Forum Post: WILD IDEA: What about a system that offers each individual the CHOICE between socialism and capitalism??? A system that combines both into one and allows each person to decide which one they want to live within, in the context of a larger whole?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 9:26 p.m. EST by SirPoeticJustice
(628)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Please DO NOT say "It would never work." Obviously it would take figuring out. I have heard two good ideas so far on this
1 Two economies roughly 7 trillion each (demandthegoodlife.com)
2 Designate the systems by state and Let states decide which system they prefer.(Nikka)
Can I also have feedback on this proposal:
http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/2011/10/2011-occupy-america-peoples-official.html
Dude, give it up, please. There are very few here gunning for full bore socialism. It's a strawman.
There are many gunning for full bore capitalism. Radically free markets. They don't accept that we've been witnessing the shift to more and more freedom for markets, less and less equality and taxation and regulation, and that this is a huge part of our problem. For them it's just about finishing the job; make it pure, make it profoundly free. That is extremist.
This is not Fox News. There are not two equal and balanced sides. The projection that has made into evil, freedom-hating commies, those of us who liked the socioeconomic system we had in this country before Reagan, does not deserve equal time with my views, and I will no longer compromise with it.
but we've never had a totally free market. the market flourishes when its starts to get free. once you start mixing politics with the money from corps though, things start to head south.
It's been getting more free since 1980. Have we been flourishing, or just those at the very top? It was very free in the Gilded Age. Did the people flourish, or just those at the very top? It will never be the anarcho-capitalism you're looking for, and I say that's a good thing. Check this out (about taxation as one facet of free market ideology): http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Please don't try to sell more of the last 30 years of economic "liberalization" before understanding what more freedom for the markets has already done for (to) us.
Corps and politics should be split through massive new structural reforms for campaign financing, lobbying, the financial industry, etc.
Lately All I hear from on here are card carrying communists and full blown Libertarians I am looking for a path to alchemy or synergy.
Exactly!
Did you miss the video playing yesterday with the People's mic parroting everything Angela Davis said? She is a long time commie/marxist. The leaders of this organization and many of the mods around here, have talked openly about wanting a marxist takeover. The protesters are using Rules for Radicals to enact this protest. Bill Ayers a full bore Marxist.
I know. But I am not.
Capitalism actually sucks unless it is heavily watered-down by a democratic government.
Capitalism with sensible regulation and a social safety net.
Just like other first-world countries around the world have.
Just like the USA used to have.
Are you suggesting we take a vote? Or asking the capitalist to have a social conscience? Or the social egalitarians to become rich?
I guess it is a vote, I vote for "capital-socialism". Not social capitalism.
[Deleted]
We need new ideas. This is something to think about.
Yes it may work. 1%=capitalists 99%=socialists. Naw that is too extreme.
So, the government =socialism, private sector=capitalism. Naw that's too real.
How about, the social system being given complete oversight, the product of capital. Note this is not ownership nor control.
Are you advocating the system we have now. Please stop being a douche.
"How about, the social system being given complete oversight, the product of capital. Note this is not ownership nor control." In other words the end product of capital can not move forward without social consideration.
what we have now?
We need to stop talking about capitalism versus socialism. The conversation won't get us anywhere. We need to make a change to the ultimate problem: Money in Politics. We need to focus on forcing our politicians to pass an amendment to the constitution fully funding all federal election campaigns and banning the use of any private/organizational money in the funding of campaigns, (even a candidates own money). Because of the 1st amendment and the court's interpretation of it, the only way to make such a thing happen is to pass a separate amendment. It's not the economic system per se, it's what is motivating our government representatives. Inequalities will then be properly dealt with by our representatives because they will be far more answerable to the people they're supposed to be representing, and not the need to raise funds and give favors in return.
the problem is way beyond money in politics, its more along the lines that we are borrowing someone elses money and paying interest on it. We should be printing our own money " united states notes" and controlling is value via congress.
Amen!
Yes I'll pick capitalism when I'm profitable and Socialism when I'm not..You know, like the banks...
Umm, state capitalism ...
Why don't we dwell in reality and offer them a choice between democracy and oligarchy?
LOL
???
Most people here don't know what Capitalism or Socialism is so you will never get a real answer. Most people will here Socialism and completely dismiss the arguement without really understanding what Socialism was supposed to be. I am neither, but I am also open-minded.
Already done! It's called the World! Look at how well it's going. Two world wars and a Cold War for nearly half a century. Several more wars afterwards. Take the hints!
yeah I get your point. I am realizing I am a Left-Libertarian
Also, the US isn't purely capitalist. It's a unique form. That's why it is generally sustainable.
It's called libertarian-socialism. Welcome to the fold.
