|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:33 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Why are you convinced that we need to eliminate greed in order for socialism to be better than capitalism?
I've made this comparison before but this is like arguing authoritarian systems vs democracy. Sure, democracy looks better than authoritarianism in practice, but people are power hungry, which is why authoritarian systems are so popular. This is an argument against democracy.
Like, no, it's not. Even with power hunger democracy is preferable to authoritarianism. And even with greed socialism is preferable to capitalism. You think the USSR was better for the people than the US? The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist.
Workplace democracy.
|
On September 19 2019 14:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think the word "exploit" is either being bandied about too much or needs a definition from those insisting upon using it. A non equitable division of resources due to a power imbalance. There’s a classic game theory scenario. A gives B a dollar and tells B to split it with C. B decides the amounts, C must approve the division or both get zero. B should rationally offer $0.01 to C and C should rationally accept it. I would say B I’d exploiting his position there, despite obtaining the consent of C.
I can't agree because B should rationally split it 50/50 so both would make 50 cents. Greedily, B should offer $.01 to C. It isn't rational to take the bulk just so they both get something. C is being screwed by B, while A is no longer in the equation. The power imbalance shifted from A to B.
And I can get behind that definition. But I can't get behind the way it is being used in the scenario Falling made. It only computes when talking on a scale vastly larger than a small business. (It can be used in other ways, but it doesn't matter with the discussion at hand.)
|
|
|
|
|
Canada11363 Posts
On September 19 2019 14:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think the word "exploit" is either being bandied about too much or needs a definition from those insisting upon using it. A non equitable division of resources due to a power imbalance. There’s a classic game theory scenario. A gives B a dollar and tells B to split it with C. B decides the amounts, C must approve the division or both get zero. B should rationally offer $0.01 to C and C should rationally accept it. I would say B I’d exploiting his position there, despite obtaining the consent of C.
This assumes a closed system where A or B can prevent C from telling them to take a hike and find someone else who will split the money more equitably.
Exploitation happens alright, but occurs when there is company towns or the company can hire goon squads to keep workers in line (very important that the government maintains its monopoly on the use of force), or import a bunch of workers that can't speak the language and therefore can't advocate for themselves. Or maybe where an entire industry is operating under the same bad practices, so you can't just switch to the competitors (permanent crunch and then mass lay off in the video game industry).
What exploitation is not is simply getting a smaller cut from the owner who sinks huge money into capital, risks much in the business start up, is beholden to heavy taxation/ regulatory fees as well as risks possible lawsuits and the like. Defined so broadly, renders the term meaningless.
|
On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:33 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Why are you convinced that we need to eliminate greed in order for socialism to be better than capitalism?
I've made this comparison before but this is like arguing authoritarian systems vs democracy. Sure, democracy looks better than authoritarianism in practice, but people are power hungry, which is why authoritarian systems are so popular. This is an argument against democracy.
Like, no, it's not. Even with power hunger democracy is preferable to authoritarianism. And even with greed socialism is preferable to capitalism. You think the USSR was better for the people than the US? The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that.
Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism.
|
Its important to remember to not fall into the trap of knowing a lot of the problems of capitalism through its existence as the basic standby for humanity vs not knowing how exactly society is supposed to exist with socialism. I spent a lot of time wondering why people were so motivated to advocate for French revolution style communism holocaust in some weird ideological crusade to deliver us to star trek.
I'll still say no one really knows what a workable socialist system is but its important to remember that it is inherently a fight against the gorilla forces in humanity. That and you can't take what gh says literally.
The problem I have with the statement "profit is just stolen work and externalized expenses" is that it rings a lot like the "taxation is theft" to me. How is trade supposed to function without there being a person who makes profit from trade? And how does industry work without the inherent pursuit of profit even if from a worker ownership model?
|
On September 19 2019 14:52 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:19 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2019 14:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think the word "exploit" is either being bandied about too much or needs a definition from those insisting upon using it. A non equitable division of resources due to a power imbalance. There’s a classic game theory scenario. A gives B a dollar and tells B to split it with C. B decides the amounts, C must approve the division or both get zero. B should rationally offer $0.01 to C and C should rationally accept it. I would say B I’d exploiting his position there, despite obtaining the consent of C. This assumes a closed system where A or B can prevent C from telling them to take a hike and find someone else who will split the money more equitably. Exploitation happens alright, but occurs when there is company towns or the company can hire goon squads to keep workers in line (very important that the government maintains its monopoly on the use of force), or import a bunch of workers that can't speak the language and therefore can't advocate for themselves. Or maybe where an entire industry is operating under the same bad practices, so you can't just switch to the competitors (permanent crunch and then mass lay off in the video game industry). What exploitation is not is simply getting a smaller cut from the owner who sinks huge money into capital, risks much in the business start up, is beholden to heavy taxation/ regulatory fees as well as risks possible lawsuits and the like. Defined so broadly, renders the term meaningless.
