Homework sucks

Apart from some worker cooperatives socialism never took root anywhere.

Schooling in the 80s was still very much training us to sit still and follow the routine. Because we were all going to be happy worker bees for a living. And our classes had 30+ kids and one teacher for most of elementary school.

I’m not sure it has really changed much in most of America, especially since standardized testing became the norm and led to “teaching to the test” in many classroooms. I have since realized I had a couple teachers along the way who encouraged questioning your preconceived notions, 7 and 8 grade jr high science teachers specifically, and a metal shop teacher who they eliminated the year I would have taken it in exchange for a computer based “synergy” class.

(The Adventures of) Huckleberry Finn was Samuel Clemons, AKA Mark Twain, and is the sequel to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.

NM just realized that none of the later books you listed were Steinbeck

we should strive to listen and learn. Educate the hate away.

I see your point, but let me offer a counter point:

Fuck You

There is no hate in saying this is r-worded good old trickle down theory that have been disproved times and times again. Basic economics is like basic biology. Simplistic.

Seriously, I spent 15 minutes watching this crap. I'll never get them back. This is just cruel.

EDIT: the best part is when it stops.

Is that a quote? Or an original thought. Either way, it’s golden.

Gaps grew (in part) because of capitalism. Back when the previous generations were working- people were compensated fairly and given regular raises... it wasn't uncommon to work for the same company until you retired. What changed? Line goes up above all else. Cut raises, mandatory pay cuts, layoffs etc. Line went up. But that has an effect that amplifies over time.

Raises were largely responsible for offsetting inflation - this is the gap that steadily widened. There are of course other factors but most of these are, at least in part, also effected by inflation.

Generally speaking capitalism works, sure. But this is no longer capitalism. We have too big to fail, price fixing to choke out competition, and a governing body bought and paid for by megacorp.

Competition drives that gap, Capitalism is still what drove that chance.

Revolutions tends to lead to powerful people seizing the state and centralizing everything.

The usual theory they bandy about it is that they are a "vanguard" of "elites" who will prepare the ground for socialism. And when they are done they will turn the system over to the workers to control it like promised, from the bottom up.

Spoilers : They never do, so far at least.

Instead they will take over any worker-led initiative and stifle it and shoot the organizers if they don't get the memo. You wind up with the state owning the means of production and the workers owning next to nothing and being worked as hard as under capitalism. You typically wind up with a centralized, bureaucratic dictatorship.

On top of that, because the rest of the world is in a different system and to become a socialist state one must break the other system's rules, you've pissed off most of the powerful people outside your border. This leads to a besieged mentality (and assassination attempts, and coup attempts, etc.) which keeps up the pressure on that state to keep being a dictatorial, paranoid mess. Oh and it can also lead to stiffened trade as you become a pariah. And historically the USSR's economy for instance performed worse than the US's.

That said, other alternatives don't have to include armed revolution. You can start a worker coop, and that is technically socialism (or anarchism? I forget), because the workers would own the means of production. You'd be able to do that within a capitalist framework without too much conflict and without pissing too many people off (really I can't see anyone but ideological goblins and competitors bitching about this. And competitors always bitch anyways). Of course, contrary to wage labour, you have to bear the financial risks yourself.

1. the first part is only true In relation to the ideals of the supports of socialism.

Socialists care about the ownership of the means of production.

Capatalism dose not even consider the term. They only care about the result to indevidual growth.

As a example that makes my point. Elon musk and space ex is about rocket science to the engineers

To musk and other who consider space colonisation the only viable future for humanity. Rocket science is just the currently most effective way of achieving the goal.

To a socialist ownership of means of production is the goal.

To a capatalist it is just the best way the currently see of achieving the goal of indevidual wealth.

Also the huge huge benefits ww2 had on American

No I don't think capitalism created minimum wage. I think capitalism created factories and advanced technology. Minimum wage and regulations came from the people demanding rights. The workers in France and Norway are not pissing in bottles like the workers in America. France and Norway are still capitalist countries, their workers just have more rights and protections because they demanded that from their governments.

My point was capitalism isn't inherently a flawed idea nor is any other economic system. Regardless of what system is chosen, the people need to have rights. Economic systems don't address that; governments do.

American workers being mistreated is a failure in the American government, not capitalism. Nearly all countries on Earth are capitalist, and there are many where the workers are very happy and healthy.

You think capitalism created minimum wage?

Minimum wage is usually not a good thing. When you set a minimum wage, you essentially disbar people who cannot reach that wage level from the workforce completely. It hurts the weakest people of the community the worst (they are the ones who become unemployable), and doesn't matter for the strongest at all (they are always above the minimum wage level).

Living costs is the actual problem there, and that can be fixed by lightening up the governments: e.g. freeing up zoning permits and lower taxation of things essential to the poor.

It slows progress, this is a well known fact.

Opinions are one thing, but claiming an untruth to be a fact is just not ok. Data shows clearly that capitalism has been one of the most rapid sources of growth everywhere where it has been applied.

It could have some other problems when paired with weak governments (corporatism & external costs are poorly solved, for instance), but lack of progress is clearly not one of them.

Capitalism has led directly to advances in medicine and cures and there is no question about that. For all its faults the greed for money has no doubt led to faster advances.

Real socialism just won't work for people. We are too corrupt and would just find ways to take advantage of it for personal gain. Some form of greed needs to be worked into the system to promote advancement and satiate the need for greed.

You might want to do a little research first before saying something like this unless you like being absolutely wrong

The profit motive drives profit, not development. See: rapid enshittification and exploitation.

The important thing there is 'how are incentives aligned?'

With a lightbulb factory, both the capitalist and the public wins if they're making better, cheaper lightbulbs. Because incentives are aligned, both the capitalist and the public wins when they figure out how to improve the factory. Look at the prices of LED bulbs or TVs over the last few decades.

Enshittification is due to the public being the product. The public does worse when the capitalist does better.

The profit motive is fundamentally a mixed bag.

Why do you think it's better for individual mini-dictators to control and own production, rather than democratically run production via worker ownership? Do tools work better when one person owns everything?

The current system doesn't prevent worker ownership of any business. So, the obvious question is why businesses organized as owned by workers don't tend to make those sorts of big developments rather than ones owned by one or a small group of founders or owned by whoever wants to buy a piece on the public market.

Hey, that's a good point.

Maybe because they aren't funny haha? Wait this meme wasn't funny either.... Maybe we should have some capitalist memes

It's not even short, it's straight apologia.

Careful there, don't wanna get down voted for wrong think

What I meant is that it's the same level of propagandizing. Also, this isn't a 'leftist platform'. You can't just claim things. FOSS isn't inherently leftist.