I have no idea how you think people can do that when most people don't even own fields, animals, or modern capital (the means of production). Our entire criticism of capitalism is based around the disconnect between labor and capital.
Oh, I see so people are entitled to land, animals, and capital now? Who's property rights do you have to violate to provide this capitol to these people by force? Don't tell me no force is involved, because if it was voluntary it would be called charity. Socialism requires taking property rights of some to give to others. This is not even debatable, it is a law of economics. Because of this Socialism will inevitably degrade into totalitarianism as the pool of people who can be robbed shrinks ever smaller until the working class begins eating itself. The only disconnect is in your brain stem where you claim you can entitle people to capital without taking rights from others.
1. It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved. Please explain how it is being achieved.
2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others. Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes
new wealth to the workers who generated it. Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth.
When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue. The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive.
Yes, I said people already have the right to work their own land and raise their own animals. Everything else is bullshit you made up to try to speak for me because the only way you can argue with me is by literally making shit up, pretending I said it, then arguing against that instead of my actual arguments.
Socialism ABSOLUTELY DOES require taking property rights by force. You claim everyone is entitled to all this capital, but you never seem to be able to explain how all this capital they are entitled to just comes into existence magically. SOCIALISM REQUIRES THE STATE TO TAKE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS THEREFORE IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN.
*Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true.
Capital can be purchased. New capital is always purchased. Land can be purchased. Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people. Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible.
I already explained government financing but you skipped over it. The government finances capitalism all of the time. TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build.
Yes, entitled to does have a specific meaning. I didn't change anything, you invented an argument for me and I clarified my position to refute you speaking for me.
I see so, if the taking of other people's property rights is slower that makes it ok? Well that is different!
You haven't explained government financing AT ALL. You stated government will give subsidies and entitlements to groups as if those resources just appear with a pen stroke. I haven't skipped over anything. YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHERE THESE RESOURCES WILL COME FROM. Just claiming you have is not good enough. Government handouts have nothing to do with Capitalism (except that Capitalism pays for them), and just because they are beginning to be corrupted with Socialist policies is not proof they are working or a good thing.
I don't think we should take people's property at all.
Resources already exist.
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.
1. The supermarket in a community closes down2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.
Notice
the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it. Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses. Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.
Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.
Someone owned the building and the land the supermarket was operating from. The building was sold to someone else when the supermarket closed down.
You are suggesting the building is taken away from the rightful owner and given away to workers. That is what Soviets did to kulaks.
And you think it is a good idea? You need to be locked up. You are planning all-out robberies. FBI should be investigating you.
Do you even know what the property rights are?
The "initial operating costs" include the lease on the building. Everything is being bought. Nothing is being stolen and I never suggested that. Please stop trying to make this about the Soviets.
I don't think we should take people's property at all.
Resources already exist.
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.
1. The supermarket in a community closes down
2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.
Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it. Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses. Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.
Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.
Resources already exist, and they already have owners. Goods come from NATURAL RESOURCES as well as labor. You can not print resources no matter how much money you print. Also if you knew anything about economics you would know simply creating new money results in inflation by debasing its buying power. This is nothing but a form of theft from current note holders of the currency you create more of.
You claim you are for protecting people's property rights, yet you advocate for an ideology that will do so with zero explanation of how they will come into control of these resources without stealing the rights of others. Some one still owns that supermarket property before the workers magically acquire it. If you are suggesting they pay for it, then nothing in your hypothetical is prevented by the current standing system of Capitalism. Not only is Socialism not needed, it is really just what everyone else calls "Capitalism".
Creating money does not necessarily decrease buying power. You seem to have an oversimplified understanding of monetary policy. Yes if you increase money supply without increasing economic output then you decrease buying power, but in this context, that only happens once the economy is already running at full capacity. Running at full capacity means all of the economy's resources are already put to use and you have more money chasing fewer goods. When the money is being used to put people to work and create businesses, you won't see this effect until no more resources (employees, buildings, or raw materials) are available to be purchased. You should fear deflation just as much as inflation and having resources sit idle is not a good thing for the economy. Also, the our purchasing power has been in steady decline for decades. Have you never noticed the debt? People only mention it as a doomsday scenario when we talk about using the new money to help people instead of using it to help large corporations. Its really not that big of a deal if the economy is doing well.
Yes the reform policies I am suggesting would take place within the current system. Thats the point. Its within reach. Current tax code is not very cooperative friendly and actually makes them pretty much illegal in a lot of states. Those would need to be updated as well to treat worker cooperatives as nonprofits. There aren't many lawyers who have the training to deal with cooperative disputes either. Very unfavorable right now yet there are still very successful worker cooperatives because the model is so superior.