Nationalism: Is it ok?

[Endus]

You still aren't really answering any of the questions of how it works, other than giving some general overtures.

Because "how does an entire economic system work" is an incredibly complex question, and would involve me writing textbook amounts of information to get into everything, and that's not what we're here for.

If you're that interested, there's plenty of source material about socialist theory.

Most companies start out as exactly as you are saying - the owner is the one doing all the work. Likely they are working 60-80 hours a week and barely getting by. Even most of the big companies, once upon a time started out as a small company that was worked by the owner. Over time, as the company grew, the owner hired people to help him/her handle the business of the company.

Under your proposal, it sound like you would forbid anyone from hiring an employee. The only people who can work in your company are people who can buy ownership into it? That's sounds like a plan for disaster. And not like "down the road", but it sounds like you could watch that fail in real time.

You're still operating under a false presumption of capitalism, is why you're struggling.

The one guy running the company at the outset is not the "owner". Not in the capitalist sense. He gains all the profits because he is the only one doing any work. Once he hires on staff, he isn't, and that changes. The new staff member doesn't need to "buy ownership", because that's a capitalist concept in the first place, and you're inserting it for no reason.

Yes, socialist systems are "bad" at being capitalist. That's not surprising. It's also a silly thing to complain about, since they never pretended to be.

Hiring day labor and short term help would be illegal. "I need 10 people to help me build a housing foundation. Who has enough money to buy out shares of my construction company so you can help me build the house?" Although I would suspect you are implying, if you bring in laborers to help you handle your business, you have to give them a percentage of your company. Considering how tough it is to run a small business, I suspect this would kill small business outside of family owned, no non-family employees business'. But the option of giving a stake of the company to anyone they bring in to help would limit any choices they have of expanding. **There's a reason people can't find work in systems set up like you are proposing.

None of this makes any sense, since there wouldn't be any "buying of shares" in the first place; I used share ownership as a shorthand to explain how it could be distributed, nothing more. Yes, if you bring in laborers for short-term pushes, those laborers would enjoy their fair share of the profits off that push, accordingly. That wouldn't "kill small business", at all. You are still inserting capitalist principles into the mix and complaining when they don't fit. Well, frankly, duh. We're not talking about a capitalist system; it doesn't work like that, and trying to make it do so is not gonna work.

What about the concept a company hiring another company? Like food, telephony, or janitorial services. Would you have to give all those other companies an ownership stake in your company? What if the profits for the employees of your company are higher than the profits of the employees of the company that your company is hiring? How does that work?

Again, there is no "ownership stake". That's a capitalist viewpoint.
If you hired people on to help boost profits, yes, they should share in those profits. This isn't that complicated.

Also, in your system, there is no more start up or business expansion money. People will risk hundreds of thousands or millions to have an ownership stake, but those same people aren't going to take the risk of loaning millions for a simple interest return. It's too risky, which is why you need bigger potential returns, because many of those business' you loan money too won't be able to pay you back.

Your complaint boils down to "if it isn't capitalism, then capitalists won't capitalize on ownership rights for self-profit". Well, that's the point. This isn't a critique, it's yet again complaining that it's not capitalist.

Loans get granted all the time, and serve this purpose just fine. It means there's less chance of buying ownership so that, for a small investment, you can reap huge profits based on no work other than having money at the outset, but that's sort of the point. To mitigate the capacity for an oligarchy of the wealthy to effectively control the economy, for their exclusive benefit, which capitalism almost inevitably boils down into.

Pretty much every single one of your arguments here boils down to "but it isn't capitalism". Yeah. That's not shocking. A socialist system works differently, and doesn't rely on the same concepts as a capitalist economy would. By design. That's not a mistake, nor does it mean it would fail.

[Deleted]

The benefits are that it directly combats wealth inequality by ensuring that all those who work for a profitable compare share in those profits, giving a direct personal motive to bettering your workplace. It ensures you cannot have the wealthy makes themselves more wealthy by essentially profiting off the backs of wage-slavery, the work of those who cannot share in the revenues of their labour.

Addressing this first, because it was an explicit request of mine. I personally think it's important to stress why wealth inequality is a problem. Many people don't have any problem with other people being richer than they are. The actual problem is exploitation, that some of the accumulation is not earned in any meaningful sense other than birth rights (inheritance), and the capacity that some of these peoples have to interfere with governance and democracy. Personally, I don't shy way from the word "alienation".

The only major difference between a market socialist system and a mixed economy is that there's no longer private ownership, which only really matters when it comes down to who's getting the profits.

the third is irrelevant since "property" isn't part of the equation in the first place outside the most extreme variants (pure Marxist communism, largely).

