Topic: Is Bitcoin socialist dream come true ? (Read 958 times)

No, it was not at all detailed. Also I already responded to each and every one of those points. If you are just going to go around and round in circles I will just start quoting the replies I already made. All you said was about your desires and goals. You described little to nothing about how to get there, and what little was there was poked full of holes. Your argument relies completely upon redefining words as it serves you.

The Ideology of Socialism and Communism has lead to the loss of millions of lives. You don't just get to exclude all the horrible failures of your ideology because "oh it wasn't REAL Communism/Socialism" This is a logical fallacy known as "no true Scotsman".

What about all the lives lost in Holodomor? The Kulaks? Stalin? Lenin? What about under Mao? Pol Pot? Mugabe? Hitler? (he pushed national Socialism)

I guess none of them count right?

On the previous page, I gave a pretty detailed explanation of how to achieve an economy of workplace democracies where people are free to start their own businesses or join cooperatives and explained how we can get there through Marcora laws, tax reform and education.  I gave examples of cooperatives as well. Any questions?  

On the contrary, I haven't seen one example or explanation of how my ideology of workplace democracy/worker owned means of production has cost millions of lives.  

But there are is so much power and wealth to be gotten on the way to the utopian fantasy state. And if you have the right psychology, you too could have a piece of it.

Because you don't offer reality. All you offer is theories and desires, yet you offer ZERO information regarding HOW you claim we can get there. Also all of your arguments require we just simply ignore the endless history of failures of your ideology and the millions of lives it costs to try it over and over and over again. Socialism INEVITABLY results in a totalitarian state. How am I supposed to argue against a fantasy?

I am going to put this link here

https://bigthink.com/videos/eric-weinstein-capitalism-is-in-trouble-socialist-principles-can-save-it

and who doesn't know who this guy is, here more info https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts/eweinstein

I hope everybody takes time to listen.

I am very disappointed in you because I typed up all of those real-world examples and clarifications only for you to disregard all of them and resort to name-calling.  You didn't even communicate what you had a problem with other than semantics.  You're really going to call someone names over a semantic disagreement?

Why would any of this fit my bias? I grew up in the most capitalist country with capitalist parents and have inherited rental property.  I am an academic, a scientist who seeks to find examples of solutions to the world's social, economic and environmental problems.   I've noticed patterns in my studies and formed my opinions from those.

You believe whatever suits you, and you make shit up to confirm your biases. Thanks for the demo on that. You are incapable of having a debate any way. Your brain is a pile of postmodernist mash sloshing around with no form or definition ready to fill any bias you present to it.

However if you happen to be able to form a premise I would be glad to dismantle it again making you look like the simple person you are... again...

but why didn't you respond to the previous post?  My theory that capitalists won't discuss socialism unless they can frame it as authoritarian government capitalism seems to be holding true.

Yep, that's exactly how the rest of the world describes that Communist dictatorship... "equitable"

Is it going to be run by the national governmetn? I heard it was going to be all local and privately run and basically like an extension of the credit system we have in the us but not just based on money.  I don't like any credit rating system but this  sounds better to me than what we have. more equitable.  

It does not matter socialism or capitalism. Any government first of all wants maximum control over its citizens. Very soon, all our life decisions will be recorded on the blockchain, and this recording will determine our whole life. This is a leash for which the government will keep us, if you stumbled - crossed the road to a red signal, predicted a loan payment - you will become a second rate man.
The social credit system is now being introduced in China. But not because of socialism, but because of Confucianism. In China, subordination to the government is unconditional.

Well of course a system that was designed as a fix to capitalism requires capitalism.  You can't fix something that isn't there.  Socialism is simply the next step in the evolution of human society.

Weather or not you call it an example of socialism or not (semantics), its the heart of what we are asking for.  

That is the entire point.  A company isn't owned by a single person but owned by each worker democratically.  Each worker has equal say in the runnings of the company and large company elect representatives who are accountable to them.  You understand democracy so it shouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine that being extended to the workplace.  "Democratic socialism" is just democracy in the economy.  