I'd just mention "profit" comes after expenses are taken out. So the person has been paid for their work, their investments are paid for, their personal assets protected from risk, as well as all taxes and fees already paid then comes "profit".
The issue we have imo is the overlap of what is essentially a worker owned democratic workplace (save the wage worker), which is what Neb and I and to a lesser degree Kwark is advocating, existing in a capitalist system.
One reason I asked for a more representative example is because within it lies a lot of the explanation for how niches like live edge wood furniture and such exist and how their model works within a capitalist system despite it's apparent similarities to something I'd be more supportive of.
On September 19 2019 14:59 Sermokala wrote:
The problem I have with the statement "profit is just stolen work and externalized expenses" is that it rings a lot like the "taxation is theft" to me. How is trade supposed to function without there being a person who makes profit from trade? And how does industry work without the inherent pursuit of profit even if from a worker ownership model?
If we go back to Kwark's example, there's ample value in products not realized under the capitalist system, without profit being the focus (instead the greatest and most reliable societal benefit determined by the workers and consumers) there's plenty of value to be found in trade. As to the actual work of trade, that's work, which is compensated (an expense).
|
On September 19 2019 14:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:33 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Why are you convinced that we need to eliminate greed in order for socialism to be better than capitalism?
I've made this comparison before but this is like arguing authoritarian systems vs democracy. Sure, democracy looks better than authoritarianism in practice, but people are power hungry, which is why authoritarian systems are so popular. This is an argument against democracy.
Like, no, it's not. Even with power hunger democracy is preferable to authoritarianism. And even with greed socialism is preferable to capitalism. You think the USSR was better for the people than the US? The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that. Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism.
Specifically the workplace democracy concept and how it's not a commune or a union.
|
|
|
On September 19 2019 15:03 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:53 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:33 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Why are you convinced that we need to eliminate greed in order for socialism to be better than capitalism?
I've made this comparison before but this is like arguing authoritarian systems vs democracy. Sure, democracy looks better than authoritarianism in practice, but people are power hungry, which is why authoritarian systems are so popular. This is an argument against democracy.
Like, no, it's not. Even with power hunger democracy is preferable to authoritarianism. And even with greed socialism is preferable to capitalism. You think the USSR was better for the people than the US? The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that. Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism. Specifically the workplace democracy concept and how it's not a commune or a union.
You don't have to live together as in a commune (not sure what that's doing here?) and it doesn't have a capitalist on top as its boss fighting against the union. There is either a management that is elected and therefore accountable (suitable for larger businesses) or decisions about the company are taken directly by the workers. I like democracy so much, I prefer the second option, but I'm willing to be pragmatic 
edit: My mistake I read "specify" instead of "specifically". I'm used to you disagreeing with me I guess ^_^
|
On September 19 2019 15:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:53 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:33 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Why are you convinced that we need to eliminate greed in order for socialism to be better than capitalism?
I've made this comparison before but this is like arguing authoritarian systems vs democracy. Sure, democracy looks better than authoritarianism in practice, but people are power hungry, which is why authoritarian systems are so popular. This is an argument against democracy.
Like, no, it's not. Even with power hunger democracy is preferable to authoritarianism. And even with greed socialism is preferable to capitalism. You think the USSR was better for the people than the US? The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that. Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism. I really dont think it is that simple unless you are talking about the social democracies that currently exist and just pushing them left. For one thing you are going to need a government with enough authority to take ownership away from people. Is all personal property gone or do you keep that? What about farm that can generate millions with few workers (often families), do they just end up wealthy? Im guessing you would fund schools through taxes, but who chooses how much they make? Does a teacher make more than a caretaker or an educational assistant?
