I am figuring his boss lowered the oxygen in the wage slave area again. You know, saving some money for capitalism.
True; it would be awful if we became more like ... the countries that have better quality-of-life indicators than we do in almost every way.
I know, I know. Without low wages, medical bankruptcies, needlessly crappy working conditions, and a financial system designed to transfer money from the poor to the rich as quickly as possible, can a people really be said to be free?
that's why I'm asking about it. Jenne mentioned knowing the difference between (or I assume she means) socialism the economic system and socialism the form of government.
You assume wrong. Socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. Socialism could in theory be practiced even by a pure democracy, if a solid majority of the people favoured it and willingly voted for socialist principles. The government that people are fleeing is totalitarian. Socialism is the economic system they claim to be using, and which serves as a justification for their totalitarianism. (But which they don't actually practice.) But the whole discussion is pointless anyway, because "capitalism with a healthy safety net" is not socialism. Socialism is like the bogeyman who scared you when you were too little to know much: there is no such thing as true, Marxist socialism in Western society. Even those countries that are the furthest left are still fundamentally capitalist. You are cowering in fear of a non-existant threat, like three-year-olds hiding from the "monsters under the bed". Conservatives in the US are apparently not educated enough to see the massive error in their reasoning. They call social programs "socialism" (when they are not), then oppose them because true Marxist socialism does not work (which it doesn't). In logic, that is called a fallacy of ambiguity. (And to be perfectly honest, plenty of politicians on the left are not helping things, either, by using the term "socialist".) I am absolutely opposed to socialism (which does not and cannot work), and yet enthusiastically in favour of a vigourous social safety net and an economic system that makes basic necessities such as education and health-care available to all by subsidizing them as much as is necessary for those who don't have the means to pay. And there is no contradiction between those two positions, contrary to the opinions of those who simply don't get out enough to pay attention to the real world.
Why do you think so? This I see as a band-aid propping up an economic system which we have already outgrown as a species. It's time to trade in all forms of monetary currency and start working toward a true socialistic/resource based economic system. But, I realize, I'm an extremist and this will not happen in my lifetime.
You already asked me that once, and I answered it. But just because it's you, I will answer it again. The fundamental economic principle of (true) socialism is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." IOW, eliminate all relationship between what you produce in goods and services, and what you receive in compensation. What you produce should be based on what you are able to do, not what you feel like doing. And what you receive should be based on what you need, not how much you produce. That violates all known principles of human motivation, which is why it has never worked. If people don't get more for working more, why should they work more? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Good luck with that.
So, very sorry to have to make you type that all out again. If I've asked you before, I've forgotten. My apologies. I think that phrase is ... Marxism(?) which is really a variation of capitalism as a currency of some sort is exchanged. In a resource based economy, there wouldn't be a ... quid pro quo, so to speak, in exchange for basic survival necessities. It's like many people in retirement. They no longer "need" to exchange time for money, they just do what they want to do. Some people like to clean. I don't. But, some people do. Some people like to cook. Some people like to garden. Some people like to tend animals. Some people like to build. People in retirement do things because they want to. In a resource based economy, people would ... be like in retirement - doing things they want to do. That they now do it in exchange for someone else providing some other thing and everyone contributes to everyone else's well being. https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Resource-Based_Economy
No no, it works perfectly well so long as the right people are in charge. I've been told that many times, it's just that the right people haven't been in charge yet.
Not my fault you do not have the ability to distinguish the difference between what's best for all people vs what's best for 1% of the population so you rely on the 1% to tell you how to vote.
"Real socialism has never been tried" "that's not real socialism" "that's a capitalistic society with a large welfare state" yes, yes, we hear that all of the time. Then why do people, people who support it not Conservatives, call it Democratic-Socialism? It's still a redistribution of wealth.
The only redistribution of wealth happening is from the bottom up. Any other conclusions and you simply do not know what you’re talking about.
The US and Canada are pretty much neck and neck. https://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?cnts=canada|unitedstates&src=ranking
1. Do they have to, no. Do I want to, yes. 2. Because people need to realize socialism and communism are failures and capitalism is not as evil as the memelords want you to believe. 3. Why me? Nobody else is doing it so I took it on. I'm the Batman of political memes, I guess. 4. Mostly the ones that Mr. Facepalm, because he can't use his words, posts that suggests socialism and communism is somehow better or at the very least, capitalism is evil. Move to NK, Mr. Facepalm if you hate it so much.
Oh, ffs. The world is full of countries where the policies that American conservatives label "socialist" have been working just fine for decades now. More than fine, in fact -- these countries tend to have better outcomes than the U.S. on health care, education, and pretty much everything else.