In a democracy, self-interest and common good are the same thing (assuming you think freedom is good). If the majority of the workers want to take the company in a certain direction, then the desires of the majority represent the common good.  Those who don't like it are free to leave and start their own cooperative or pool their votes to form a coalition like a political party within the company.    
Well if the system is functioning as intended, a power centralization cannot occur unless people voluntarily give away their power.  In that situation a people should be able to take the power back through elections and as long as there are fair elections, functioning democracy can't lead to a power grab.  Therefore, for a power grab to occur, it would have to happen outside of the rules of the democratic system.  It wouldn't mean that the system created the power grab. This type of power grab can happen in any system and is really just a distraction from the main topic.

I never mentioned collective resources and am completely against anything authoritarian.  There you go again bringing things in from other places that have not been suggested.   The soviets had collective resources and took them by force? cool.  I'm not interested in a system that was on the opposite side of the political spectrum from what I am suggesting.  

The only thing that should be collective is worker ownership over the means of production. We don't need force to give people ownership over themselves and their own time.  Giving each individual power over themselves is literally the polar opposite of authoritarianism.
Its because you are using a loose version of the word and I am using a very specific version of the word.  When I say socialism I simply mean "worker ownership of the means of the production" or "economic democracy" and a worker cooperative is what a large socialist company looks like. Its really the only difference in the economy.   Encouraging worker cooperatives is simply a democratic way to create a socialist economy.

I think your confusion is because we often claim an economy that is structured this way will distribute things more evenly and you interpret that as actively taking resources away from people and redistributing them which is wrong.

This is why I wish you would read about the examples I have given you.  They are completely based on reality.  As a scientist, I don't suggest a solution unless it has been tested successfully.  The government already gives the handouts in the form of unemployment.  Marcora laws simply gave groups of people all of their unemployment money up front to start a cooperative.  


You say that you read them but then you say things like they aren't based on reality which makes it sound like you don't think they actually ever happened.  That is why I feel like you didn't really review their outcomes.  Please tell me what was unsuccessful about them?  I mean, obviously, some cooperatives are going to fail but that was a very small percentage and an economy with innovation has to have some business failure.  What is unsuccessful about Mondragon? We must have different definitions of success because I have never seen anyone claim that company is not successful.

Its statements like this that make it hard for me to believe your animated post about reading about Macrora laws and Mondragon.  Anyone who had read about them, would not think they are fantasy and not based on reality.  Are you saying that all of the information about companies like Mondragon is a hoax? just socialist propaganda?

As a scientist, thats not how I operate.  I found out about worker cooperatives, Marcora laws, and several examples of how they increased standard of living before ever thinking "maybe this is something we should do".  I let the data and reality of what has worked drive my desires.  
I didn't say anything about creating taxes or inflation.  What I said is that the businesses which are created add to the economy by producing things and those things are bought and sold generating more tax revenue.    Perhaps the problem is that what I am talking about is not covered in a "basic" economics course because it is a more advanced, modern way of thinking.  

It should be easy to understand that it is better to have people creating businesses with the same money they would otherwise just be collecting as unemployment.  

Here is the problem.  Using logic that has worked since money has existed gets you in trouble when money fundamentally changes.  Your understanding of money is outdated.  Everything you have learned is still accurate in certain contexts, but it only applies to fixed-value currencies.  Of course if all US currency was worth some amount of gold, more money simply divides the value further.  This used to be 100% true but we don't have that anymore.  That means, your basic understanding of buying power does not apply to US fiat.  Once the US dumped the gold standard, we went to a fiat system of currency with no intrinsic value.   Printing money isn't robbing gold from anyone because they had no gold in the first place.  

The value our currency comes from markets and that market value is based on the ability of the IRS to collect tax and thus the strength of the US economy.  The government has to spend money to get it out into the economy so it can be taxed.  This doesn't mean that the US can spend money forever without inflation but it does mean that spending which stimulates the economy does not create inflation.  The general rule of thumb is that, spending past the level of which we have reached maximum employment and the economy is running at 100% capacity creates inflation.

