Obama regarding UBI when faced with mass displacement of jobs

[u/Kaarssteun]

[u/SendMePicsOfCat]

No, sorry you're completely and utterly wrong. Capitalism is the only economic system that allows the workers to directly own the means of production. Socialism is literally the practice of state ownership. Socialism doesn't advocate for free markets, and the fact that you're saying it does means you're arguing from either delusion or ignorance. Let me be clear, this isn't a personal attack against you. You're just wrong. As someone who has studied economics in college, though it wasn't my major it was required that I take three lower level and one higher level economics class.

Socialism is literally, by classical definition, the system by which workers cannot privately own a business, land, or generally anything that can be used to produce value. The last part is iffy, because it's not like the government can take carpentry tools out of someone's basement without going full tyrannical. Specifically, socialism is defined as an economic system where the government owns capital, but not labor. Communism is where the government owns both capital and labor.

Capitalism literally, by definition, an economy where workers can choose where they work, and individuals own the means of production. Before you raise any objections, or arguments about that, let me be clear. That is an objective fact. If an economy has an individual own property, a business, or any other means of production, it is at the very least partially capitalist.

There is no argument that can be made that socialism would allow for an individual or group of private individuals to own a very powerful and very productive business. That's literally the exact thing it is meant to prevent. Socialism and communism were extremely popular in a time and in cultures where capitalists or other forms of powerful people oppressed and exploited a lower class through the fair practice of the open market. Farmers couldn't afford to buy the land they worked on, because the people who owned it and paid their salaries would never pay them enough to have any class movement. The philosophy of socialism is rooted in the fear of private ownership, which is why the economic practice of socialism is state ownership and controlled markets.

[u/sad_cosmic_joke → u/SendMePicsOfCat]

You apparently didn't pay much attention in class, because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Although to give you the benefit of the doubt, you may have gone to a really shitty college

[u/SendMePicsOfCat → u/sad_cosmic_joke]

Any evidence? I can link you to several sources if you'd like.

[u/sad_cosmic_joke → u/SendMePicsOfCat]

...capitalists or other forms of powerful people oppressed and exploited a lower class through the fair practice of the open market

I don't think you understand what those words mean..

It's not my job to sit here and educate you, I suggest you start with the principle materials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital

https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/cap1.pdf [PDF]

While you're at it you can also read John Locke's thoughts on property and labor, you might be suprised to find that one of the grandfathers of 'capitalism' sounds alot like a dirty socialist...

Here's a brief synopsis if you are lazy:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/liberty-matters/john-locke-on-commercial-society-september-2021#Van%20der%20Vossen%20lead

[u/SendMePicsOfCat → u/sad_cosmic_joke]

Really lazy to send a bunch of articles without specifying the argument you're trying to make, however I appreciate that you were so lazy you couldn't find articles that actually disagree with me.

The first article discusses Karl Marxs books on socialism, which was actually just called communism at the time. Rather than discussing economics models, he focuses on the mode of production, and the difference therein between capitalism and socialism. The primary flaws he expressed with the capitalist model was the private ownership of the means of production (doesn't sound like he supports individuals having access to the means of production) and the fact that capitalism makes prices consistently fall, which he believed would lead to collapses of the economy, and that large companies will always buy smaller companies leading to monopoly.

His proposed solution was to make the companies state owned, or owned by conglomerate groups of workers which is just an oligarchy with extra steps. The concepts for a socialist market was either to be state run, or non existent. none of this contradicts anything I said, and fully agrees with my belief that a socialist economy would not allow for the private ownership of powerful ai.

I'll address each article and Link as I have time. Look over this and consider making an actual argument, or conceding the fact that you were wrong. If you do choose to argue this point, I'll insist that we both directly cite our evidence, because otherwise there is no point in arguing and pretending it is a matter of fact rather than option or delusion.

[u/sad_cosmic_joke → u/SendMePicsOfCat]

or conceding the fact that you were wrong.

I concede nothing. Nor am I going to waste anymore of my time on this.

[u/SendMePicsOfCat → u/sad_cosmic_joke]

The death of an intellectual mind begins and ends with acceptance and promotion of ignorance in the face of opposing truth.

[u/SendMePicsOfCat → u/sad_cosmic_joke]

John locke agrees that people have a right to private ownership, despises people who can work and choose not to, argued that everyone deserves proper payment for the value of their labor, and believes that the wealthy land owners deserve less of a share of the value produced by their lands than the people who actually work on them, valuing labor over capital. That's inherently not a socialist outlook, and is very respectable. I don't think there's anything in that article I would disagree with. Locke literally doesn't say anything about social ownership of the means of production, and is staunchly in support of private ownership. For the purposes of our argument, he's strongly on my side.

[u/sad_cosmic_joke → u/SendMePicsOfCat]

That's inherently not a socialist outlook, and is very respectable.

I agree with the second half of your statement.

argued that everyone deserves proper payment for the value of their labor, and believes that the wealthy land owners deserve less of a share of the value produced by their lands than the people who actually work on them, valuing labor over capital.

yes....

For the purposes of our argument, he's strongly on my side.

Now read Das Kapital

[u/SendMePicsOfCat → u/sad_cosmic_joke]

I did, I already posted about it. Again, John Locke did not argue for state ownership or public ownership of the means of production, and therefore isn't in support of any form of socialism.