Jeff Bezos Space Tourist

[Innula Zenovka]

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

What exactly do you understand by the term "socialism"?   

Sometimes I get the impression that, just as in US English you call it "a sidewalk" and we call it a "pavement" or we call them "trousers" and you call them "pants," you call "socialism" what most places would call "basic functions of government".

Would you say they have a socialist economic system in Germany, or Norway, or Ireland or the UK, for example?

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Innula Zenovka

[Chroma Starlight]

27 minutes ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

We already have an aerospace industry decades more advanced than these idiotic vanity projects. 

It's called SpaceX? 

I love how the reason they're succeeding is that they're basically just continuing the ethos of the Saturn V program. That's it. The technology is even similar, like, the block chart is nearly identical. All they're doing is thumbing their noses at Nixon and Goldwater, and they're doing it really well. The shuttle was always a preposterous dead end, like the War in Vietnam, the War on Drugs (and native peoples and entheogens and spirituality), the War on Terror (or rather "Of terror; their own"), like Reaganomics,  like Margaret Thatcher, like the US political party system, like British government, like classism and apartheid and empire and slavery and genocide.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Finite]

11 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

What exactly do you understand by the term "socialism"?   

Sometimes I get the impression that, just as in US English you call it "a sidewalk" and we call it a "pavement" or we call them "trousers" and you call them "pants," you call "socialism" what most places would call "basic functions of government".

Would you say they have a socialist economic system in Germany, or Norway, or Ireland or the UK, for example?

 

A lot of people from the US like to relate anything and everything to socialism which is funny since a lot of the states that spread this sort of propaganda are on fed level welfare and subsidized by states that actually have functioning economies. Ironically the same states they like to call socialist.

[Ayeleeon]

43 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

capitalism sometimes needs regulating, and that's the job of government

The job of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people under it's jurisdiction, without regard to race, gender, economic class, or anything else. What actually happens in practice is that government favors certain groups over others, such as the wealthy over the poor, and come up with some BS like the greater social good to justify it. The excesses of Capitalism are do to government interfering in the free market, not because government does to little. Of course government is more than happy to ride in like a big hero to fix a problem it created in the first place.

[Janet Voxel]

Gotta love late stage capitalism. Yeah, yeah...give me some more of that!

[Janet Voxel]

Just to be clear, keep in mind we're talking about a man that just went into space in a phallus shaped rocket, while his employees are pissing in bottles to make deliveries on time and can get fired for using the bathroom because "Metrics" in the Fullfillment centers.

That's absurd.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Janet Voxel

[Sukubia Scarmon]

1 hour ago, Orwar said:

   Aspects of it, sure - I believe in society collaborating to create safety and opportunity; healthcare, infrastructure, police and a judicial system, having an armed force in proportion to perceived threats (even better if several nations can cooperate and thus save on military expenditure for all participants), education, care for the elderly, etc - but I dislike the amount of bureaucracy currently present here; Sweden once was the 4th wealthiest nation per capita, but our growth from ca. 1850-1950 as we industrialised and profiteered off of the wars was almost squandered by socialism. At our wealthiest, the tax rates were at around 9% of GDP, by the 60's-80's Sweden quickly fell down the ladder as the taxes were pushed up towards 60%, and even outspoken supporters of the socialist ideology spoke out (the most prolific one being Astrid Lindgren, who due to the wealth through her authorship was pushed up in tax rates until the taxation of one of her books' sales reached 102%, which even to the least astute layman obviously doesn't work; it prompted her to write the book "Pomperipossa in Monismania" in 1976, which is often said to be what brought the decisive defeat of the socialist party in the following election, for the first time in four decades). 

   But we still need to retain individual freedom as well as individual responsibility. Any notion of stripping the wealthy of their assets in order to briefly fund some socialist utopia wherein everyone gets paid just for being a citizen is bollocks. What will run the economy once we're out of wealthy people to strip of their personal property? Having a safety network for intermittent periods of unemployment, or if you have a disability (whether physical or psychological) which makes it impossible for you to work - fine, those people should receive pecuniary benefits as to not have to go homeless and starving - but if you don't want to work because you'd rather sit at home spewing bile about the evils of wealthy people online, or produce 'art' that no one wants to pay for, then absolutely no.

   "Sweden hasn't prospered because of socialism. Sweden has prospered in spite of socialism."
   - H. Jönsson

   We will only want for nothing, once we've achieved our complete self-annihilation. 

To be fair, I think that Germany is choking on the immense amount of (general) bureaucracy we got here, so I can absolutely understand that point, and it's one of the reasons why I said we're doing okay, not great or even good, currently. 
Take our healthcare for example, while it's "free", it won't do much in terms of prevention. It'll mainly do stuff once the damage is already done - and that is more costly than prevention in many cases. Sure, prevention might not help in all cases, but I'm sure it'd be enough to keep the overall cost down somewhat. I don't know why it's not the case, tho.