I understand yours is an extreme variant?.

Rather than being distributed among owners (whether single ownership, partnership, or shareholders), it's distributed among employees. Not equally, necessarily (it COULD be, but that's up to the company), but most likely in proportional relation to their salary distribution, for simplicity's sake. You could see it as employees getting a number of shares relative to their salary, with public shares and trading simply not existing.

The obvious follow-ups to understand your exact proposal.
-do workers also share bankruptcy and debt (presuming this version hasn't done away with currency).
-the market you're describing is a network of cooperatives and/or trade unions. Groups of peoples trading commodities. Still for a profit, but deposited on the individual or the trade union. Isn't capital still prone to accumulation in the hands of the workers of the most profitable companies?.
-do state-owned companies maximize profits?. And are they subject to democratically elected governments, or directly managed by presumably efficient bureaucrats?.

[Spectral]

That's not a reasonable starting point. That definition is out of touch with reality. If you've ever met a nationalist in your life, you'd know it. Then again, USA or Canada (which ever you are from) are not nation states, so you wouldn't know. Second, the last part is possible root cause for potential the shitstorm. Many terrorist organizations think it's okay to blow people up, because they think they need to "self-govern". Spain, Turkey, England are some well-known examples.

Is there a working definition you'd endorse other than "you'll know it when you see it"?

[Endus]

Addressing this first, because it was an explicit request of mine. I personally think it's important to stress why wealth inequality is a problem. Many people don't have any problem with other people being richer than they are. The actual problem is exploitation, and that some of the accumulation is not earned in any meaningful sense other than birth rights (inheritance). Personally, I don't shy way from the word "alienation".

I don't have a problem with a degree of wealth inequality, but when it gets attenuated (and the current status is certainly that), it means that the benefit of the strength of the economy is only enjoyed by the fantastically wealthy. Western economies have improved steadily since WWII, but taking the USA as an example, the average American worker is not significantly better off compared to 40 years ago. Their share of that productivity has been declining, not even remaining stagnant.

While the economy may keep functioning, I'm interested in the welfare (in the broader sense) of the average citizen.

I understand yours is an extreme variant?.

Compared to what? It's far less "extreme" than a communist system would be. It's more "extreme" than what we currently have, because it's not that. It's not really that far off, though.

The obvious follow-ups to understand your exact proposal.
1> -do workers also share bankruptcy and debt (presuming this version hasn't done away with currency).
2> -the market you're describing is a network of cooperatives and/or trade unions. Groups of peoples trading commodities. Still for a profit, but deposited on the individual or the trade union. Isn't capital still prone to accumulation in the hands of the workers of the most profitable companies?.
3> -do state-owned companies maximize profits?. And are they subject to democratically elected governments, or directly managed by presumably efficient bureaucrats?.

Numbered the above for ease of discussion, and without breaking this up;

1> Possibly, depends on if corporate personhood/responsibility could be a thing. You could have limited liability systems, or not, but if not, then that responsibility would be shared and relative to your contributions; a janitor isn't going to get stuck with the full bankruptcy obligations of a megacorporation. Can't really be cut-and-dry here since it's a really complex subject and it's not even solidly set in our current economic systems. It bears mentioning that it's unlikely a company and its workers would want to dig themselves in too deep into a risky project, though, for exactly this reason. But we have single owners and partnerships today that sink their life savings in and go bankrupt, it's really not THAT different.

2> Yes, but that's a much wider group of people, particularly as employee numbers will tend to rise as market share does, since you can't keep up with increasing demand without adding on staff. It's also much less likely to nearly impossible for wealthy individuals to buy ownership and gain revenue without working to contribute, so there's less capacity to "let your money work for you". You could invest it in companies via loans, but that's a set return, not profit-based. The goal wasn't to eliminate wealth inequality, just to rebalance the distribution in a manner that's more capable of self-regulation.

3> State-owned companies aren't typically focused on profit in the first place, but on provision of services. "Profit" is either revenues used to fund programs that don't generate revenue themselves, or it's cycled back in to provide better/more thorough servicing. As for how they're managed, they exist already in Western democracies, and there's a range of ways they're managed, and I don't see that that would have to change much. It would depend on the exact system, but there's no single, simple answer. Look at nationalised universal health care, for instance; there's no profit motive, but savings mean you can provide better servicing for the same amount of funding.

[Deleted]

It bears mentioning that I'm sold on the idea already (though, I'm aware of other less obvious kinks). Just questioning because I find the exposition to be more conductive to an understanding.

Compared to what? It's far less "extreme" than a communist system would be. It's more "extreme" than what we currently have, because it's not that. It's not really that far off, though.

