Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 1st social-capitalistic party in the USA

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 15, 2012, 1:23 a.m. EST by kriman (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We keep protesting for injustice. But, what is it about ?.....It all comes down to Mahatma Gandhi...there is enough wealth in earth for everybody to enjoy a good life, which means "wealth distribution". We know that pure capitalism does not work (greed) and pure socialism doesn't either (oppression). There is bad and good in both systems, but a combination of them has shown great results in Scandinavia. Lets keep fighting for wealth distribution, there is enough for all of us, NOT JUST FOR A FEW. The US should create the 1st Social-Capitalistic party, so to promote wealth distribution.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Capitalism is a system of worker exploitation. It is a system where workers do all the work and owners get paid half of their income.

Scandinavia may be better because there is less exploitation, but workers deserve a system with zero exploitation. They deserve socialism, which is just an economic system without worker exploitation as explained here.

Socialism means, "To each according to their contribution." It is an economic system that pays workers 100% of the income, since they do 100% of the work, and pays workers based on how hard they work instead of based on how lucky or unique they are.

It has nothing to do with oppression. Just because Stalin called his country socialist does not mean it was socialist. Just because North Korea calls its country democratic does not mean it is democratic.

The USSR was denounced by every socialist group in Europe and the US.


"But, what is it about?"

It is all about class consciousness.

Labor needs to understand that they produce everything, and that the owners are completely unnecessary, and that these completely unnecessary owners are taking most of the wealth labor creates.

Owners are just parasites in society. They live off the backs of labor without providing anything useful in return.

And labor needs to understand that the owners have an agenda and that agenda is to take as much of the wealth labor produces as it can. Owners obviously own all the media, so they have an extensive propaganda apparatus to pursue this agenda.

They use their media to convince labor that they should hand over more and more of the wealth they create to the owners and to convince labor that if society did not have owners taking most of the wealth labor creates that society would devolve into an oppressive Stalin dictatorship.

Labor should vote socialist which would replace owners with a labor owned bank that provides the investment money labor needs for free. Labor can then pay itself 100% of the wealth it produces, instead of half, which would raise the minimum income to over $100k and cut the work week in half.


[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 8 years ago

What are you going to do for cash when you drain the pockets out of all the millionaires??????


[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 8 years ago

How about you logging off that pc at the library and go to your local employment center and get a job.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

You can have a good paying job and still understand that billionaires and multi-millionaires often get their money through the exploitation of workers and entitlements. Entitlements like "I have the bank account numbers so I will make myself worth 24 billion dollars and pay the workers that helped me achieve all that 8 dollars an hour and import goods made through terrible labor practices in foreign countries."

No rich person got rich on their own. They needed workers to sell their product and consumers to buy their products.

Corporate cutback theory removes consumers from our consumer based economy. Get it yet?

[-] 0 points by WeThePeop (-259) 8 years ago

Some big companies get their entitlements through Presidents, congressman, etc. How come they are not being attacked for that???

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

That's one of the reasons why those corporations and banks spend so much money buying candidates.


[-] 0 points by Barfnow (-16) 8 years ago

Why are you so rude?


[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 8 years ago

One of the big rip-off to the people is where natural resources are being extracted. Norway has a great oil industry and 80% of the profits go back to the people [govt collects it, has a pension and income supplement program for everyone over 18yrs old] Norway has one of the highest living standards anywhere. Now, if that were America or Canada where oil companies get 85% of the profits, the value of the natural resources gets funneled to the wealthy, the 1%. All the coal and minerals and metals and fossil fuels BELONG TO THE PEOPLE before they are taken out of the ground - we, the 99%, should be getting most of the value back!!

Socialist-capitalist systems are working great for the 99% in Venezuela, Scandinavia, umm ummm, - not many nations have been able to resist the capitalist interventions of the World Bank and IMF ["American global hedgemony"].

But it is what the people want... if they knew.... if democracy was really being offered.

And then then Banks, financial industry, all that, its all a rip off of the 99%...

With that in mind, ANY system can be corrupted, don't matter what ya call it... and any system could be made FAIR, for the 99%!!

American needs a third party of socialist-capitalist, with a constitution like Venezueala or Norway.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2638) 8 years ago

All we need is a few rules, and get the greedy to not be so greedy.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

Oh, the injustice of at all...

What is it all about? What injustice?

Enlighten me.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

Injustice... not as "not just" but as "dis-justice."

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The "injustice" is that 90% of Americans haven't had a real raise in 40 years. Look at the facts instead of listening to the "spin".