This is why we have deficits in the first place.  You are distracted though because I never said anything about new spending (which could be done) but my suggestions were all fiscally neutral (even though they didn't need to be). I'm simply suggesting we restructure the way we spend the money we already hand out.  

I mentioned this because it is the way the most successful nations in the history of the world handle labor.  Also, just a bit of force is still a lot less than what we have in the US right now under capitalism.  Keep in mind that countries like Sweden and Switzerland are among the world leaders in economic freedom despite the "bit of force" in the form of sectoral labor laws.  We're talking about the same type of force that keeps people from being free to own slaves.  The supreme court ruling you are referring to when you mention right to work and 1st ammendment is Janus v AFSCME.  That ruling only applies to public sector unions.  

Its only anarchy and true communism where there is no state thus no force.  No one is asking for that in today's world.  


This is the same line of thinking that justifies bigotry.  

men who said they were muslim blew something up= islam kills people
men who said they were communist murdered people= communism kills people
priests raped little boys= catholicism rapes little boys

I have no answer for this because I am beyond stumped by how people can overgeneralize this badly.  If one (or even many) people who claim to subscribe to an ideology, do bad things that are outside of, (and usually in opposition to) the ideology, those actions in no way represent said ideology.

I cannot wrap my head around how people jump to these sorts of conclusions and this has ended up being entirely responsible for your mental block surrounding socialism. It would be like taking you to Church and the whole time you think I am trying to take you to a meeting about raping little boys.  Theres no way I could convince you to come in and listen. Even for a little while.  

No, you gave me examples of what you described as Socialism. I addressed your examples, and responded that nothing they were doing was being excluded under the rubric of Capitalism, and furthermore they REQUIRE Capitalism for this to even function. Even if this was an example (which it is not) it would still be a very tiny and regional implementation.



Oh it doesn't concentrate power? I feel much better now that I have your assurances. Is that the key, or is that something you just believe? It is a "unique" system that "decentralizes" power by "attaching it to individual workers". Really? How?

How is it decentralized? What keeps these people operating for the common good and not for self interest? Exploit authority over themselves? What? What does that even mean? Does it really make power grabs more difficult? What evidence do you have to support this? I have about 100 years of history showing that it is in fact EXTREMELY VULNERABLE to power grabs.



It all starts out as buttercups and rainbows, then reality catches up with the fantasy and resources have to be acquired. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY AUTHORITARIAN. You can't have collective resources without TAKING them from people by FORCE under Socialism. If they CHOSE to contribute it would just be a donation. Also are we talking about Socialism or cooperatives here, you seem to be shifting between the two as it serves your argument.



So the subsidies and grants you suggested earlier are not forms of hand outs? Could have fooled me. They still have to be paid for by some one, call it whatever you like. Are your suggestions really that difficult to disagree with? So far really you have told me over and over again what you believe, what you feel, and what you imagine Socialism to be, and very little of how you intent to implement this system in reality.




For the fourth time, I already reviewed Marcora laws and responded to this suggestion SEVERAL times and refuted your premise of it being an example of a successful implementation of Socialism. Once again you make the arrogant assumption that I just need to read a little bit more to "get it". After all your ideas are quite advanced, progressive, and evolved, they might be very hard for a mere mortal such as myself to grasp. You on the other hand understand completely. Do doctors really have that freedom? I am not so sure. Socialized medical programs have kind of screwed that one up. HOW is it available? Again you jump to a conclusion with zero explanation of the methods to arrive there.



Oh it increases the standard of living does it? Based on what data? Oh right, more assumptions. Is it not convenient at every corner everything just works out exactly as you had hoped under this hypothetical system? It is almost as if it is unrealistic and not based the real world.




So what you are saying is cooperatives should be funded by grants, subsidies, and tax breaks... by taking money ... from workers ... to pay for these programs ... is giving workers "control over their labor?" OOOOk.