You made two different posts regarding property and private ownership. And regarded that including property in the equation was an extreme variant. I'm not exactly sure what to make of both statements.

it's unlikely a company and its workers would want to dig themselves in too deep into a risky project, though, for exactly this reason. But we have single owners and partnerships today that sink their life savings in and go bankrupt, it's really not THAT different.

It's very similar. But we're trying to make a much better society.
People today easily go bankrupt because they have a safety net behind: their savings, their inherited wealth, and ultimately state welfare.
We have anecdotal evidence that big innovative companies can start from very small (Google, facebook), but others are the result of wealth accumulation and industry deregulation (SpaceX).
Considering that wealth disparity is rolled down (a safety net that incentives risky endeavors), can presume there'd be a similar incentive to innovation?.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a working definition you'd endorse other than "you'll know it when you see it"?

FWIW, I'm guilty of doing just just that in the other direction:
When I see the hysteria around presumed fascists, I wonder if these people have met an actual fascist.

[Spectral]

FWIW, I'm guilty of doing just just that in the other direction:
When I see the hysteria around presumed fascists, I wonder if these people have met an actual fascist.

I mean, I get it. I don't mean to be an autistic pedant about the matter, I just want to arrive at a spot where we're actually talking about the same thing. I totally understand someone saying, "right, I don't mean some mild nationalism, I'm talking about the kind of people that identify as nationalists". Understood. Same applies for your comment regarding fascists - yeah, we need to be talking about the kind of people that are proudly fascist rather than some goofy label.

But if someone's going to ask if something's OK, I need to know what the something is.

[Ragedaug]

Considering that wealth disparity is rolled down (a safety net that incentives risky endeavors), can presume there'd be a similar incentive to innovation?.

This is my biggest fear in moving to a socialist system. People risk "everything" in hopes of a big payoff.

In the new socialist system, would the Waldens get to keep their family money? It seems like everyone is saying "yes", because there would be no seizure. But the next question is, why would the Waldens bother investing any of that money in future ventures?

You'd have the currently mega-rich folks with all their millions / billions with no interest to start new business with it. For that matter, it would behoove them to get out of their current business since all future profits are now shared. Walmart has 2 million employees and 5 billion in net profit. Why would the Waldens stick around to share $2,500 a year?

Then once you have one bad year where the company loses money, no one gets paid because everyone is profit sharing instead of getting paid a salary or wages.

I think that's something socialists don't take into account. When a company has a bad year in a capitalist system, the owners not only don't make any money, they lose money. Those loses aren't passed on to the workers. The workers continue to get paid their agreed upon wages. If all profits are shared so that there's no "owner" per say, and no one who can bankroll a bad season where the company takes a financial loss, does everyone just turn to the government for a handout since the company can't pay them? And how does the company survive a bad season? If the workers aren't getting paid, because the business took a loss, why would any of those workers remain?

I keep thinking about friends who have started Restaurants, who took out loans not only to buy groceries and pay their mortgage, but also to pay their employees, because the restaurant wasn't making a profit. So with no "restaurant owner", do all 15 employees continue to work the store while the store isn't profitable? This is part of the innovation and new venture business that I believe would be hurt the most in that system.

[Player Twelve]

That's not a reasonable starting point. That definition is out of touch with reality. If you've ever met a nationalist in your life, you'd know it. Then again, USA or Canada (which ever you are from) are not nation states, so you wouldn't know. Second, the last part is possible root cause for potential the shitstorm. Many terrorist organizations think it's okay to blow people up, because they think they need to "self-govern". Spain, Turkey, England are some well-known examples.

These days, most people think nationalism is answer to perceived "poor immigration policies" of the West. I suggest those people to read a bit of history.

- - - Updated - - -



Which countries and what occupation?

You don't need to be a nation state to have nationalism. More forms exists than ethnic nationalism. No, you wouldn't know if you met a nationalist.

[Deleted]

I mean, I get it. I don't mean to be an autistic pedant about the matter, I just want to arrive at a spot where we're actually talking about the same thing. I totally understand someone saying, "right, I don't mean some mild nationalism, I'm talking about the kind of people that identify as nationalists". Understood. Same applies for your comment regarding fascists - yeah, we need to be talking about the kind of people that are proudly fascist rather than some goofy label.

But if someone's going to ask if something's OK, I need to know what the something is.