Thanks. You know it's funny. I find myself realizing that everyone on this site has some really good points. And most have an idea or two that I disagree with. How the hell the founding fathers ever got their shite together is beyond me. We should have Gordon Ramsay mediate the convention.
This was an idea that I explored as well. I think it has potential.
The only way for an economic system to work is it has to be sufficiently large enough to produce most of what it needs. Otherwise it would need to rely on imports.
The US is large enough to handle 2 economic systems if they were roughly the same size. They would each be $7.5 trillion which is larger than every country except China.
But capitalism would not last a year.
Why would 50% of workers continue to work for a capitalist system for $33k when they can work for a socialist system that would pay - assuming income was allocated equally - $135k?
The companies in capitalist states would have to do profit sharing and give incentive to workers that they could actually work their way up in the company.
Once a capitalist system gives everyone profit sharing and more equal income opportunity, it is no longer capitalist. It is socialist.
No - IT IS FAIR. Why would anyone want to work a dead end job with no hope of ever being an owner of the means of production? You have to give people something to work toward, if you want them to care and work hard. Profit sharing, in every study conducted, ALWAYS increases revenue enough to cover the profit sharing, because employees care more.
I agree it is fair. That is why I advocate socialism.
Capitalism is not a fair economic system.
I hear you there. I think people are afraid of change to a degree and they hear the word "socialism" and it scares them I was freaked out when I was in Nepal and saw the Maoist rallies. I want a system that is better for everyone and makes happier people.
Except all the people would be living on the capitalist side and none on the socialist side. Since producers will refuse to live in a socialistic society, jobs will be able to be had only on the capitalists' side.
Since a "producer" is someone who works, I can assure you that most workers would rather work in a system that pays them $110k - $480k than a system where 90%+ make less than that amount and 50% make less than $33k.
Producers are getting a raw deal in a capitalist system. A socialist system would treat them fairly.
They might rather work there, but the jobs simply won't be there. Business owners and employers, like I am occasionally, are not going to set up shop under such a system. Especially if we could just go "over there" and can work under the one we prefer. Nobody who would be successful at business is going to be fool enough to do business under a socialist system. BTW: extraordinarily few people are worth 100K+ a year. They simply do not have the skills to produce even close to that value, much less exceed it. Believe me, most people simply cannot produce more than 30K a year in value for a company and that is why they are paid what they are. Heck most minimum wage people can't even produce as much as they are paid.
You sure are full of yourself. Your arrogance is comical.
I can assure you that within the 97% of the workforce (who would benefit in a socialist system) there are more than enough people who can successfully run a business.
And no matter how elitist you think you are, and how great you think you are at running businesses, and how valuable you think you are, you will be broke in your capitalist world because you will have nobody to sell to.
And as soon as they become successful, they will move the capitalist side where they can be even more successful. Why wouldn't they? Out of the goodness of their hearts? HA!
You are not getting it.
The wealthy in this country only have their wealth because they convinced 97% of the workforce to accept a below-average income.
Once the workforce no longer is forced to work in a system where they get paid below-average wages, your ability to hire people at wages low enough to make you wealthy comes to an end.
You will have nobody to hire because nobody is going to work for low wages.
But couldn't that happen now in our current system. If people can't get their act together enough to demand higher wages now, what's suddenly going to change that the will do that.
Individual workers do not have leverage in demanding higher wages in our current system.
The system needs to change.
The system has to be deliberately designed to pay everyone a fair wage. Capitalism doesn't do that. Capitalism pays the highest wages to the people with the most income. A person with $50 million in the bank will always make more than a store clerk who earns $30k.
Yeah, so what if they make more? Who cares?
"Yes that is how inflation works. The more money we have the more stuff costs. Pretty basic really."
That is not how inflation works. Inflation doesn't happen because you get a pay raise. Inflation happens when you increase the money supply greater than you increase production.
We currently pay out $15 trillion in total income. In a democratic system, with incomes from $115k to $460k, we will pay out a total of $15 trillion in income.
Since the total amount of income being paid out is the SAME, there is no inflation.
If we needed to pay out $30 trillion in income to pay everyone the incomes I cited, then that would cause inflation.
"I can't earn more than a set amount"
You can increase your income by 400%. It is far more income than you are likely to earn now.
The chance of you earning $1 million per year in this system is about the same as your chance in today's system: 0%.
.
"I can't buy a bigger house or a fancier car than my neighbor"
If you are more concerned about how much more you make than others than how much you make for yourself, it sounds like you have some inferiority issues.
But if you made 4 times what your neighbor made, you would be able to spend 4 times as much as your neighbor on your home and cars.
Even if you didn't make more than your neighbor, you can still spend more on your cars and home.
