I'm not a socialist, yang would be my favorite candidate on the domestic stuff. I would encompass all of the social programs into a ubi, and say good luck. i think it has the best cybernetics of all of the social welfare ideas

nationalizing entire healthcare industry...i dunno, medicare for all seems like an enormous expansion. our current system is broken but there are some fairly obvious reasons why when you look at the lobbying efforts of the insurance industry, etc. partly because attempts to 'make it better' fucked up the incentives of how insurance operates, regulatory capture of the fda(actually the drug companies set it up to work that way from day one tbh)

Interesting

@qwasi actually its more libertarian if anything.

GG @Shockwave, you just advanced to level 17!

UBI is a commonly libertarian philosophy. Government having no influence on your income. That sort of thing. If you hate how tax money is used, why not just use it yourself.

What’s yalls thoughts on communism

Love to hear yalls opinions

Do you think the USSR was true communism ? @stalin

I have a Communist friend. I understand why he likes it, I just think in practice it does not hold up and there is plenty problems with it.

There would need to be a great shift in culture and why people strive for better, rather than working just to do good work and being content in doing good work.

@stalin

@Baratel Yang is the dark one but I don't know that it's supposed to represent evil

USSR tried real communism, it can't work

mises was right in 1920. even if you have angels, there is still the calculation problem.

there is also no need for 'full communism' or whatever. Capitalism isn't all bad.it does some things extremely well, such as provide for a robust economy to power a social welfare system

>if you have a stock market or are for them, you're not a socialist

this is false

like, you clearly havent read any serious amount of market socialism

Oh i have, actually arguing about it right now, cockshott and such

yea? ive read more than 10 books on this

and im telling you

*youre wrong*

so i dont give a shit if youre having an argument with someone on it

its uninformed

I wasn't really making a wrong or right statement there, i was more giving my opinion about the 'red line' between one or the other

and its an incorrect redline

ill prove it

suppose there exists 20 different "regions" in a country

it's pretty good. if the means of production(capital) aren't nationalized and if individuals can buy and sell shares in companies, etc, it's not reallya socialist country

and each region has a socially owned bank

there are at least 20 socially owned banks

socially owned can be in a gazillion forms, is a joint stock company considered 'socially owned'?

or a credit union

now in this system, you can have a stock market for the trade of securities between socially owned banks

if individuals can have property rights in stock, i think thats' the dividing line

socially owned as in, the people of that region have equal, or near equal, levels of shares in it

and they cannot sell the shares

it's not a technical argument, it's arbitrary but i think it represents a big difference since having property rights in stock versus not being able to have them is a big deal

but this is literally a socialist system which has a stock market

so....

youre wrong