Choose a question that you're really interested in and ask that. I'll take the first one so far, "For one thing you are going to need a government with enough authority to take ownership away from people." Not really, no. Start with creating tax incentives for worker coops and tax disincentives for capitalist businesses. Tax the billionnaires waaaaaaaaaaay more and limit the political power of money. Increase the level of education of your population as much as possible. We'll be halfway there already.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 19 2019 15:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 15:03 Sermokala wrote:On September 19 2019 14:53 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:33 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
You think the USSR was better for the people than the US? The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that. Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism. Specifically the workplace democracy concept and how it's not a commune or a union. You don't have to live together as in a commune (not sure what that's doing here?) and it doesn't have a capitalist on top as its boss fighting against the union. There is either a management that is elected and therefore accountable (suitable for larger businesses) or decisions about the company are taken directly by the workers. I like democracy so much, I prefer the second option, but I'm willing to be pragmatic
I said not like communes beacuse it just sounds like what the CCP has where the roman-chinese style communes are just groups of voters that are collected via various demographic means that send representatives to a congress to decide everything.
|
On September 19 2019 15:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 15:13 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 15:06 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:53 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that. Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism. I really dont think it is that simple unless you are talking about the social democracies that currently exist and just pushing them left. For one thing you are going to need a government with enough authority to take ownership away from people. Is all personal property gone or do you keep that? What about farm that can generate millions with few workers (often families), do they just end up wealthy? Im guessing you would fund schools through taxes, but who chooses how much they make? Does a teacher make more than a caretaker or an educational assistant? Choose a question that you're really interested in and ask that. I'll take the first one so far, "For one thing you are going to need a government with enough authority to take ownership away from people." Not really, no. Start with creating tax incentives for worker coops and tax disincentives for capitalist businesses. Tax the billionnaires waaaaaaaaaaay more and limit the political power of money. Increase the level of education of your population as much as possible. We'll be halfway there already. I agree with all those policies. TBH I think we would agree on most policies. I just wouldnt call that pure socialism. It is more of a hybrid. I think it is about raising the floor and lowering the ceiling. I also dont think a revolution is required to do what you are suggesting.
Why don't you think it's socialism?
|
Canada11363 Posts
On September 19 2019 14:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 14:32 Falling wrote:Actually, my scenario is more applicable than you realize now that I've read through Kwark's post because what is true of Bill Gates is literally true of my live edge wood example. (Unless I'm horribly misreading.) So here's the crazy thing with live edge wood- people are paying premium price for what amounts to junk wood. Some of the stuff was laying on the ground for too long and the owner thought would be bad for firewood. But mill it and dry it and people are willing to pay ridiculous prices for it because the spalting makes amazing features. The owner could charge half the rate and still be make $60-80 an hour and making ten times what that wood would make if it was straight up logged and put on a truck. Is it theft to charge more? For awhile the owner did, undercutting everyone else that was selling live edge but a mile- but that created more demand than the owner wanted to work, so it was easier to raise the prices to be just lower than everyone else and therefore wouldn't have to cut through his trees as fast (easier to be sustainable in the long run anyways given that trees increase by about 7% per year). Sure people don't realize a higher cost is being passed on to them. But most people making live edge furniture, etc don't have easy access to trees (or for that matter a mill or a kiln that was designed by the owner as a hybrid from two other kiln designs in the States.) So they just wouldn't have the wood at all. Nobody has a right to those trees- they were just sitting there, passively growing with the few dead ones being picked out for firewood. Then the owner realized there was a niche market for the sort of junk wood that none of the giant industrial mills had any interest in. Which meant all the people making stuff for this live edge fad (pretty sure it's a fad) gained a new and local source. This pretty much matches the Bill Gates scenario, but I fail to see what is wrong with it. On September 19 2019 13:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
Kwark explains well the problem with your position Falling. Gates doesn't invent anything without the society that raised and accommodated him. Instead of getting that value back to the society that invested in him he'd/shareholders rather see it burn and maximize personal profits over social gains (and/or better wages for the workers replicating/maintaining/improving his invention).
The "everybody wins" argument as Kwark points out misses the point. It's a side-effect that corporations buy politicians to minimize, segregate, or eliminate altogether.