Yet you did include it, and I explained in exact detail how this happens under YOUR ideas. THE TAX MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE TO FUND YOUR SUGGESTED PROGRAMS. Simply designating everyone nonprofit does not magically make the resources appear. This is completely circular logic on your part. I don't support bail outs, they are not Capitalist, and it is irrelevant to the topic because it is independent of your concepts of what Socialism is. It is nothing more than a red herring to distract from your obvious circular logic on funding.




Calling it "monetary policy" doesn't magically make it not a tax. Furthermore I have more knowledge of monetary policy, economics, and banking in general than the vast majority of the population having spent thousands of hours educating myself on the subjects. You tell me I lack understanding though so it must be true! You just got done telling me that the taxes generated by inflation will cover these expenses. Please, take a basic economics course, then maybe remedial math.

I believe you are insinuating that the monetary policy that you support under Socialism is one of printing more money correct? That is called inflation. It is a very basic and simple law of economics no one is disputing (but you of course). If you have a currency, and you print more of it, the buying power of the currency degrades. This results in everything costing more money to buy, and again we are back at square one with the haves and the have nots, only now the currency system is destroyed. This isn't some fringe theory, it is simple math and history that has been demonstrated pretty much since money has existed. Inflation is a tax on the currency holders because it robs the whole of buying power in order to create the new money.

So you see, the resources must still come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the workers. Your premise fails under your own rubric.



Oh just A BIT of force? Oh well, in that case the ends justify the means right? I thought no force was required for Socialism! Oh I see, it is only because evil Capitalism is here, but once that bad ideology is gone the force will be out right? The government doesn't "tell" people what to do, they make laws and enforce them with penalties (ie force). You didn't address my point that it is a violation of the first amendment right to free association.



Yes, all the countless examples of Communism/Marxism/Socialism that resulted in the losses of hundreds of millions of lives in some of the most horrible ways possible don't count because they don't align with your imagination of what Socialism SHOULD BE. What Socialism is is an ideology that starts out with lots of great sounding concepts that have no substance and inevitably result in authoritarianism, because there is no other way for such a system to function long term. You deciding you would like to re-brand Socialism doe not change one iota of what this ideology has resulted in in the past, and nothing you are advocating is different than all the failures before you. Please, tell me some more about your super evolved, humanitarian, progressive ideas I simply just haven't looked into enough to "get it".

As for your holocaust, try Holodomor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcO4tcobc0

I gave you specific examples of the methodology in practice.  I pointed you to the Bologna region to show the effectiveness of laws that promote cooperatives.  That is specific and successful implementation of my ideas.  

The key is that socialism doesn't concentrate power over many into the hands of the few.  It is unique a system that decentralizes power by attaching it to individual workers.  Yes, some individuals will exploit their authority over themselves but that is the risk of individual liberty.   This economic democracy makes power grabs more difficult than they would be in any other system.  

The examples and ideas I have put forth are far less authoritarian than any other economic system. Cooperatives are literally workplace democracies while capitalism is authoritarian by nature.

One of the purposes of socialism is to reduce unemployment to zero.  If people are empowered to work with people in their community to start their own businesses, they will not only be able to produce what the community needs, but alienation, the thing that makes people hate work, would be reduced.  

Again, in your continued disinterest to discuss socialism, you have shifted to discussing welfare. At no point did I say anything about everyone getting what they need for free or people not working. Its almost like you have to throw bad suggestions into the discussion, just to have something to tear apart since the things being suggested are so difficult to disagree with.  

This is the specific place where reading about Marcora law would completely answer your questions.  They can just work within capitalism if they choose, but in a free economy, they would have the choice to sell their labor or own their labor.  Think about a petty bourgeoisie profession like doctors under capitalism.  They have the freedom to sell their labor to a large scale, private or public hospital or company like Kaiser, but they also have the FREEDOM to open their own practice and collaborate with other doctors to split the cost.  Under socialism, that kind of option is not only available to the bourgeoisie class, but to every worker. 