If a couple both made the maximum income and wanted to spend 30% of their income on their home, they would be able to buy an $8 million home.
.
"some twit of the government said so"
The government doesn't decide how much you can make, you do through the democratic process. And that will get you a far better deal than what some twit business owner or luck of the market will give you.
.
"I have the freedom to make the decisions so I can buy the bigger house"
Your freedom is limited by the income you have. This system will likely increase your income 400%. So it will increase your freedom and enable you to buy a much bigger home.
.
"I also have the freedom to make the decisions that may lead to me starving in the street"
People want to live in a more civilized, less barbaric society, where people are not starving in the streets.
.
"I do NOT need a nanny state to ensure my success"
Yes you do. If you think you can make it on your own, move to Liberia.
.
"Milk will cost $50 a gallon if 115k is the least amount one can have."
That is not how inflation works. Read my comment below again.
Yes that is how inflation works. The more money we have the more stuff costs. Pretty basic really.
"that is what I think he's worth"
That is the way it works in capitalism. That is why it produces such terrible results. A person's standard of living shouldn't be determined by you.
Capitalism - a system of inequality - should be replaced with democracy - a system of equality.
Democracy is a Greek word. It is not a Greek word for "voting" or "mob rule", it is a Greek word for "people power". It means power rests with everyone equally.
Since democracy is a system of equal power, and income is your source of economic power, economic democracy simply means you get equal income for equal work. Income is allocated democratically.
Equal income for equal work means that the only legitimate, justifiable reason for paying one person more than another is to get them to do difficult work and to get them to give their maximum effort.
How much more you need to pay people in order to be an effective incentive can be determined scientifically. And you will not find any scientific study that says you need to pay people much more than 2 times or 4 times their pay in order to get them to do difficult work or to give their maximum effort.
In a democratic economy, the political process will filter out reasonable compensation proposals that are supported by objective, scientific evidence and the worker population will vote directly on its approval.
When differences in income are limited to just what is necessary to be an effective incentive, there is enough income to pay everyone between $115k and $460k, enough to make every citizen wealthy which would put an end to nearly all our social problems.
And investment will no longer come from savings. A portion of GDP would be allocated to banks for them to invest.
Otherwise, the economy would work exactly as it does now.
Except everyone can only afford the same stuff. Sounds like a pretty sucky place to me. I can't earn more than a set amount and therefore I can't buy a bigger house or a fancier car than my neighbor because some twit of the government said so.
No thank you. I like the system as it is now. I have the freedom to make the decisions so I can buy the bigger house. I also have the freedom to make the decisions that may lead to me starving in the street.
But most of all, I do NOT need a nanny state to ensure my success. And again, if the least anyone makes is 115K, that will be your new poverty line. Milk will cost $50 a gallon if 115k is the least amount one can have.
There is no new income.
We are not increasing the total income that is getting paid out. All we are doing is reallocating existing income. So on average, costs will remain the same. And since costs will remain the same, prices will also remain the same.
For example, if a company has just 2 workers and one was paid $200k and the other was paid $30k, their total costs would be $230k.
If they decided to reallocate income so that they were both paid $115k each, their costs would still remain $230k. Since their costs didn't change, their prices won't change.
But as a company owner I WANT to pay one 200K, because that is what I think he's worth, and I WANT to pay the other 30K. So who are you decide what I, and owner, does with my money?
"Except that 115K would be the new poverty line, and we'd all be right back where we started."
People who make $115k do not live in poverty. That is absurd.
Poverty is not a relative number. It is an income that is too little to get the basics.
You can get more than the basics with $115k. You can live a wealthy lifestyle.
Okay, look. If I know my neighbor is making 115K a year instead of about the 40-50 that he is, I'm going to start charging him 15K for a roof instead of the standard 3K. THAT's why it will become the new poverty line. Prices will rise to absorb the new income.
97% of the entire workforce cares because they are left to make a below average income.
50% of all wage earners care since they are left to make 80% less than the average income.
The 46 million who are left to live in poverty cares.
The purpose of income is to motivate people to work. If you limited differences in income to just what was necessary to motivate people to do hard work and give their maximum effort, you would be able to pay every worker between $115k and $460k, which is enough to make everyone wealthy and would put an end to all the problems OWS was protesting.
Except that 115K would be the new poverty line, and we'd all be right back where we started.
i don't want either.
How about we just kill people that think!
We already do that.
This is called "private insurance".
Yea Its a great idea, but you'd have to scrap the US constitution first so the States could Choose the form of government they want for themselves. Besides that it would be great to watch all the socialists wallow in their own filth and go hungry providing for their leaders just like China and then die a silent death just like the soviet union. Socialists, you people amuse me, you'd do just about anything so you can live a life of doing nothing whilst someone else feeds you.. Can't you people learn from earths greatest teacher, History???