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

Who cares... and why are you so hung up on fortune?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Those dollars are our labor. Without them we, including our children, receive inadequate medical care, housing, food, and education.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

Wait a minute... if you're unsatisfied with your income, you have every opportunity to generate your own as self employed - that's what working and middle class people do. How is it that we've all become such whiners?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The problem in America is the people don't know they're underpaid. Inflation has become a smokescreen that hides the fact that 90% of the population hasn't had a real raise in 40 years. If people don't understand why it's harder to make ends meet, they won't take effective action such as forming unions again that brought prosperity to the majority in the 50's and 60's.


[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

That's possible. My greater concern has always been that we have lost our bargaining power as a labor to product ratio.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Bargaining power comes from the knowledge that you possess it. If the lower 90% realized their power today, wages would rise tomorrow.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

This isn't true at all. The leverage is gained as a strictly resources to profit ratio. I think some might label this a "scale of economy." But when those on the lower echelons in manufacturing lose their bargaining power, it radiates upwards through all employers. Right now we have too few large scale manufacturers on the bottom and far too many hungry laborers. To suggest that labor of any form is anything but what it is - a resource - is absurd. But many here will with no knowledge of what such "corporations" really are will assert a power they do not have.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Labor is an essential resource that has a fundamental difference from all others. It decides at what rate it is willing to sell itself. Labor has the ability to raise it's rate of pay. This has been proven by the union labor movement of the mid 1900's. It's not just a matter of supply and demand. It's a matter of the people understanding their true value in the labor market.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

Well it depends on whether you are speaking of labor or whether you are speaking of social aid - they are two different forms of employment. Civil service is not dependent on product; it is dependent on revenue as some small portion of the profit of others. But if we are speaking of labor, their is a scale of economy that is negotiated dependent on product. You know this isn't some theoretical abstract... we live and die on the ability to obtain resources in a real world environment.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

There is no difference between the labor of a teacher or an assembler. Both provide an essential service.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

We pay them more because we have attached a higher value to their service. And rightfully so, pay the teacher what you pay an assembler and we'll have no teachers.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Starting a business requires money, money the 99% do not have because it is taken by the 1% or because they are unemployed.

But even if you did have the money, most new businesses fail. Starting a business is a big gamble. You are more likely to lose money than make money when you gamble on starting a new business.

The solution to the 1% taking most of the income that the 99% create is not to go and gamble! The solution is to stop the 1% from taking their money.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

This isn't really true, either. Those that work for a living know the service market niches.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

That sentence makes no sense.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 8 years ago

It makes sense to a lot of people some of the time, and to some of the people a lot of the time, but obviously it makes no sense to you or you wouldn't be here stumping for dollars.

[-] -3 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

The redistribution of wealth is injustice. It is naked robbery. 2 wrongs don't make a right. What we need is pure capitalism not the mixed system of organized robbery we have today.

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

The few plunder the many.
Everybody plunders everybody.
Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate). [2]


[-] 5 points by factsrfun (8287) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

So close all the prisons, fire all the judges and release the military? are you really ready for that?

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

Can't wait!

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago


Make sure the principle you're proclaiming is correct. The numbers proclaim a different truth. The "injustice" is that 90% of Americans haven't had a real raise in 40 years. The plunder is not being redistributed at all. It stays at the top.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Try changing the dates to 1977 to 2008. All the growth in income went to the top 10%. The income of the bottom 90% declined.


That chart leaves out an even more important fact: Half the income labor produces is paid to investors. The worker productivity gains that workers are losing out on is tiny compared to the income they are losing to the parasitic investors.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The chart includes capital gains.

[-] -1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Yes, but what that chart is not showing is that unearned income (profit, interest, rent, dividends, capital gains) makes up half the total income we pay out and nearly all of it is being paid to the top 10%, not just the amount it increased.

Increased productivity makes up maybe a couple of percentage points of our income. Unearned income makes up 50%.

Take whatever you are losing in productivity gains and multiply it by 25 and you will get a sense of what you are losing to unearned income.

Yes they are losing out on the couple hundred billion in income from productivity gains each year. But they are also losing out on the $7 trillion paid in unearned income each year.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The graph shows average income for each group including profit, interest, rent, dividends, capital gains. Does it matter to the average person what fraction comes from earned and unearned income? He's still getting shafted.

Here's a nice graph showing the top 1% distribution of income from salaries, capital gains, Etc.


[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

We paid out over $6 trillion in unearned income last year. If we get a 1% productivity gain, that is an additional $60 billion in unearned income that will be paid out.

That graph is showing that none of that $60 billion will go to the bottom 90%.

That's terrible.

But what I am pointing out is that pales in comparison to the fact that they are also not getting most of that $6 trillion!

Yes, they are losing out on that $60 billion. But they are also losing out on most of that $6 trillion.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

The plunder is being distributed in many directions. Corporate welfare is one form of plunder, but so are things like Social Security & education grants.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Did you look at the graph?