Under capitalism, there is an alienation of labor.  A worker works, and gets paid for their work and that is the end.  Socialism eliminates that alienation by making every worker a business owner who has say over the direction of the company and a share of the surplus value that is extracted from their work.  

In addition to eliminating alienation, socilaism also increases standard of living as income inequality is reduced, companies controled by workers are less likely to lay off workers during times of hardship, more likely to pay those workers (themselves) a fair salary to begin with, and less likely to do things that might harm the local environment or community (that they live in). An owner living on the other side of the planet but making authoritative decisions about production might not think twice about something like toxic pollution.


I love how you just casually throw in something that was never included as part of the idea (taking money from workers).  A worker cooperative is literally a nonprofit organization so why shouldn't it be legally treated the same way?  We give subsidies to all sorts of businesses already and massive bailouts for capitalists auto industry and finance.  There isn't anything new here.  

No it is called monetary policy and does not involve taking anything by force.  You just don't have an understanding of monetary theory and think the government has to tax before it can spend (its actually the other way around).  You also probably think spending before taxing causes runaway inflation because you haven't thought about the economic activity that this particular spending will generate (taxable production).

Unions are just a band-aid for capitalism. They aren't really what I want and do involve a bit of force because all capitalism involves force but that is what they do in scandanavia.    they have sectoral bargaining to mix socialism and capitalism and a union agreement applies to the entire sector.  Sweden doesn't even have a minimum wage.  The government isn't telling people what to to be paid, but people are negotiating what they must be paid.    The government is telling everyone to abide by that agreement though.

I'd love to hear about examples of it being tried but all you can probably come up with is state capitalism where the government dictates what and how is produced throughout the economy.  

Where is the holocaust at Mondragon in Spain?  Where was the holocaust in the Bologna region?

Yes worker cooperatives can fail but you can't have a free, innovative economy without some failure.

You really should look into the examples of worker cooperatives to see how beneficial they are.  There are plenty of videos on Mondragon.  I already shared a few with you.  Understanding these examples will give you more insight into what socailism has to offer.

What you want is largely irrelevant to this conversation. I believe you probably do have good intent, but again this is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is facts. I "never seem interested" because you aren't discussing anything of substance. I keep asking you to fill out your ideas with specific strategies and methodologies, but you just keep telling me what you feel and how great your ideas are, and I just need to learn a little bit more to "get it".

Since when have power grabs been required to be "necessary" in order for them to happen? You are advocating for taking a large collective of resources and allow them to be managed by people who, by their nature are fallible, and will exploit this authority.

I keep bringing up authoritarianism, because there is NO WAY for Socialism/Communism/Marxism to operate long term WITHOUT authoritarianism. The two concepts are INEXORABLY LINKED. You can imagine it away, but the laws of physics, economics, and human psychology are going to operate in spite of your belief systems.

Yes, we already do have a modern monetary system. A system built by Capitalism. A system which will inevitably collapse under Socialism because in a system where everyone gets what they need for free, there is no incentive to work. If people aren't working they aren't producing. If they aren't producing, there is nothing to buy. If there is nothing to buy what is the point of money? This may seem abstract to you but it is a very well established fact of economics.

Tell me, how do you "encourage" these cooperatives? "The means of production" is an extremely nebulous term that could mean quite literally anything. So workers should just be GIVEN the means of production (ie capital)? The means of production fairy flies by and grants them 3 productive wishes? How does this work? If they are working anyway to do this why can't they just do this within Capitalism? Other than motivating people with warm fuzzy feelings of equality and abundance what does Socialism have to offer ACTUALLY?


"...grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor."

So what you are saying is cooperatives should be funded by grants, subsidies, and tax breaks... by taking money ... from workers ... to pay for these programs ... is giving workers "control over their labor?" OOOOk.

The contradiction is pretty clear here but you keep just hinting that I need to have some kind of paradigm shift to even understand your advanced humanitarian progressive concepts. All these things you are suggesting require the taking of funds by force. If it was not with force it would just be called charity. Also, forcing a worker to associate with a union they do not wish to associate with is a violation of freedom of association under the 1st amendment of The Bill of Rights. it is little more than an extortion scheme. If the union was so valuable people would fund it regardless.