"Besides that it would be great to watch all the socialists wallow in their own filth and go hungry providing for their leaders"
This isn't Socialism = It's called Corruption and it's already happening now in Capitalist America.
Its called socialism take a trip to China. Walk through the back streets and alleys of even the most modern Chinese cities like Shenzhen. You will see the working class wallowing in their own filth. Women washing clothes at the side of a well. I have seen this with my own eyes in the 白石洲 neighborhood of Shenzhen, China
Look, it's about Freedom. Everyone free to create the life they like as long as they don't infringe on someone else's right to do so. That's why we have the sovereign States of America, so the people can design laws and social systems that they agree to in each State. For example, if a group is adamantly against abortion, they would have a State legislature that made it illegal. A different population in another State might have laws that are pro-abortion and for a woman's right to choose. A person could then move to a State that supported their personal views. Lots of freedom in that. The Constitution supports these States rights, it exists to protect these freedoms. You forget the Constitution was created to protect people from too much government, not the other way around. The question is, can you handle that much freedom?
I can as long as the environment is protected.
Yes. Stop the corporate takeover of all governments such that they are no longer allowed to override laws and pollute anywhere they can make a buck at it. Stop war, the biggest polluter of all, but so lucrative they can't stop from making a killing! Corporations are a sick lot these days, I'd just as soon get rid of them altogether. Slaves to fake, fiat money and they don't care who gets hurt. The big stink about the population being unsustainable is bullshit, it's the 1%, they consume over 40% of the resources, if they go, the world will be fine.
you can not have socialism under the constitution, please refer to article 4 section 4 of the US constitution. As for your assertion of Sovereign States, I think you need to look beyond written documents to the reality of the situation today, states are corporate subdivisions of the US corporation as evidenced by their ALL CAPITAL STATE OF __ names. therefore can not be sovereign.
Well, gee, maybe we should go ahead and change things back to what was originally intended, because that's unconstitutional too.
Well Its actually constitutional, that's why we should probably scrap the whole stupid constitution and go back to governance under the Articles of Confederation, which in my opinion was never given a fair chance to prove its self. then the states could set up whatever form of government they wanted and control their own money supply. keeping the money supply close to the people and away from central bankers and mega rich families
Yes, back to the beginning. We had a good start but got co-opted. Money corrupts.
Socialism has only created failed states. Capitalism is simply the best, current, form of work hard and get a reward we have. Yes, people have found ways to take advantage of it. It's unfortunate.
What this planet needs to do is dissolve the whole idea of government. Different countries should tax and spend all the money immediately on the people. No borrowing. If people vote for new roads, taxes go up until the roads are done, than go back down. If people want healthcare, taxes go up to pay for the cost of healthcare. When it gets to expensive, people vote, and healthcare cuts costs until taxes are reduced.
There is just too much bureaucracy in today's governments.
This is easy. First of all corral the federal government back behind the Constitution as originally planned so that it no longer is able to legislate laws that effect the people and it goes back to only doing what it was designed to do, namely defend the People from all enemies foreign and domestic (which it has failed abysmally) and oversee commerce and disagreements between the States. Return full sovereignty to the several States so they can create any type of society they like as long as they do not trample on the freedoms of others to do the same. Now we have a truly free U.S. of A. where the People of each State can decide what type of social structure they want for themselves and the federal government is out of the picture.
I like the idea especially if corporate personhood is reigned in and corporations can no longer make campaign contributions.
That is a no-brainer. There must be a firewall between corporations and all levels of government, no exceptions. No mixing of public and private funds. No corporate personhood whatsoever.
I want a national credit union too and some kind of protection for the environment. Do those four things and I become a libertarian.
Local credit unions are better, get the national out of yo head, dude! The environment will be fine if we just get rid of all the trade agreements and end the wars that allow corporations to grossly pollute anywhere they like. War is the worst polluter of all, but it is such big business they can't seem to stop the killing they're making!
I meant national credit union INSTEAD of the federal reserve bank. I agree with you on the wars.
Whowould pay for the socialist half?
The successful half. Just like we're going to have to pay for California.
Is california a socialist state now? I thought they were gunning for more tourism.
That is already available. the socialists can move to europe. The place the colonists left precisely to escape the very tyranny the jealous losers want to recreate here. Just go home if you prefer safety & security to Liberty & freedom. America is for people who want freedom. Freedom is not defined by people giving you free stuff so you can have more free time. Freedom is defined as being left alone to pursue your own life.
Or, the states that want to be socialist could go one way, and the states that wanted to be successful could go another.
Hmmm. That is an interesting idea!