How will socialism in the US be different from other failed attempts at socialism?

[Felya]

Advertising does not use logic because it is weak and has a small target audience. The real cost in advertisement is trying to counter one emotion with another, not overcoming logic.

Yes, it absolutely does. The target audience is always as much as you can get. The limit of marketing reach, is either a success or failure, based on the scope. How can you claim both, that my example of estate tax vs death tax, is either illogical or has a limited scope?

- - - Updated - - -

What it needs is for medical care and medication to not have absolutely insane markup costs.

Two questions...

What dictates the markup cost?
I got your medicine right here, how much is it worth to you?

We can discuss socialism in medicine, based on these answers.

- - - Updated - - -

capitalism cant sustain its profits longterm and the planet cant sustain capitalism long term. capitalism must go, socalism is the next step.

How do you keep the brain drain of USSR from repeating it self? If a country exists with capitalism, while another is socialism. What mechanism is going to keep people from taking advantage of the superior higher education and social programs, that I assume socialism will include... from leaving to greener pastures of capitalism, once their education makes their financial worth in capitalism, more than justifies the difference in social programs?

Edit: wait a minute... did I just make a case for immigration, under capitalism? Unintentional, but I might use this argument in that context, as well.

[nonameelf]

Two questions...

What dictates the markup cost?
I got your medicine right here, how much is it worth to you?

We can discuss socialism in medicine, based on these answers.

2 things:
1. The US doesn't allow import of drugs, so American drug companies have very little competition in selling drugs to Americans.
2. If you need a life saving medication you're going to have to buy it.

So US companies charge insane markup because they can and no one is stopping them.

[xenogear3]

Thanks to USSR, CCP and NK, Socialism and Communism are bad words now.

Thousands of years ago, we all live in a communism society.
All food are shared by everyone.

[jonnysensible]

leaving to greener pastures of capitalism

hahahahaha cmon

[Felya]

2 things:
1. The US doesn't allow import of drugs, so American drug companies have very little competition in selling drugs to Americans.
2. If you need a life saving medication you're going to have to buy it.

So US companies charge insane markup because they can and no one is stopping them.

Neither of those answered my question.

For the second, that’s the point. I am trying to quantify it, because that will make the point more tangible and a lot more easy to understand as a result.

For the first, in US, there is a hurdle, before you are prescribed the medication and have to deal with this problem. In US, if you are bitching about the cost of your prescribed medication, you already have insurance or are paying thousands for the privilege to know you need medication.

- - - Updated - - -

hahahahaha cmon

I am totally pointing at money, thus thought greener pastures was a good dig. I’m asking how we keep the doctors in a socialist country, instead of driving cabs in a capitalist one?

If there is a capitalist country, that can provide a living that is far superior for those who are rich, while also making their own people struggle to get the necessary education and social programs to freely reach these financial heights. How does the socialist country deal with creating people through social programs, that are able to earn a living in a capitalist society, to circumvent the very issues that keeps their own people down under capitalism?

Edit: Spoilers:

It’s the same way that you keep the unwashed masses from rioting under capitalism. One way is pretty obvious... Nationalism... Both pure socialism and pure capitalism, need another tool to maintain order or squelch a brain drain. If you are not going to give people avenues to reach the success they want or the stability they want, you will have problems. Those tools get imbedded through the political system that regulates the economic. Be it GOP and their saving of western culture or Stalin through his iron fist... the government steps in as the regulating force... be it through rhetoric or force.

The solution is always balance... the problem is that it’s by far the most difficult solution. At this time, I do not believe that a politician that goes for balance, can beat either a capitalist or socialist.

(Balance =/= centrism... if that was the case, it would be easy.)

[jonnysensible]

snip

you are preloading the idea that capitalism is a superior system (more desirable system) and using a historical view of liberal democracy vs one party dictatorship to justify it.

[Felya]

you are preloading the idea that capitalism is a superior system (more desirable system) and using a historical view of liberal democracy vs one party dictatorship to justify it.

No, absolutely not. I made it very clear that socialism was superior for the common man and in fact would be responsible for the superior education of populace. Where I am saying capitalism would be more attractive, is where compensation is far superior. I am asking what happens, when the salary under capitalism, makes you afford all of the inequality of capitalism, after having a far better education and stability than those in the capitalist nation.

I am saying that socialism is superior to capitalism, until you can afford to pay for everything you lose, out of pocket.

Edit: Possibilities under capitalism is incredibly back loaded, as in, you have to get through a lot of financial and social barriers that are created due to the nature of capitalism... to even have the possibility to reach the base of socialism. While socialism attempts a constant. At some point, the two lines will intersect, with the possible returns under capitalist one spiking because you could afford anything and the socialist one remaining pretty horizontal in comparison... providing the same education/social programs.

For most people under capitalism, they will never see a spike that would result in a level playing field with socialism, because the fundamentals to reach those points don’t exist. What I am asking, is what happens when the stability of socialism and inequality of capitalism, creates the few socialist that can be the 1% in capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks to USSR, CCP and NK, Socialism and Communism are bad words now.

