question was what mechanism ensured they actually did. — Isaac

A consumers' co-operative could be a good mechanism. Everyone takes part in the project of developing healthcare, infrastructure, education programs, transport, etc... with a common stock.
People who join cooperatives often have the same shared values, meaning they are willing to work together towards a common goal. One of those goals is to create a better services by working together and by shifting the focus of the business to place people over profit to build a more inclusive economy.

I see. So what is it that entitles someone to adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing? — Isaac

I understand those "rights" or goods are so difficult to measure. What I wanted to say is that I consider unfair the fact of how many people who don't do anything for the state still consuming the benefits of it. I guess someone is entitled to take advantage of education or infrastructure (for example) when he/she is a formidable citizen who works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country.
But... do you know what? Even the prisoners take part of the resources of the state because each convicted costs around 2.000 € per month. It is crazy... there are salaries of honest people lower than that digit.

But history called, and the EU answered something, something they were confortable with: markets. — Olivier5

What should we have done then?

Give one example of a successful capitalist economy. — Xtrix

Japan and South Korea.

But then, again, you might as well attribute it to God. — Xtrix

I don't understand this argument...

States don't act -- people act. — Xtrix

You are contradictory here. Because you said previously that we should limit the wealth of rich people. But now you are claiming that everything works thanks to people. Well, inside this criteria of "people" there are rich too. You don't like corporate interests but the only way to avoid it is with expropriation or the limitation of the market and the pure control of the state on every economic reform.

"It's because of capitalism" — Xtrix

But it is a fact that they increased their economy thanks to the transition to a market economy. If this is not capitalism, what economical system we are talking about? Plot twist: it is not socialism...

Companies with big business or capital can provide qualitative infrastructures and goods. It is not impossible if we let the people acting with good faith to promote businesses where everyone can win. For example: An owner of a big plot who builds a building for one hundred families on it. Everybody wins in this operation: The owner who earned revenue and the families who purchased a new home to make a new life.
I know it is a simplistic example. But what I want to argue is that we should not be so sceptical with private sectors.

Or are you suggesting we leave it up to chance? — Isaac

No. We can reach successful businesseses using the reason and strategic plans. Promoting laws where the private sector can act according to comprehensive benefits and try to avoid the interaction of the state the less possible.

everyone — Isaac

Not everyone can take part on it because not everyone deserves it. Everyone having the right of taking part in those goods is a typical fallacy of socialism/Marxism ideologies.

Using their profits to build and invest in all of those infrastructures and needs. It is not so weird to let a company to run a hospital or build a bridge... It is not necessary to let these tasks to public authorities.

They gave a very robust and powerful private sector. — frank

Exactly.

No, they’re not capitalist. They’re not pseudo-capitalist either. Attributing their successes to capitalism is meaningless. — Xtrix

Meaningless? Are you serious about such claim? Ok let's check the facts and statistics about Chinese GDP and economy in both Mao's China and Aperture China in the 1990s.

The Economy of China under Mao's leadership (1949 -1969): The economy of Communist China. When the Chinese Communists assumed power in October 1949, they inherited an economy that can be called backward by any quantitative criterion. Prolonged external war and subsequent civil strife had inflicted immeasurable damage. Confronting this
situation, the new government set forth two major economic goals: first, to restore the deteriorated economy as soon as possible, and second, to begin a rapid, forced-draft industrialization program to break the vicious cycle of backwardness and poverty. In the course of industrialization, the economy experienced acute inbalances, strains, and supply bottlenecks, which forced the planners to alter their scheme. In terms of scale of priority, rate of capital formation, and investment technique, the development strategies followed between 1949 and 1969 can be roughly divided into four consecutive stages. (I will not quote all the stages because the post will be so long but you can see it in the link I have provided previously)

Chinese pseudo capitalism (as I said): Since the late 1970s, China has undergone transition towards a market economy. In terms of economic growth, China has achieved an impressive record. The average annual growth of GDP per capita was as high as 8.4 per cent during the period 1978 to 1997. The human development index also indicates an improvement in well-being on the average for the Chinese population (UNDP 1998). China has become strongly integrated into the world economy. China's exports grew an average of 16.7 per cent per annum over the last two decades. China absorbed US$205 billion as foreign direct investment during the period 1990-97. Transition towards a market economy and openness has not been without its problems. link: Changing income distribution in China

Is this really an argument? — Xtrix

Give one example of successful Marxist economy.

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too. — Xtrix

You would need wealthy companies and entrepreneurs to do so. A sick poor state cannot promote all what you are asking about. Whenever the state can't assume the debt it starts to raise the taxes to those who work hard to promote infrastructure and education. It is like an endless vicious circle.