I posted in sympathy: the exchange was strangely familiar and now I think I've probably done the same on occasion. I feel very strongly against what Kuntantee wrote, because I know plenty of people who would self-describe as nationalists, and they're alright.
Regardless, I'm with you there: we need to be talking about the same thing.
Per your post other, and like I said, I don't think it's necessary to any degree. This is because I regard nation and state as different things; they largely occupy the same space only because that's what the 19th century left us with.
But, again per your neutral definition and answering OP: it may not be necessary, but it's certainly OK. Or rather, not ok, but kind of whatever: states can exist without it, and people can choose to pursue whatever idea, just like I believe in some deity.

[Morally Grey Storm]

Yes.


Whatever happened to being laconic?

[Endus]

It's very similar. But we're trying to make a much better society.
People today easily go bankrupt because they have a safety net behind: their savings, their inherited wealth, and ultimately state welfare.
We have anecdotal evidence that big innovative companies can start from very small (Google, facebook), but others are the result of wealth accumulation and industry deregulation (SpaceX).
Considering that wealth disparity is rolled down (a safety net that incentives risky endeavors), can presume there'd be a similar incentive to innovation?.

Well, why do people innovate? I'd argue that with cases like SpaceX, it isn't profits. I honestly think the profit incentive is corrupting to this whole process, in a capitalist system, since it's only the few at the top who garner the benefits of innovation, and they can mitigate liability for failed attempts (while staff involved are often fired or let go as the company tightens things up).

It also bears repeating that my vision of an idealized society is one where labour is optional, and there is a strong basic income system in place, so your startup going bankrupt isn't going to render you homeless and destitute in the first place. There's a much higher "floor" to society, which should incentivize some risk-taking from people without much to lose, since the negatives aren't that significant; as it stands, they often can't risk it because they need to keep a roof over their families' heads and food on the table.

Which is why I said earlier that this is all really complex, because changes that have potential impacts may have answers in largely unrelated areas, and the more we dig into it, the more complex this all gets, until we're writing textbooks at each other.

This is my biggest fear in moving to a socialist system. People risk "everything" in hopes of a big payoff.

In the new socialist system, would the Waldens get to keep their family money? It seems like everyone is saying "yes", because there would be no seizure. But the next question is, why would the Waldens bother investing any of that money in future ventures?

You keep returning to a capitalist basis to argue against a socialist system.

If we're doing a changeover, in the short term, we'd be doing things like heavily increasing tax rates on higher income brackets, and establishing inheritance taxes, and so forth, before we shift fully into a socialist system. So the Waldens would see that wealth winnowed away over a few generations pretty quickly. They'd still be wealthy, as the heads of a major store chain, but in the "tens of millions" range most likely (possibly less, this is adjustable), not the nearly $100 billion they currently have.

You'd have the currently mega-rich folks with all their millions / billions with no interest to start new business with it. For that matter, it would behoove them to get out of their current business since all future profits are now shared. Walmart has 2 million employees and 5 billion in net profit. Why would the Waldens stick around to share $2,500 a year?

1> I already stated that the returns would be proportional to salaries, not equal, in most cases.
2> They're free to piss off and get $0 while someone else leads the company and becomes wealthy. Nobody is stopping them. But they'll have to actually work to remain wealthy, and work for the benefit of the company and its workers, not third-party shareholders.

Then once you have one bad year where the company loses money, no one gets paid because everyone is profit sharing instead of getting paid a salary or wages.

Nobody said profit sharing happened instead of wages. You're making shit up, rather than approaching this with honest and open consideration.

[Deleted]

Which is why I said earlier that this is all really complex, because changes that have potential impacts may have answers in largely unrelated areas, and the more we dig into it, the more complex this all gets, until we're writing textbooks at each other.

I mean... digging into it sounds a lot more attractive than what these threads devolve into.
Anyway, nice chat, I'm off to bed ^_^.

[Ragedaug]

You keep returning to a capitalist basis to argue against a socialist system.

I'm not sure what you are trying to debunk with this statement. I'm going from the basis of "here's reality now, how does this work in your system". So yes, my basis is in now, as in "capitalism", because that's what I know. The question then is "how does this work in your system".

If we're doing a changeover, in the short term, we'd be doing things like heavily increasing tax rates on higher income brackets, and establishing inheritance taxes, and so forth, before we shift fully into a socialist system. So the Waldens would see that wealth winnowed away over a few generations pretty quickly. They'd still be wealthy, as the heads of a major store chain, but in the "tens of millions" range most likely (possibly less, this is adjustable), not the nearly $100 billion they currently have.

When people talk about "seizing property", this is exactly what they are talking about. So you call it another name, "taxes", but this is what people are talking about. Just to help you not talk past those people. In your system, someone with over 10's of millions would be compelled to give their 100's of millions or billions to the State. Does this still not fit your definition of "seizure"?