No, thanks to predominantly the US... not saying other countries didn’t play a role, but US was by far the most repulsed by those concepts, through government propaganda.

I still feel this should be a more defining moment for Reagan, than it was:



As a side note... nothing has glorified and set up capitalism as the norm, like Hollywood. Even an image of people’s fantasies reaching the heights of capitalism, is often a Hollywood Star... not a fat cat smoking a cigar behind a giant desk.

[downnola]

How do you keep the brain drain of USSR from repeating it self? If a country exists with capitalism, while another is socialism. What mechanism is going to keep people from taking advantage of the superior higher education and social programs, that I assume socialism will include... from leaving to greener pastures of capitalism, once their education makes their financial worth in capitalism, more than justifies the difference in social programs?

Edit: wait a minute... did I just make a case for immigration, under capitalism? Unintentional, but I might use this argument in that context, as well.

The answer is simple: global revolution.

[Forogil]

Thanks to USSR, CCP and NK, Socialism and Communism are bad words now.

Thousands of years ago, we all live in a communism society.
All food are shared by everyone.

Don't believe the false propaganda from Marx; we didn't live in a communistic society thousands of years ago.

Obviously there were variations back then as well as today, but in general:

First and foremost the transition from hunter-gather to agriculture began ten thousand years ago, and the first agricultural revolution often created very unequal societies with god-kings ruling over cities and later countries; not close to some communistic ideal. (I was going to say about as equal society as North Korea, but then I realised that people in NK don't have slaves.)

And hunter-gatherer societies are generally not fully egalitarian either (and even if they were - something that works for a tribe with less than a hundred doesn't necessarily scale up to millions), but about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today. Perhaps food was shared with everyone (especially in times of plenty) - but not equally.

They were also often violent societies; often the risk of dying in war exceeded that of USSR during WWII.

[Elegiac]

Don't believe the false propaganda from Marx; we didn't live in a communistic society thousands of years ago.

Obviously there were variations back then as well as today, but in general:

First and foremost the transition from hunter-gather to agriculture began ten thousand years ago, and the first agricultural revolution often created very unequal societies with god-kings ruling over cities and later countries; not close to some communistic ideal. (I was going to say about as equal society as North Korea, but then I realised that people in NK don't have slaves.)

And hunter-gatherer societies are generally not fully egalitarian either (and even if they were - something that works for a tribe with less than a hundred doesn't necessarily scale up to millions), but about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today. Perhaps food was shared with everyone (especially in times of plenty) - but not equally.

Lol. Y'all really out here claiming that every nonegalitarian society is capitalist, now? I bet you think private and personal property are the same thing, too.

Also, no - 'about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today' is blatantly untrue and an attempt to try and push capitalism as being humanity's default despite it not having existed prior to a few centuries ago. That is a fact, and disagreement with it says a lot more about the person disagreeing not understanding what "capitalism" is.

[Forogil]

Lol. Y'all really out here claiming that every nonegalitarian society is capitalist, now?

No, I am not saying that early hunter-gatherers societies were a bit nonegalitarian - not capitalistic.

'about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today'

is true. Some have estimated Gini-coefficient for them to about 0.25, which depending on measurement is close to Denmark - one of the most egalitarian capitalistic country (compared to 0.47 for the US). A truly egalitarian society would have 0.0; and the opposite would have 1.0 - compared to 0.63 for Lesotho.

Looking at a list of countries that are formally socialistic we have Laos (0.37), China (0.46), and Vietnam (0.38); they fall between Denmark and the US on the scale.

[Endus]

Don't believe the false propaganda from Marx; we didn't live in a communistic society thousands of years ago.

Obviously there were variations back then as well as today, but in general:

First and foremost the transition from hunter-gather to agriculture began ten thousand years ago, and the first agricultural revolution often created very unequal societies with god-kings ruling over cities and later countries; not close to some communistic ideal. (I was going to say about as equal society as North Korea, but then I realised that people in NK don't have slaves.)

Then you're misrepresenting what the argument for primitive communism was about, since it was explicitly aimed at pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer groups. The emergence of herding and agriculture is connected with the emergence of class systems.

And hunter-gatherer societies are generally not fully egalitarian either (and even if they were - something that works for a tribe with less than a hundred doesn't necessarily scale up to millions), but about as egalitarian as some of the most egalitarian capitalistic countries today. Perhaps food was shared with everyone (especially in times of plenty) - but not equally.

"Equality" is not a standard that would even apply to this analysis in the first place; it's a straw man you've invented.

Also, protesting that it's not possible is kind of silly, since such societies have been directly studied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

They were also often violent societies; often the risk of dying in war exceeded that of USSR during WWII.

This has nothing to do with the subject.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm not currently aware of any major US politician proposing the US change its model to socialism.

Could you enlighten me as to who these politicians are, @the game?