As does the propaganda that says that the state is the problem— it isn’t. The problem is greed and plutocracy. — Xtrix

So, according to you, the state always wins and acts ethically. That's despotism and it is even worse...

First: China is a communist country, ruled by a communist government. I wouldn’t call it truly communist myself, but that’s what they claim. Whatever we call it, however, it’s not democratic or republican form of government. — Xtrix

I think you are mixing politics and law with economics. Yes, China is a communist/Marxist country which controls all the population with induration and persecution.
In the other hand, from a economical point of view, they act as a pseudo capitalist country. It doesn't matter how the state can take part in the market because as I said previously, they are the first developers and producers of the world. It doesn't make sense to be a "Marxist economy" while your GDP increases each year thanks to the principles of world trade and international market.
Cuba (for example) is another Marxist country. They are poor as hell and their economy has no future. Exactly for doing old communist acts as expropriation and removing the private property. This is a real communist country, not like China.

But yeah, sure, let’s cut the military budget by 90%. That’ll more than pay for what we need. I won’t hold my breath for that suggestion. — Xtrix

I knew you would be agree with me towards spending cuts.

What a shocker there was no mention of military expenditure — the most bloated of all discretionary spending. I wonder why? — Xtrix

Because in Spain we are not used to spend in military forces. That's why I forgot to put it in my examples. But yes, I am agree it is another expenditure which needs spending cuts.

Yeah, so in your world what’s needed is for everyone else to tighten their belts, lose their pensions, and live even shittier and more precarious lives. — Xtrix

According to your own criteria, how can we live "good?" Before answering, think deeply if the state can assume the way of life you are referring in your "world"

See Ha-Joon Chang to educate yourself, if of course you’re willing to break out of neoliberal delusions — Xtrix

I am not neoliberal. I am just sceptical on the way a state is wasting resources and increasing the taxes on the middle-class workers.

They know: they’re communist. — Xtrix

No. They are not communist since the 1990s. The Chinese economic reform or reform and opening-up is the program of economic reforms termed "Socialism (?) with Chinese characteristics" led by Deng Xiaoping, often credited as the "General Architect". In 2010, China overtook Japan as the world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP and in 2017 overtook the United States by becoming the world's largest economy by GDP. Only a capitalist country can reach such improvements in just two decades.

Higher taxes on wealth is a good start. I hear no alternative suggestions from you. — Xtrix

It is not a good start and here is another solution I put on the table: spending cuts

If we are living difficult times with inflation and prices rising, it is time to remove all the things that make debt to the state's budget. So, it is needed to reduce the public expenditure.
For example: Highways and transport (instead of 5 buses, we only let 3 buses per hour). Local authority spending (reduce the number of seats in Congress, Senate, City hall, etc... or less number of ministers and secretaries). Centralisation (all the public organisms or buildings relocated to the capital city instead of having a lot of public representatives along the country)

I know this would sound "selfish" but yes, it is necessary to freeze pension payments. We can be attached a big public debt if we decide to increase it among the consumer price index.

As you see there are a lot ways to reduce national debt. Raising taxes to stakeholders or businessmen is not the solution. They even would transfer their money to a tax heaven country anyway...

What does GDP have to do with anything? — Xtrix

I have used it as an economical fact where it shows why some countries are wealthier than others. USA is an example that a country can works with private ownership and a few taxes because it is clearly a world leader towards industry and technology. Meanwhile, in Spain you would not get rich or wealthy. Our government is against private property and stakeholders.
Imagine the United States Secretary of the Treasury saying to Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, Real State owners, etc... to pay 23 or 25 % of their revenue in taxes. That would be expropriation and your country would not be as rich as it is nowadays.
Trust me: expropriation and tax abuse doesn't work. Just look at Latin American or ex Soviet countries.

China has a bigger GDP too— so what? Should we be ruled by authoritarianism? — Xtrix

It is a Rara avis country. They do not even know what they really are. Nevertheless, they are the primarily leaders of worldwide providers and suppliers. They created a very complex economical structure. China is subject of a different topic.

We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system. — bert1

Be careful about what you wish, multi-party system can lead to a chaos. Whenever you have multiple politicians with different views it is harder to promote laws or manage the state. In my honest opinion, it is more efficient to hold a two-party system. At least, you will have the assurance that they will run the country.

Have you heard of Gödel's loophole? Maybe something similar is going on with socialism & communism - there's a bug in it — Agent Smith

I couldn't have explained it better!

I'm a big fan of skepticism — Agent Smith

Understandble and you are in the right path. It is normal to be sceptical in nowadays due to the spread of fake news in media and press.

I think yes and @Deus is right when he said that the most socialist countries or states use tyranny to promote Marxism. Because they know this is the only way to do so.