Also, I'd not think stripping the wealthy would be a feasible solution to anything either - that'd mainly also just deepen the ravine between rich and poor, and it'd be a rather a short lived bandaid for a deeper problem. It's for the same reason I don't like charities that just give out free stuff, but prefer the ones that use the money to try build up infrastructures and systems that might not help as much in the short run, but help in the long run - if that makes sense?

So, what I'd prefer is not to strip the wealthy - but to prevent the gluttonous amassing of wealth by exploitations. Better and fair conditions for workers, a feasible minimum wage that reflects inflation. Proper securrity nets for when people fall out of their job/homes, and means to get them the help they need to get back on their own feet. Things like that. Sure, it'd mean less and slower profits, but.. that'd should be okay? I believe that some things simply NEED regulations, because people like Bezos have proven that they themselfes are not able to provide fair conditions. 
And like I said: I'm okay with people becoming rich, it's just the exploitation to get there I have a problem with.
I'd absolutely rather sit at home and hate on the wealthy instead of working my ass to barely be able to feed myself and be humiliated in my basic human rights, and I am sure so would most. But the thing is - many do not have that choice. I don'T nessesarily want them to have that choice. I want them to don't need to have that choice. 

[Ceka Cianci]

24 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

Just to be clear, keep in mind we're talking about a man that just went into space in a phallus shaped rocket, while his employees are pissing in bottles to make deliveries on time and can get fired for using the bathroom because "Metrics" in the Fullfillment centers.

That's absurd.

That reminds me of Tyson's..

People on their lines had to wear diapers because they were not allowed breaks.

I knew there was a reason I never bought store chicken..🤢

[Ayeleeon]

1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said:

What exactly do you understand by the term "socialism"?

Technically Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state, as opposed to Capitalism which is ownership of the means of production by private individuals. Ownership however implies control, however in actual practice there are many ways that the state can control production without actually owning the companies involved. Ownership itself is not the issue. The issue is control. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that when the free market controls the economy with private individuals owning the means of production, the results are preferable to the state trying to take control and somehow improve on the results obtained with a free market.

[Sid Nagy]

You are describing communism.
Communists always tried to hide their status behind the word socialism. But they were no socialists at all.

[Moondira]

22 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

Technically Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state, as opposed to Capitalism which is ownership of the means of production by private individuals.

so·cial·ism

/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

noun: socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[Finite]

1 minute ago, Sid Nagy said:

You are describing communism.
Communists always tried to hide their status behind the word socialism. But they were no socialists at all.

lol. I was actually about to type something similar. Was typing a reply then was like wait? He just described communism...

 

[Chroma Starlight]

Just now, Finite said:

lol. I was actually about to type something similar. Was typing a reply then was like wait? He just described communism...

 

It hardly matters. What most people think of as communism is really just Stalinism, which is kind of like Trumpism and Hitlerism and Mussolini's Fascism. The hard right are all the same.

[Moondira]

1 hour ago, Ayeleeon said:

The excesses of Capitalism are do to government interfering in the free market

 

[Moondira]

3 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

The biggest issue is applying socialist style programs to a system that simply was not designed for it. It's easy to say "such and such a country has it!" when said country has had a system in place to support it for the last 500 or more years. Particularly heavy taxes.

Over here, we went to war with the (at the time) dominant superpower partly because they wanted us to pay said taxes. Right or wrong, the very foundation of the USA is built on a system that cannot support socialist programs as they exist in Europe.

We (in the States) pay far more for comparable basic services (through taxes AND out-of-pocket expenses) than other 1st world countries pay via their taxes.

Don't forget what we pay for out-of-pocket and at considerably higher prices (like health care), as well as higher fees for a college education, child care, and a whole slew of other services they get for their tax dollar.

[Moondira]

23 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

23 hours ago, Moondira said:

The wealthy own the government and influence laws to favor themselves

So we need more laws.

 

What could go wrong?

No, we need to fix the laws we already have so they don't favor the wealthy as much.

[Chroma Starlight]

A government that isn't socialist is by textbook definition a sociopathic government.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Chroma Starlight
they need involuntary commitment to a rehabilitative facility somewhere far away in place and mind

[Ceka Cianci]

Well, this was interesting to watch..

Not sure it would all go so smooth and they make it seem in the video, but it was kind of a fun watch.

 

[Janet Voxel]

48 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

That reminds me of Tyson's..

People on their lines had to wear diapers because they were not allowed breaks.

I knew there was a reason I never bought store chicken..🤢

I think there were reports of people wearing diapers at Amazon too.

[Moondira]

23 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

23 hours ago, Moondira said:

My life situation is beside the point, and this is also an ignorant way to frame your argument.

I champion the poor and dispossessed in our world who deserve better. A minimum wage would be a start, yet the wealthy have frequently opposed providing a living wage to large segments of our population.