Yes, it is exactly like religion. Socialism/Communism/Marxism are the gods of the secular world. I didn't ask about your faith or what you believe in. I asked you to explain EXACTLY how you expect to manifest this reality. So far you aren't advocating anything that hasn't been already tried over and over again and failed resulting in a holocaust.

I simply want to give people the opportunity to control their own destiny.  You never really seemed interested in talking about socialism and only talked about authoritarianism.  Many of the seeds of socialism already exist in our government.  No new power grabs would be necessary.  We already have a modern monetary system and a public education system.   The only new thing involves is encouraging worker cooperatives (workers owning the means of production).  These are currently illegal in many cases, or extremely difficult to start because liability laws and ownership laws do not address worker cooperatives.  There also are no lawyers who are capable of worker cooperative litigation.

We talked about Marcora law, but other moves such as grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor.

In addition to that, more practical training in high school and college would help prepare people to work in a trade and join a cooperative at a young age.  Its all about empowering people to start their own businesses and do work that is needed in their community.

Within current business structures, some simple band-aids would be to strengthen unions by getting rid of "right to work", and empowering  labor unions to have more control over the workplace.  

It is a lot like religion.  Socialists have faith in the individual and believe if individuals are free to self-determination, good things will happen.  God is in each one of us, so we must take care of the Earth, and all of its inhabitants.

I see, so YOU feel you have proven your argument, therefore you have no need to support your premise with facts. I don't give a FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU BELIEVE, stop telling me what you believe. Tell me how you plan, using facts, not feelings, not beliefs, not ideological buzz words, to voluntarily implement Socialism. I argue it can not be done as the nature of Socialism requires a state and requires force to acquire resources for that state. You have done nothing so far to counter this argument but tell me what you BELIEVE.

You know, I always wondered why Communists were so hostile to religion in general, then one day I figured it out. Communism wants to be God. Under secular life, without God, the state is the default to take that place in peoples minds. Communism is your God, and Socialism is your religion. It is all about having faith and beliefs, and you have completely reinforced this premise time after time.

I've given you examples already but you were only interested in how state capitalism/ state socialism could be implemented and never bothered to ask about how the economy could be converted to socialism democratically.  Your questions were about how things could be taken by force which is absolutely what socialism is against.  Workers have never controlled the means of production at scale.  Sweden's 82% union participation is the closest example. 

Oh believe me I have no trouble visualizing your fantasy, the problem is you have ZERO methods for reaching that goal. You are telling me a lot about what you think Socialism is not, but very little of what it actually is (in your mind). I keep asking how it is implemented and how we get there but all you have are nebulous buzzwords and some scoffing like I am just too obtuse to understand your advanced ideology. Get over yourself.

If this is a real thing, that can really be done like you imagine it, then you should have no problem explaining exactly how we get there. Then there is the minor fact that every time this was ever attempted at scale millions died. I am sure this time though will be all cupcakes and fireflies.

I have no idea where you are getting an idea that resources need to be "collected" by the government for the common good and you said communism/socialism/marxism which confused me even further.  It sounds like you are talking about state socialism again. or maybe you are talking about a welfare state?  A welfare state can exist independent of the economic system.  We have a welfare state in a capitalist system and it would work the same way with socialism.  

In socialism, people collect resources by working.  The only force government uses in socialism would be to protect each individual's economic freedom and certainly not to force anyone to do anything.  Once you have economic freedom embedded into society, everyone will have opportunity to determine their own life.

In communism, there are no funds, or collection of anything.  People just use what they need kind of like an all-inclusive resort.  Communism is hard for most people to fathom because it only exists in a world post-scarcity.  We can't really comprehend that because we only think about the world in terms of scarcity.  It doesn't happen overnight and requires a long period of socialism to eliminate class, increase efficiency, and reduce scarcity.