1> I already stated that the returns would be proportional to salaries, not equal, in most cases.
2> They're free to piss off and get $0 while someone else leads the company and becomes wealthy. Nobody is stopping them. But they'll have to actually work to remain wealthy, and work for the benefit of the company and its workers, not third-party shareholders.

What happens when the company doesn't make a profit for a month or a quarter or a year? You didn't answer that. How does anyone get paid?

Nobody said profit sharing happened instead of wages. You're making shit up, rather than approaching this with honest and open consideration.

Wages are based on the idea that you get paid regardless of how the company does. If everyone gets wages, including the heads of the company, since there is no one owner, who takes the loss when the company doesn't turn a profit? Again, how does anyone get paid if the company takes a loss?



As a follow up question, who decides who gets to be the head or heads of the company?

[Endus]

I'm not sure what you are trying to debunk with this statement. I'm going from the basis of "here's reality now, how does this work in your system". So yes, my basis is in now, as in "capitalism", because that's what I know. The question then is "how does this work in your system".

Right, but you keep phrasing it as "but it can't work that way in a different system, because it doesn't work that way in capitalism". And that's not a counter. It's just a recognition that socialism is not capitalism, which isn't a surprise.

When people talk about "seizing property", this is exactly what they are talking about. So you call it another name, "taxes", but this is what people are talking about. Just to help you not talk past those people. In your system, someone with over 10's of millions would be compelled to give their 100's of millions or billions to the State. Does this still not fit your definition of "seizure"?

If you're going to call taxation "seizing property", then you're engaged in alarmist and inflammatory propagandizing, not honest and reasonable discussion.

Taxation is neither theft nor "seizure". It's taxation. It's standard and common practice pretty much everywhere, so pretending that it's "bad" is just completely ridiculous.

If you're an outright anarchist, maybe that kind of hyperbole makes some internal sense, but if you aren't, it does not and can not, and it's an attempt to derail and distract by using weighted language in a dishonest and misleading manner.

Because right now, in every Western capitalist democracy, those nations are funded by "seizure", in your own meaning of the term. So why would a socialist system doing the same be objectionable as compared to what we have today?

What happens when the company doesn't make a profit for a month or a quarter or a year? You didn't answer that. How does anyone get paid?

The same way they do now. Salaries exist, y'know.

Wages are based on the idea that you get paid regardless of how the company does. If everyone gets wages, including the heads of the company, since there is no one owner, who takes the loss when the company doesn't turn a profit? Again, how does anyone get paid if the company takes a loss?

Salaries and wages.

You seem unaware that employee compensation can be composed of multiple elements. I know most low-level staff just get their wage or salary, but look at how executives get salaries, plus bonuses, plus shares, and so on. You're arguing against something nobody claimed.

As a follow up question, who decides who gets to be the head or heads of the company?

The owners. As it happens already. Why do you keep asking questions that have simple answers?

[Ragedaug]

Right, but you keep phrasing it as "but it can't work that way in a different system, because it doesn't work that way in capitalism". And that's not a counter. It's just a recognition that socialism is not capitalism, which isn't a surprise.

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying I don't understand how it could work and I'm asking you how it would work.

If you're going to call taxation "seizing property", then you're engaged in alarmist and inflammatory propagandizing, not honest and reasonable discussion.

Taxation is neither theft nor "seizure". It's taxation. It's standard and common practice pretty much everywhere, so pretending that it's "bad" is just completely ridiculous.

If you're an outright anarchist, maybe that kind of hyperbole makes some internal sense, but if you aren't, it does not and can not, and it's an attempt to derail and distract by using weighted language in a dishonest and misleading manner.

Because right now, in every Western capitalist democracy, those nations are funded by "seizure", in your own meaning of the term. So why would a socialist system doing the same be objectionable as compared to what we have today?

This feels like you are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to win internet points again. Taxes and the state seizing your money are the exact same thing. Should the state seize a fair amount of taxes from you in order to run the state? Yes. Should they obtain an unfair amount of taxes from you in order to run the state. No. So instead of trying to argue semantics with me, 'cause I'm really tired of chasing you around this pole for like 10 pages now...lets drop the "taxes" and "seizes" terms. What we are talking about is what's a fair amount to compel someone to pay. Is it fair to tax someone 99.9% of their income? Seems like no to me, but I think you would justifying it. Anyway, that's the argument. Not what word you want to call it.