Syād/Syat = Maybe/Perchance/Perhaps — Agent Smith

Interesting terminology! :up:

Better yet, let the workers run the factories and companies themselves. — Xtrix

I see it as impossible. Every factory or company needs a hierarchical structure. You can run a company when you know how to do it because you have a big knowledge on economics, law, strategy, etc... it is not so easy. I think it is populist to say that "all the owners or stakeholders are abusers of working class". That's not true.
Imagine you start a company based on print books. You need to hire some workers to help you to produce X number of copies. Are you a "tyrant" if you perceive more revenue than the workers when the company is yours? Come on...

I consider them rich. And they should be taxed much more. — Xtrix

Facts: INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

GDP of USA: $25.35 trillion.

GDP of Spain: $1.435 trillion.

The GDP of your country is 24 points bigger than mine.

Do you still think a country ruled by socialism is a good idea? Taxing factories is common sense? Where? We are just a soft country with a mediocre economy.

I noticed they are slashing the 10% sales tax for feminine hygiene products. You’re right. Political correctness is in power. — NOS4A2

Completely. Political correctness is a big problem inside a country's administration. It is a wasteful pit without control. There is a public administration called "equality ministry" and this lobby has promoted a law that when women has the period they have the right to stay at home until it finishes... imagine the recession of many industries which have female workers in.

Taxing the rich more is common sense, yes. — Xtrix

But who do you consider as "rich"? Because those tax payers barely holds around 200.000 € in the bank. I consider them as a middle class workers not rich or millionaires.

Spain does the common sense thing. Good for them. — Xtrix

Common sense is to pay 23 % of your earnings in taxes? I would call it expropriation, and that's what happens when political correctness rule a country.

Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the
middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. — Breivik

. In fact I think overcoming being falsely imprisoned is a merit. — Xtrix

Understandable, but I think that's the way you see it. Others see him as a Marxist criminal.

A company earning more than a million has to give a quarter of what it earns to your government. — NOS4A2

Yes and I think it is abusive. Nonetheless, socialists say this is the right thing to do... because the rich and businessmen need to be solidary with the working class or the poorest (meanwhile those taxes always end up to cover the costs of minorities... But this is a subject of a different topic). My country is a example of what happens when political correctness is in power.

To cover that cost while at the same time covering the overhead the best one can do is lower wages, raise prices, cut corners, lay people off, and so on, just to be able to pay such exorbitant prices. Even if we let the state get away with the act of theft, it’s hard to look past the effects all this has on the poorer among us who have to deal with the rise in the cost of living, a large amount of which is used to cover any offsetting. A tax on the rich is also a hidden tax on the poor, in this sense. — NOS4A2

Conclusion: The state creates a thief model which pick up the private earnings of both businessman and workers to just feed their political lobbies.

if governments can play around with taxes to win votes, it means taxes have no logic to them — Agent Smith

Agreed! :up:

Syād — Agent Smith

I don't understand what does it mean but I like when you use that word

if people are grumbling about taxes it means the government hasn't quite explained the rationale behind taxes. — Agent Smith

They never explain the rationale behind the taxes because they have the risk of losing votes. This is what makes me upset... The public expenditure only cares when national elections are coming up.

Spain plans to raise taxes for rich, make lower earners pay less. Government says temporary wealth tax will raise €3B


Our treasury minister planned the so-called “solidarity tax” which consists on:

Two-year wealth tax that would apply to those who own more than €3 million in assets. The scheme would see around 23,000 people paying on a scale of between 1.7% and 3.5% of their riches in extraordinary taxes, according to the plan.

With that wealth tax, Spain hopes to raise around €1.5 billion annually from the country’s 0.1% most affluent segment.

In parallel, those earning more than €200,000 per year would see income taxes raised by one percentage point.

Meanwhile, small companies earning less than €1 million per year would see taxes decrease from 25% to 23% (23% of your revenue applied to taxes is still a lot...)

I still think we pay a lot of taxes here and in the other hand those benefits not always are good managed by the government.

It would have to be a pretty lousy simulation if the people in it were constantly pointing out they were in a simulation. Really, at that point it ceases to be a simulation and just is the context. So, any answer is that we simply live in our version of the real world — Cheshire

:up: :sparkle:

The Brazilian left wing needs another leader. Lula has a lot of experience and he governed the state once but he already has a lot of people who loves or hates him. There is not a middle point.
In the other hand, Lula has been in jail. We can be agree here that he was put in prison because of corrupt judges. Nevertheless, it still be a negative mark in his political career.

Bolsonaro won the previous elections for many reasons but one important: public order. Many Brazilians were tired of living with a lot violence in their neighbourhoods. Bolsonaro reinforced the power of police officers and let them to act more aggressively in favelas. Many citizens applaud this decision.