This is the immutable flaw of capitalism that regulation can't fix, in part because the regulators often literally work for the corporations or swing through the revolving door in DC. It's true regulation and legislation can shift this balance but it's one capitalism demands be maximized in favor of owners/shareholders, society be damned. I really thing it doesn't deal with your very broad generalization: I think the more we look into the negative externalities of capitalism the more we'll discover that "profit" is a euphemism for stolen work and displaced expenses. Is the finisher stealing when he charges $800 for the finished table when the wood cost $400? (And is he stealing from the mill owner or the customer or both?) And if it is, where do you draw the line. Is $600 okay, but not $800? Or maybe $500? If they are in the US, the land they are doing it on is most likely stolen. So it's like "finding,modifying, and selling" items of value in a strangers house that your great great... grandparents broke into and started living in, for starters. Without digging into that aspect there's also the aspect of who has money to spend on overpriced furniture to create it's "value". Before touching the example itself in any detail, I think it makes more sense to agree on an example that more people are familiar with (can be like a restaurant or something if you want to keep it one where the owner is also a primary worker). Otherwise I'm fine just disagreeing.
It's Canada. But as it was neither in a valley, nor near a river, I don't know that there were any indigenous settlements before the logging camps came through to take out the first growth.
But if we're talking about returning land, I guess you'll have to ship the owner to Mars because there is no returning to ancestral homeland, as his ancestors were chased around Europe in countries that no longer exist before settling in Canada in the 20s. But I don't think we can go that far back because that is impossible to untangle. Where does anybody belong? And if that's the main thing to level at the business, that true of literally every business across all the Americas that are owned by non-indigenous people, so I don't really see the point.
I don't see why another example is needed, but I suppose another one could be used. The beauty of this one is there are very few moving parts. There's a forest, there's a 'portable' sawmill, there's a solar-panel kiln. It's marketed online. Then the woodworkers buy it, turn it into a useful product and sell it (or the hobbyists keep it for themselves). It's at a scale that most businesses begin- and yet still must make a profit. From there, I'm trying to see where the theft enters because there is certainly profit being gained.
Restaurants I don't know much about except that something like 50% of them fail within a couple years, so it seems to me that if restaurants are guilty of exploitation even with that fail rate, maybe such a business is not even possible.
But I've gone out of my way to explain pretty much the entire process of the business, but you still aren't able to say at what point there is exploitation, given that I've demonstrated there is profit? I'm confident I've given enough information that you could identify some instances of profit = exploitation.
|
On September 19 2019 15:14 JimmiC wrote:
Im also curious to how new businesses start under this system. Where does the capital come from? Who accepts the risk? If it fails do all the workers lose everything? If there is a capital injection required because of bad cash flows does everyone put in an equal amount? What if some people spent all their money?
That seems like the simplest part of the system. I know a bunch of machine shops that are started by a group of guys polling their retirement in order to sell off years down the line for a complete share of the profits and finaly the stock they own in a sale of the entity. Small business loans are a thing older than the name of it. It really wouldn't be that hard to visualize a large socialized government to target large business loans and have government officer mediating the structure and opening of workers agreements.
|
On September 19 2019 15:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2019 15:13 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 15:06 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:53 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:47 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:41 Nebuchad wrote:On September 19 2019 14:40 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2019 14:37 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
The USSR had authoritarianism on top of their socialism, which is responsible for most of the problems that you're thinking of right now. I like democracy. Me too. But so far every country (I can think of) that has done socialism has became authoritarian. Guess we've come up with an interesting answer for this discussion that you really want to have about what was wrong with the previous attempts at socialism then Yes but finding a solution is much harder, heck it might not exist. Workplace democracy. You are going to have to expand on that. Have socialism (workers owning the means of production) through worker coops and workplace democracy instead of through an increase in the size and scope of the government. That way your government isn't any more prone to authoritarianism than it is today under capitalism. I really dont think it is that simple unless you are talking about the social democracies that currently exist and just pushing them left. For one thing you are going to need a government with enough authority to take ownership away from people. Is all personal property gone or do you keep that? What about farm that can generate millions with few workers (often families), do they just end up wealthy? Im guessing you would fund schools through taxes, but who chooses how much they make? Does a teacher make more than a caretaker or an educational assistant? Choose a question that you're really interested in and ask that. I'll take the first one so far, "For one thing you are going to need a government with enough authority to take ownership away from people." Not really, no. Start with creating tax incentives for worker coops and tax disincentives for capitalist businesses. Tax the billionnaires waaaaaaaaaaay more and limit the political power of money. Increase the level of education of your population as much as possible. We'll be halfway there already. I agree with all those policies. TBH I think we would agree on most policies. I just wouldnt call that pure socialism. It is more of a hybrid. I think it is about raising the floor and lowering the ceiling. I also dont think a revolution is required to do what you are suggesting.
Only the real crazies who fetishize violence against rich people seriously want a revolution. In europe they get to talk about economics instead of social issues like we do in the Americas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