Beyond that, when you tax the Walden's 99.9% of their income, that's not cash or gold from their vault. That's what their assets are worth. So to get that 99.9% of their worth, you have to take 99.9% of their stuff, which includes primarily companies. Which brings up full circle to what the people are talking about when they said they weren't in favor of going socialism. Again, I'm not trying to chase you around the semantics pole while you redefine what "seize" means. I'm talking about, is it fair for the state to tax 99.9% of the Walden's money, meaning the state gets all their companies?

The same way they do now. Salaries exist, y'know.

How is there money to pay a salary, when the company does not make a profit. If the company loses money, ie. has less money than they started with, where does the money come to pay these salaries?

Salaries and wages.

You seem unaware that employee compensation can be composed of multiple elements. I know most low-level staff just get their wage or salary, but look at how executives get salaries, plus bonuses, plus shares, and so on. You're arguing against something nobody claimed.

I'm well ware of how employee compensation works. I think you are not aware of where the money comes from. Like the company has a vault in the back room that just has money in it, and that's what they pay the workers with. In your economic system, everyone who works at a company is the owner. When a company doesn't turn a profit, there's no money for the owner. The owner has to rely on savings, or go bankrupt if they run out of savings, and can't get a loan. So if everyone is the owner, who is paying the "owners" when the company doesn't make money. If the company doesn't earn a profit, the company can't pay the owners...cause it didn't make enough money....I'm not sure how to make this example any more simple.

The owners. As it happens already. Why do you keep asking questions that have simple answers?

So as the owners is everyone who works at a company, we all get to decide who gets to the boss and make the big bucks. That should be interesting how that works out. Beyond that, who puts together the capital to start the business? So if Bob Walden puts up 5 Million $$ to create a company, then convinces 100 people to be joint owners with him (who don't have to pay in), what happens when a majority of those 100 people decide Bob is a jerk and vote him to be the toilet cleaner? You system does not make sense to me as far as how a company can ever start if only people working at the company can invest in it, but the other people working in the company who do not need to invest in it to become owners can decide to make themselves the boss, and make the big bucks.

[Allybeboba]

Sure . . .

[Endus]

This feels like you are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying in order to win internet points again. Taxes and the state seizing your money are the exact same thing.

Then you're stating that "seizing" isn't a negative and shouldn't be viewed as an argument against anything.

My point, here, is that using inflammatory and emotional words like "seizure" colors the discussion unfairly.

What we are talking about is what's a fair amount to compel someone to pay. Is it fair to tax someone 99.9% of their income? Seems like no to me, but I think you would justifying it.

See, this is where you move from "just trying to understand" to making things up in an attempt to slam me.

It's not friendly or honest behaviour. I've never suggested anything of the sort.

Beyond that, when you tax the Walden's 99.9% of their income, that's not cash or gold from their vault. That's what their assets are worth. So to get that 99.9% of their worth, you have to take 99.9% of their stuff, which includes primarily companies. Which brings up full circle to what the people are talking about when they said they weren't in favor of going socialism. Again, I'm not trying to chase you around the semantics pole while you redefine what "seize" means. I'm talking about, is it fair for the state to tax 99.9% of the Walden's money, meaning the state gets all their companies?

It's not a fair question in the first place, because I never said anything about state seizure of anything, and particularly and explicitly not seizure of their companies.

You are not approaching this fairly or honestly. I specifically state my views, clearly, and then you turn around and claim things that I have specifically said are not true.

How is there money to pay a salary, when the company does not make a profit. If the company loses money, ie. has less money than they started with, where does the money come to pay these salaries?

You realize this happens in capitalist systems, too, right? Constantly. Companies often run at a loss for the first few years before they start making a profit. This is a question that has really obvious answers that aren't even unique to socialist theory.

Hell, the strong support network I mentioned makes it easier for people to do so.

I'm well ware of how employee compensation works. I think you are not aware of where the money comes from. Like the company has a vault in the back room that just has money in it, and that's what they pay the workers with. In your economic system, everyone who works at a company is the owner. When a company doesn't turn a profit, there's no money for the owner. The owner has to rely on savings, or go bankrupt if they run out of savings, and can't get a loan. So if everyone is the owner, who is paying the "owners" when the company doesn't make money. If the company doesn't earn a profit, the company can't pay the owners...cause it didn't make enough money....I'm not sure how to make this example any more simple.

Again, this happens in capitalist systems too. The company either takes out loans or dips into savings to get by in a rough patch, or it goes under. Why is this suddenly impossible to understand when it's happening in a socialist system?

So as the owners is everyone who works at a company, we all get to decide who gets to the boss and make the big bucks. That should be interesting how that works out. Beyond that, who puts together the capital to start the business? So if Bob Walden puts up 5 Million $$ to create a company, then convinces 100 people to be joint owners with him (who don't have to pay in), what happens when a majority of those 100 people decide Bob is a jerk and vote him to be the toilet cleaner? You system does not make sense to me as far as how a company can ever start if only people working at the company can invest in it, but the other people working in the company who do not need to invest in it to become owners can decide to make themselves the boss, and make the big bucks.