The issues facing the poor are not caused by the wealthy but by the government.

As I said before, the wealthy own the government. It is the fault of those with the money (hence the power) to control our government/laws. 

We could force the government to do our bidding (the people, the common workerbee), but that takes a lot of effort and organization. In some instances we have been successful, and I do see a little progress now (movements underway that are pressuring gov to install minimum wage laws).

[Ayeleeon]

14 minutes ago, Moondira said:

 

This is basically saying that labour isn't worth much but the labourer should be paid more than that. I disagree, I think labour is valuable, and that if the government stopped interfering in the market, the market would reflect that fact.

[Moondira]

9 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

28 minutes ago, Moondira said:

 

This is basically saying that labour isn't worth much but the labourer should be paid more than that. I disagree, I think labour is valuable, and that if the government stopped interfering in the market, the market would reflect that fact.

This religion of the free market (Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand") is a delusion. There is no free market, and there never has been. It's the wealthy (via buying government and slanting laws in their favor) who try to extract as much profit as possible from labor, and that keeps labor's wages as low as possible. They'll squeeze as much as they can from the workerbee to increase profits.

Let's say you work at a job for $15 an hour. They scrape off a percentage of that to send to CEO's and shareholders. So you're really not getting paid for all your labor.

* In the cartoon the wealthy person is insisting the workerbees should not defend their rights with unions, but instead should trust in the free market (the invisible hand).  This is a ploy by the wealthy to keep their wealth (to insist the market is fair and should determine economic realities).

Edited July 22, 2021 by Moondira

[Chroma Starlight]

If they've become so brazen that they "ain't care" about creating international incidents, just imagine what they're capable of doing to their own citizens. They've completely lost their minds after misplacing their souls decades ago. It's a ghoul parade here, and now Biden's the head ghoul. 

[Innula Zenovka]

57 minutes ago, Ayeleeon said:

Technically Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state, as opposed to Capitalism which is ownership of the means of production by private individuals. Ownership however implies control, however in actual practice there are many ways that the state can control production without actually owning the companies involved. Ownership itself is not the issue. The issue is control. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that when the free market controls the economy with private individuals owning the means of production, the results are preferable to the state trying to take control and somehow improve on the results obtained with a free market.

Hmm.   Where do you get that definition of socialism from, and do you prefer it to , for example, the Socialist International's Declaration of principles, to which democratic socialist parties worldwide choose (or not) to subscribe?    

Quite simply, when Americans use the term "socialism," it seems to be a bit like when they talk about "football" -- that is, the word means one thing in the US and something different when just about anyone else uses it.

 

[Orwar]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

What exactly do you understand by the term "socialism"?   

   It depends on context. There's Marx's own description wherein socialism is the stage wherein a capitalist state is being transformed into a communist state, but more often than not it refers to a political ideology wherein the rich have their assets seized and redistributed by the state - but it totally isn't communism, 'cause you're still allowed to earn a lot of money. The government just takes the larger part of it. To fund public 'art' and religious fundamentalist schools that also function as recruitment grounds for international terrorist organisations. The latter bit may have been by mistake, but hey, we're doing it because it's the nice thing to do, right?

   And also because it totally isn't an authoritarian movement, you're entirely free to move your assets abroad. And then people do. And then you can't tax them anymore. And then the welfare state has to rely on taxing the middle-class and the poor instead. But that's okay - it's cool to pay taxes (actual statement by a representative of the social democrats). 

57 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:

And like I said: I'm okay with people becoming rich, it's just the exploitation to get there I have a problem with.
I'd absolutely rather sit at home and hate on the wealthy instead of working my ass to barely be able to feed myself and be humiliated in my basic human rights, and I am sure so would most. But the thing is - many do not have that choice. I don'T nessesarily want them to have that choice. I want them to don't need to have that choice. 

   The wonderful thing with globalisation is that anyone can apply for citizenship or register their company in a nation wherein the taxes are lower, and place their production in countries where the regulations are more lax when it comes to the whole 'human rights' thing or 'environmental tax' shenanigans. Doesn't matter what laws Germany or the EU implement to protect the workers, if it's made so tough the employers will set up shop in Taiwan instead and just ship it over to the consumers in Europe. And then suddenly all that changed was that German employees went from contributing via taxation to needing unemployment aid, and the state made a total deficit on the whole thing.

   We used to have a mustard factory in my home town, that let build a quite pretty brick building to house their production and offices, and became quite the thing of pride for the locals .. Then the Swedish government tightened the grip. Now the 'local' mustard is produced in Poland. And then the company was bought up by Kraft. Now the old brand name is just the product name. On the bright side, the pretty factory building could be levelled so that a super-expensive and utterly atrocious new housing complex could be built that the target audience can't afford to live in without slinging drugs or selling sex on the side of their university studies. Yay?