Bolsonaro doesn’t give a damn about the environment. — Xtrix

Exactly. This another fact. Brazil has a good GDP (11th position of the world) but, sadly, is due to the destruction of the environment.

what happens if he does win? — Xtrix

He would suffer a lot of pressure from Brazilian elites and probably a Coup d'état.

I think we share the same point of view but with different words

‘where do your personal earnings go?’. There is no ONE answer to this question. — I like sushi

That's true. Nevertheless, we have to accept (unconditionally?) that a considerable percentage of our earnings go directly to taxes or other kinds of expenditure.

Governments are a minority. They could not rule without control of opinion. — Yohan

:up: :sparkle:

Nostalgia is one reason why we would want to simulate an older version of The Matrix. — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

The Cambridge dictionary defines nostalgia as: a feeling of pleasure and also slight sadness when you think about things that happened in the past.

It is interesting because the cause of nostalgia is on the fact that we no longer can live those experiences. If we able to do so, we would not feel nostalgia then.

we could be simulating an older version of our world — Agent Smith

Interesting. That's would mean there are different time versions of our real world. Then, the "real" world (who is simulating others) is the only one who is living in the correct time. If we think it deeply, probably you and me would be 150 years old in other reality

The simulation depends on ourselves! The imagination of humans is extraordinary :sparkle:

I think of the categories provided, the church is the most powerful. Everyone — in whatever class, in whatever position of power, and whether a politician or king or CEO, has a religion. — Xtrix

Agreed. We should not forget that Catholic Church is even a state (Vatican City State is an independent city-state and enclave surrounded by Rome, Italy. Also known simply as the Vatican, the state became independent from Italy in 1929 with the Lateran Treaty, and it is a distinct territory under "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction")

Religion is powerful towards education. Karl Marx wrote that religion is“the opiate of the masses” disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now, and dulling their engagement in progressive politics.
Nevertheless, according to Landon Schnabel, Religion still has a strong influence, but in a new way. Rather than making people less political, religion shapes people’s political ideas, suppressing important group differences and progressive political positions.

Here is the source: Religion: less ‘opiate,’ more suppressant, study finds

If the universe is a simulation, everything in it should be computable, like in a game world. — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

Black holes are where God divided by zero. — Steven Wright

:down: :zip:

There is no God. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either — Stephen Hawking

:sparkle:

The ai (Silicates) contemplated philosophy amongst many things but they could not come up with anything new themselves. — Seeker

So interesting. Nevertheless, I think we the humans are not originals on philosophy either.
Whatever the theories which have always been written they follow the basic principles or "roots" from Greek mythology.

I'd like to see -- if forced to choose -- what forum members think about power. — Xtrix

Power always existed in the different aspects of society. From a simple mayor to the PM of the state. If you want to hold the power you have to be ready to take the "wrong" way against ethics. If you check all the people with power you would see that most of them break the law. They do not act ethically but viciously to maintain such status.
In the other hand, while I don't see any interest on politics. I remember that when I attended to the university there were a lot of "affiliates". Well, most of them were fake, selfish, arrogant and cheaters. I guess these are the main characters of a politician (apart from the fact that they are rich) and probably they are senators now.

But at least we were together. Sort of. Ever Closer Union and all that. — Cuthbert

Brexit completely disappointed me in terms of democracy. How can a country like UK what fought for the allies has left and countries who cause World Wars (as Germany) remains? Wow

A Christian site reports:

Russian Church Leader's Sacrilegious Claim: Says Soldiers Can Cleanse Their Sins by Dying in Ukraine (Sep 27, 2022) — jorndoe

It literally feels like they still live in Middle Age

For my filthy lucre, "capitalism", in sum, is a global, commodifying, market system institutionalized for maximizing shareholder returns (i.e. private profits) on stakeholder investments-taxes (i.e. public costs). — 180 Proof

Possible that capitalism is not an economic system at all, but a type of (partial) government system. — Srap Tasmaner

:up: :sparkle:

It is the system where the market is the only capable of promoting laws and regulations, not the lawmakers represented in the Parliament.
Being sincere, inside capitalism the markets and "central banks" act as a true legislative power.

Well, we vote for a person, not a party. — Michael

Who decides (or chooses) that person previously to go to the polls? I don't see we are allowed to choose between one member or another. For example: What leader of Labour do you want to run for presidency in the next elections? A) Jeremy Corbin. B ) Keir Starmer. Choose one of the candidates.
Well, we can't take part in such decision because one or the other are elected by their affiliates.

We don't have a President. — Michael

Prime Minister, whatever... I see the same problem in both Republic and Monarchy. I live in a kingdom and it is similar the process of elections.