Things you're misrepresenting;

1> You can't "vote Bob to be the toilet cleaner". This isn't a slave system.
2> You can source funding the same kinds of places you would in a capitalist system. Angel investors, credit unions, government investment, etc. You also wouldn't automatically need $5 million up front, the vast majority of businesses start much smaller, and grow.
3> If Bob is putting up a lot of his own money, he must really believe in the company's model. He's probably loaned it to the company with a projected payout, and while he might take a loss on that if the company goes bankrupt, that's the risk he took.
4> Plenty of people outside the company can invest in it, by loaning them capital, but they don't control it, and their only returns are based on those loans.
5> It's pretty damned ridiculous to think everyone at the business can just vote themselves into the CEO's position for big bucks. Nothing works like that. And if the entire company feels Bill Matthews would run the company better than Bob Walden, why should Bob Walden get to say "fuck all y'all"?

[Ragedaug]

Then you're stating that "seizing" isn't a negative and shouldn't be viewed as an argument against anything.

My point, here, is that using inflammatory and emotional words like "seizure" colors the discussion unfairly.

Correct, I'm not saying "seizing" is automatically negative.

See, this is where you move from "just trying to understand" to making things up in an attempt to slam me.

It's not friendly or honest behaviour. I've never suggested anything of the sort.

Yes you did. When I asked if billionaires get to keep their money, you said, "no" and that you would tax all of it but a few 10's of millions. For someone worth 50 Billion, that's 99.9% of their worth. You said it, that's why I put numbers to it. If that's not what you meant by saying you would tax 49,950,000,000 of their net worth, please explain what you did mean.

It's not a fair question in the first place, because I never said anything about state seizure of anything, and particularly and explicitly not seizure of their companies.

You are not approaching this fairly or honestly. I specifically state my views, clearly, and then you turn around and claim things that I have specifically said are not true.

If you tax 99% (and more) of all billionaires net worth, that means the state will own the majority share of most all companies. People don't have scrooge mcduck money vaults with their billions. That's not how it works. A billionaire's money is almost entire tied up in Company ownership and real estate. If the state taxes their net worth, that means taking their ownership. After all, they can't sell their billions worth of ownership to anyone else, because the state taxed all the other billionaires as well, so no one can afford to own any major business or large properties. The state will own them all via taxation.

You realize this happens in capitalist systems, too, right? Constantly. Companies often run at a loss for the first few years before they start making a profit. This is a question that has really obvious answers that aren't even unique to socialist theory.

Hell, the strong support network I mentioned makes it easier for people to do so.

Yes. Owners in a capitalist society struggle constantly trying to earn a profit. I've seen friends take loans to pay their employees, because they can't earn enough profit to pay them. So in your situation, who takes out the loan if everyone is the owner, and no one is making money? That's my point. Every employee now needs to borrow money, because there is no profit available to draw from. If you are thinking, the company will just take out a loan... Who's going to loan a failing business money without the possibility of acquiring a stake in the company. What's the collateral?

Again, this happens in capitalist systems too. The company either takes out loans or dips into savings to get by in a rough patch, or it goes under. Why is this suddenly impossible to understand when it's happening in a socialist system?

Because an owner takes out a loan against whatever collateral they have, or they go bankrupt. A failing company doesn't have collateral. It's worth less then the money they are try to borrow.

Things you're misrepresenting;

1> You can't "vote Bob to be the toilet cleaner". This isn't a slave system.
2> You can source funding the same kinds of places you would in a capitalist system. Angel investors, credit unions, government investment, etc. You also wouldn't automatically need $5 million up front, the vast majority of businesses start much smaller, and grow.
3> If Bob is putting up a lot of his own money, he must really believe in the company's model. He's probably loaned it to the company with a projected payout, and while he might take a loss on that if the company goes bankrupt, that's the risk he took.
4> Plenty of people outside the company can invest in it, by loaning them capital, but they don't control it, and their only returns are based on those loans.
5> It's pretty damned ridiculous to think everyone at the business can just vote themselves into the CEO's position for big bucks. Nothing works like that. And if the entire company feels Bill Matthews would run the company better than Bob Walden, why should Bob Walden get to say "fuck all y'all"?

1>OK, I'll bite. so you don't vote Bob the toilet cleaner, but you can vote him the "not boss". According to your rules, the owners, aka the workers, vote for who runs the company.
2>In my example....Bob already has the 5 Million, so he invested it in his company. So sure, he could make a smaller company for less, but he thought he would be more successfully started with 5 Million and 20 employees. (I changed this from 100 to 20...cause it didn't seem right that 5M would be enough start up money for a 100 employee business)
3>That's basically my point. Bob is taking all the risk here, while the co-owners can still vote him the not-boss if they want.
4>Loan interest is why no one will loan money to businesses. Business' fail at a very high hate. The only reason people invest money in start up business' currently is to gamble on the big payout if the startup takes off. If there's no big payout, and you are just earning loan interest, you'll lose all your money loaning it to start up businesses as they fail.
5>Not everyone can vote themselves the boss. That's ridiculous. But anyone could convince a majority of the other owners to make them the boss.

[Endus]

Yes you did. When I asked if billionaires get to keep their money, you said, "no" and that you would tax all of it but a few 10's of millions. For someone worth 50 Billion, that's 99.9% of their worth. You said it, that's why I put numbers to it. If that's not what you meant by saying you would tax 49,950,000,000 of their net worth, please explain what you did mean.

The thing is, in that post I actually said such super-wealthy would see that wealth "winnowed away over a few generations", emphasis added here. Which makes this attack you're making a flat-out misrepresentation of what I said. You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to shit you are making up.

If you tax 99% (and more) of all billionaires net worth, that means the state will own the majority share of most all companies.

No, this is completely nonsensical and ignores everything I've been talking about.

In the market socialist system I described, they don't own that majority share in the first place, so it can't be taxed away.

If they own it, we aren't talking about a socialist system at all.

It's frustrating that you keep doing this.

Yes. Owners in a capitalist society struggle constantly trying to earn a profit. I've seen friends take loans to pay their employees, because they can't earn enough profit to pay them. So in your situation, who takes out the loan if everyone is the owner, and no one is making money? That's my point. Every employee now needs to borrow money, because there is no profit available to draw from. If you are thinking, the company will just take out a loan... Who's going to loan a failing business money without the possibility of acquiring a stake in the company. What's the collateral?

Yes, the employees will take out loans to support the company they own, the same way owners do in a capitalist system. Or they'll find funding, like they would in a capitalist system. The company itself still has a lot of equipment that amounts to collateral. These are frankly silly questions that have obvious answers in both systems, and there's no reason to suddenly think it's an issue.

Because an owner takes out a loan against whatever collateral they have, or they go bankrupt. A failing company doesn't have collateral. It's worth less then the money they are try to borrow.

And when that happens, companies go under.

Nobody was suggesting companies will never go under, you realize that, right?

1>OK, I'll bite. so you don't vote Bob the toilet cleaner, but you can vote him the "not boss". According to your rules, the owners, aka the workers, vote for who runs the company.
2>In my example....Bob already has the 5 Million, so he invested it in his company. So sure, he could make a smaller company for less, but he thought he would be more successfully started with 5 Million and 20 employees. (I changed this from 100 to 20...cause it didn't seem right that 5M would be enough start up money for a 100 employee business)
3>That's basically my point. Bob is taking all the risk here, while the co-owners can still vote him the not-boss if they want.
4>Loan interest is why no one will loan money to businesses. Business' fail at a very high hate. The only reason people invest money in start up business' currently is to gamble on the big payout if the startup takes off. If there's no big payout, and you are just earning loan interest, you'll lose all your money loaning it to start up businesses as they fail.
5>Not everyone can vote themselves the boss. That's ridiculous. But anyone could convince a majority of the other owners to make them the boss.

1> Yes. And?
2> Okay, and? Bob loans his startup the $5 million. What's the issue?
3> And? Of course they can do that. They still owe Bob on the loan, though. Bob not being CEO doesn't change that.
4> This is nonsense, because people loan money to startups all the time.
5> Not "anyone", no. And why shouldn't someone with good ideas and support from their colleagues run the place? If they do a bad job, they answer to those same colleagues, after all.

[judgementofantonidas]

That's not a reasonable starting point. That definition is out of touch with reality. If you've ever met a nationalist in your life, you'd know it. Then again, USA or Canada (which ever you are from) are not nation states, so you wouldn't know. Second, the last part is possible root cause for potential the shitstorm. Many terrorist organizations think it's okay to blow people up, because they think they need to "self-govern". Spain, Turkey, England are some well-known examples.

These days, most people think nationalism is answer to perceived "poor immigration policies" of the West. I suggest those people to read a bit of history.

- - - Updated - - -



Which countries and what occupation?

Iraq and Afghanistan were the last two.
Should make the profession obvious.