...maybe once you get back from your ban, of course.

Because if none are, you really might as well be asking if the US would be a better place for a unicorn cave than North korea.

My guess, AoC and Bernie Sanders.

Neither of which are truly socialist.

[Forogil]

Then you're misrepresenting what the argument for primitive communism was about, since it was explicitly aimed at pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer groups. The emergence of herding and agriculture is connected with the emergence of class systems.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm first stating that agriculture with class systems happened thousand of years ago refuting the post I responded to:

Thousands of years ago, we all live in a communism society.

Then continuing to say that primitive communism wasn't wide-spread among hunter-gathers (despite some ideological ideas), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

Mutual exchange and sharing of resources (i.e., meat gained from hunting) are important in the economic systems of hunter-gatherer societies. Therefore, these societies can be described as based on a "gift economy."

Thus while the researchers agreed that hunter-gatherers were more egalitarian than modern societies, prior characterisations of them living in a state of egalitarian primitive communism were inaccurate and misleading.

This has nothing to do with the subject.

Violence matters - as that shatters the illusion of an early paradise.

[Endus]

I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm first stating that agriculture with class systems happened thousand of years ago refuting the post I responded to:

That's quibbling about how many thousands, which they didn't specify.

30,000 years ago is "thousands" just as much as 10,000 is.

Then continuing to say that primitive communism wasn't wide-spread among hunter-gathers (despite some ideological ideas), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

You're pulling all your argument from citing a single paper that doesn't even really support your conclusion, since the idea of perfect equality (which the paper argues against) isn't a necessary maxim for primitive communism in the first place.

The whole leadup to the last bit of that section you're quoting from is in direct contradiction to your claims. You're just skipping all that, to cherry-pick some bits of one single paper out of context.

Violence matters - as that shatters the illusion of an early paradise.

Another straw man, since nobody argued this was a "paradise".

[Forogil]

That's quibbling about how many thousands, which they didn't specify.

So many words to say that you didn't read the post earlier.

You're pulling all your argument from citing a single paper that doesn't even really support your conclusion, since the idea of perfect equality (which the paper argues against) isn't a necessary maxim for primitive communism in the first place.

Science develops, and it doesn't support the idea of primitive communism either, but more gift-based economy which differs in how freeloaders are handled (and people in the local tribe are generally kin as well).

And as previously stated the conclusion was that hunter-gather societies were about as egalitarian as the currently most egalitarian capitalistic countries - where people currently don't starve for the want of food.

Another straw man, since nobody argued this was a "paradise".

It was implied that the society was better than what we currently have.

[Kellhound]

Yes, it absolutely does. The target audience is always as much as you can get. The limit of marketing reach, is either a success or failure, based on the scope. How can you claim both, that my example of estate tax vs death tax, is either illogical or has a limited scope?

The market segment that is both logically motivated and needs a targeted marketing effort to convince them of your superior position/product is tiny, and not likely to have a good ROI.

- - - Updated - - -

The answer is simple: global revolution.

Marxist revolutions tends to only lead to a new crop of dictators and little to no real improvement for the proletariat.

[Felya]

The market segment that is both logically motivated and needs a targeted marketing effort to convince them of your superior position/product is tiny, and not likely to have a good ROI.

No, this isn’t true. Who do you think wins in a corporate argument, a developer or marketing?

- - - Updated - - -

Marxist revolutions tends to only lead to a new crop of dictators and little to no real improvement for the proletariat.

You don’t see any difference between industry during Marx and after? You don’t see any influence?

- - - Updated - - -

The answer is simple: global revolution.

Children... I have worked as a technical lead, leading teams in Mumbai, Dublin, Beijing and Warsaw. Some of the guys flying over for training, ended up staying in US on work visas. They all gave the same reason, to why they won’t bring their kids to US with them... Education and consumerism... they fucking loved it her, but they didn’t trust to have their kids raised here.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spare...poil_the_child

[Kellhound]

No, this isn’t true. Who do you think wins in a corporate argument, a developer or marketing?

- - - Updated - - -



You don’t see any difference between industry during Marx and after? You don’t see any influence?

Depends if the corporation is interested in reality or fantasy. Marketing often sells customers and the board room the moon without bothering to ask engineering if it is even possible, then blame the engineers when it fails. I have seen this time and time and time again. The main purpose of marketing is to separate fools from their money.

I see that China's industry did better under Capitalism than Maoism.

[Daelak]

Show me where in my statement I made any of the absolutes you are accusing me of making? Do you not understand that self reliance and self determination are not binary concepts? That one can reduce or increase either without reaching the extremes?

Math is of little concern to most people, as is logic in general. Humans tend to be ruled by emotion.

You were stating that self reliance is inversely related to the growing acceptance of "socialism". I used an example of the current healthcare insurance market that shows there is no such thing as self-reliance. It's a fiction, it doesn't exist, it's merely a rhetorical tool used by conservatives to keep the status quo at the expense of better outcomes.