel0910
I think I saw somewhere, that whoever the originator was of the whole site, movement, whatever it is, has basically come out and said it was almost a joke. It's almost like it was a stunt or prank that Andy Kaufman used to pull.
I've been telling my wife for the last year that Q is just some stoned out dude trolling these fools to see what crazy shit they would believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I’ve heard “amazing grace” more times today than I have the last 20yrs
Yeah, this whole celebration is getting kinda old. Politicians in general don't deserve to be celebrated anyway. At the very least wait until he actually does something. It's not his fault though. Shockingly the media screwed this up. Hopefully it won't continue past tonight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
You guys skipped right over an example that's close to state communism. We have state run prison work facilities where inmates are forced to work and earn like ten cents an hour. It's not exactly the gulags, but it isn't really much of a reform effort either.

The good ole USofA is under no immediate threat of becoming anything other than a corporate kleptocracy.
There are some aspects that certain platforms push. Bernie is the 1st to come to mind. As quick as people are to jump onboard with the next big thing, it wouldnt take much for the good ole USofA to follow that path. Example: A former POTUS is facing a trial as part of an impeachment when he is now a private citizen. Impeachment purpose: To remove a sitting POTUS. We heard unity, unity, unity yesterday. If the trial continues, it will continue to alienate the 74 million who voted against Biden and for Trump. I use this as an example of mass following of a big event.

If our elected officials sees they can gain more power thru socialism, communism, or whatever they will plan to follow that path. Politics only supports politics, not the people. We are pawns that funds their show
 
LOL, TDS has become a permanent part of the landsdcape it seems. There might be more butthurt over Trump than there was in WWI and II combined, including The Holocaust. Neverending lib (and never-Trumper) butthurt is a very nice legacy, because it indicates he was doing most things right.

And the butthurt fools are proud to have managed to put in charge a doddering dolt barely smart enough to plagiarize his way to the political pinnacle.

I have to say I enjoyed the brief interruption, courtesy of DT, of our descent into Shithole City; and now I can at least enjoy the continuous wailing and quivering of his fragile victims as the downward spiral into oblivion resumes.

Enjoy yourselves, ladies.
 
Fellas, it's a new day! The sun shines brighter, the air smells cleaner. There's no need to bicker. Happy days are here again!!
 
There are some aspects that certain platforms push. Bernie is the 1st to come to mind. As quick as people are to jump onboard with the next big thing, it wouldnt take much for the good ole USofA to follow that path. Example: A former POTUS is facing a trial as part of an impeachment when he is now a private citizen. Impeachment purpose: To remove a sitting POTUS. We heard unity, unity, unity yesterday. If the trial continues, it will continue to alienate the 74 million who voted against Biden and for Trump. I use this as an example of mass following of a big event.

If our elected officials sees they can gain more power thru socialism, communism, or whatever they will plan to follow that path. Politics only supports politics, not the people. We are pawns that funds their show

It wouldn't take much for the US to socialize it's economy? We have the largest economy in the history of the world, and almost every form of capital in every industry is privately owned. Nationalizing those assets and completely reworking our labor and distribution systems would be one of the biggest projects in human history. So yeah... it would take a lot. We aren't just going to accidentally slide into socialism because a politician wants to have more influence. The private sector is more than willing to make them rich and powerful. They don't need socialism for that.
 
There are some aspects that certain platforms push. Bernie is the 1st to come to mind. As quick as people are to jump onboard with the next big thing, it wouldnt take much for the good ole USofA to follow that path. Example: A former POTUS is facing a trial as part of an impeachment when he is now a private citizen. Impeachment purpose: To remove a sitting POTUS. We heard unity, unity, unity yesterday. If the trial continues, it will continue to alienate the 74 million who voted against Biden and for Trump. I use this as an example of mass following of a big event.

If our elected officials sees they can gain more power thru socialism, communism, or whatever they will plan to follow that path. Politics only supports politics, not the people. We are pawns that funds their show
We agree!!! I would add "if it increases their wealth" to your statement of "gain more power." Whatever method works... but it's always about THEM first. It will always be that way. In America, it's most definitely in their best interest to avoid the labels like Communism and Socialism because of the reaction they evoke from the public.

The same is true of every "Communist" regime. The ones in charge were incredibly wealthy. They may have tried to portray themselves as "common", but they weren't. And, they had ALL the power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grayhead
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT