Is Modern Capitalism based on Socialism?

[Stu]

So often the political discourse veers into warnings about become a socialist country. For many it is the clarion call to action against progressive policies. We often hear conservative rail against the evils of socialism as they point to criminal states like N Korea or failing economies like Cuba or Venezuela as examples of what might happen to us.
But is it not clear that without various socialist enterprises that are embedded into our "free" market system that our economy would not even exist?
Let's not even mention basic government services, like fire departments and public schools. Instead look at insurance, like the FDIC, Crop Insurance, or home owners insurance.... Is it not true that without Insurance businesses would not be able to operate and markets would fail?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Funny.

 

[Skarekrow]

So often the political discourse veers into warnings about become a socialist country. For many it is the clarion call to action against progressive policies. We often hear conservative rail against the evils of socialism as they point to criminal states like N Korea or failing economies like Cuba or Venuzuala as examples of what might happen to us.
But is it not clear that without various socialist enterprises that are embedded into our "free" market system that our economy would not even exist.
Let's not even mentions basic government services, like fire departments and public schools. Instead look at insurance, like the FDIC, Crop Insurance, or home owners insurance.... Is it not true that without Insurance businesses would not be able to operate and markets would fail?

Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist
Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...3/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/​

 

[Eventhorizon]

Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist
Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...3/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/​

Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word," he said in an interview with The Nation published in July. "When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising — very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that." - Sanders

 

[Stu]

Insurance is sharing the risk.
All forms of insurance (Health, Auto, Vacation Trips, Fire, Flood, etc.) are set up to share the risk.

 

[Skarekrow]

Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word," he said in an interview with The Nation published in July. "When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising — very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that." - Sanders

Read the article brainiac.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Read the article brainiac.

Why? Bernie calls himself a socalist, therefore he is which completely destroys the very first sentence.

 

[Skarekrow]

Why? Bernie calls himself a socalist, therefore he is which completely destroys the very first sentence.

Which is why I said, read the article.
Jesus...you are arguing with thin air...you didn’t even read the substantive text that you are arguing against.
You base your response only on the article title without clearly having read or knowing what you are actually arguing against.
You are arguing for argument’s sake.
Derp man.....uber-derp.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Which is why I said, read the article.
Jesus...you are arguing with thin air...you didn’t even read the substantive text that you are arguing against.
You base your response only on the article title without clearly having read or knowing what you are actually arguing against.
You are arguing for argument’s sake.
Derp man.....uber-derp.

"Why?" Is not an argument, it is a question.

 

[Skarekrow]

"Why?" Is not an argument, it is a question.

You have still not yet bitten into the meat of the subject you are ignoring.
Your “questions” are shooting blanks.
Hence the Derp.

 

[Stu]

Why? Bernie calls himself a socalist, therefore he is....

by that logic you are a genius.

 

[Skarekrow]

by that logic you are a genius.

He’s a Man-God.

(Anyhow, he’s gonna make God pay, if there is one...very logical)

 

[invisible]

"Why?" Is not an argument, it is a question.

It very much is an argument, posed as a question with an argumentative premise embedded in it. It's just that it's a sort of incredibly flimsy and farcical argument that is almost impossible for others to respond to, since it provides zero genuine engagement with the material presented for discussion - exactly like your previous argument, "Funny."

 

[Eventhorizon]

by that logic you are a genius.

Thanks Stu, that's a really nice complement coming from you.

The point is he's not mincing words. He wants to be known as a socialist which either means he knows what a socialist is or that he doesn't. Either way the end outcome is unfortunate.

 

[Eventhorizon]

It very much is an argument, posed as a question with an argumentative premise embedded in it. It's just that it's a sort of incredibly flimsy and farcical argument that is almost impossible for others to respond to, since it provides zero genuine engagement with the material presented for discussion - exactly like your previous argument, "Funny."

No one needs to respond to "funny". There's nothing to argue about when you say something like I think Hitler was really Marilyn Monroe in disguise.
"Why" is exactly what It appears to be. A question. Flip words, dance around them...do whatever. If you can't respond it's because any argument you had was shut down.

 

[invisible]

No one needs to respond to "funny". There's nothing to argue about when you say something like I think Hitler was really Marilyn Monroe in disguise.
"Why" is exactly what It appears to be. A question. Flip words, dance around them...do whatever. If you can't respond it's because any argument you had was shut down.

I'm happy to respond. The word "why" is not sufficient to "shut down" any argument at all. It's more like a word that little children repeat to annoy their parents. Hope this helps!

 

[Eventhorizon]

I'm happy to respond. The word "why" is not sufficient to "shut down" any argument at all. It's more like a word that little children repeat to annoy their parents. Hope this helps!

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Stu]

As many of Sanders’s supporters have repeatedly and rightly pointed out, socialism is not communism. In fact, for most of the 20th century, socialism was understood to be a halfway house between capitalism and communism. The latter was a utopian vision of the future characterized by classless, stateless, and moneyless communal living. Strictly speaking, therefore, no communist country was ever “communist”—not even the Soviet Union (a.k.a., the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

this is an excellent point

 

[invisible]

The point is he's not mincing words. He wants to be known as a socialist which either means he knows what a socialist is or that he doesn't. Either way the end outcome is unfortunate.

If you read the article you would understand very quickly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Skarekrow told you repeatedly that you don't know what you're talking about. I have no idea why you are intent on ignoring him. You seem constantly impervious to anything of value that anyone else could say.

 

[invisible]

So often the political discourse veers into warnings about become a socialist country. For many it is the clarion call to action against progressive policies. We often hear conservative rail against the evils of socialism as they point to criminal states like N Korea or failing economies like Cuba or Venuzuala as examples of what might happen to us.
But is it not clear that without various socialist enterprises that are embedded into our "free" market system that our economy would not even exist.
Let's not even mentions basic government services, like fire departments and public schools. Instead look at insurance, like the FDIC, Crop Insurance, or home owners insurance.... Is it not true that without Insurance businesses would not be able to operate and markets would fail?

When I think about this issue it seems to me almost like at its extreme development, that capitalism is anarchic - what do you think of this?. I want to read the article Skarekrow posted again because I feel like I don't properly understand the way that public services and infrastructure are supposed to fit into the theory of deregulation. It seems as though it is not possible for a market to provide those sorts of things on its own, because the market has no reason to be charitable. But it seems like about free market the idea is that any regulation is holding back the market and preventing it from serving humanity. I've always really struggled with the idea that a deregulated market can serve humanity.

Insurance is an interesting one. It seems like insurance organisations are a privatised business service?