Why are the most powerful concentrations of people working to advocate for human progress more focused on divisions than the objective? May it have to do with the fact that "knowing people" is the best way to succeed in the struggles for success and survival?
As the working poor around the world, we cannot conclude that "wage floors" are the sole cause of inflation without the actual numbers for profit margins, the difference resulting from the lack of supplemental offset policy, the economic indicators in question, or even an accurate understanding of the words we're using. It is like trying to do a math problem by removing the numbers. The so-called “war between rich people” when the stock market tanks is only a part of the overall equation. The idea that tax cuts automatically lead to job creation, as if we have a command economy that tells business owners how to spend their retained revenue, is shielded. There is no singular means nor end to stimulating an economy, but there are multiple, singular and complex do-not’s.
The fundamental reason human civilization has government and pays into taxes is to appropriate a return on that investment for everyone in the form of services. Nobody would choose to pay into govt for any other reason, and human civilization would not have government in the first place if enough able-bodies could not be paid to turn real life into a service. However, few citizens of any country are aware of the terrors against themselves their own money is spent on. Socialism is forced tax collection and wealth redistribution of all supply and demand side forms, whether spent on the impoverished or elite. A free market is to have real competition.
A variety of historical terms appear to have been politicized over time. Confusion about the meaning of republic, democracy, socialism, communism, capitalism, centralism, fascism, nationalism, feudalism, freedom, liberty, security, justice, and a wide variety of other topics is widespread. Nobody will get anything done if ideological factions can divisively modify history. In many American schools, we are taught that the word “socialism” is both the POLICY of wealth distribution and an alternate name for less extreme forms of the SYSTEM of state-controlled production. How is that? Is the established definition for the word (CONCLUSION) redundant to or in conflict with our understanding of the constituent facts that make up the concept (PREMISE)!
If socialism is forced tax collection and wealth redistribution, what does that make communism, and what is centralism? Why don’t we have well-known words for varying levels of capitalism, democracy, or anything else? Why have two or three words for varying levels of state control? If the word socialism is taken, is state control centralism or communism? What is going on here? Interestingly enough, the biggest advocates against any of these words are the ones who conflate them the most. A faction who is scared to call out a “socialist” enemy with full “communist” force is highly suspicious. Does anyone in their right mind call an imminent threat to their lives “kind of harmful?” If people “are too scared” to admit that “communist” centralism is in fact as bad as the most extreme forms of it by repeating a more friendly-sounding “social” label, they must not be serious, or be doing something else. Are they too scared? Now that so many people who have no idea what socialism is feel the way they do, so many people willing to complicitly pay into what seems like 98% nothing in the form of an accessible return for anyone other than the elite and vulnerable is still dangerous.
If you establish an economy based on local shops and small-time manufacturers, it will still trend toward centralization if we carry over feudal courts that are not serious about protecting their rights to compete. If civil society is not participatory and balanced, smaller companies are eventually bought out by monopolists as a matter of there being no other better options for everybody. Then, we have this kind of "public-private communism" we see in the US today where the taxpayer has to subsidize global company's compensatory obligations to their employees through welfare programs. Alongside all of the wasteful and unknowingly carcinogenic harm that results from an imbalanced, paradoxical “profit” ideology, government officials around the world take bribes to pass unconstitutional, industry-written laws with total limited-liability and other double standards that are harming our everyday lives.
If we have govt, we have socialism. We can all drive on pavement in most places, call the police, and reap some of the benefits of military industrial research. Socialism is not a synonym of centralism/state-control because it is a synonym of wealth redistribution/taxpayer ownership. Every other historical synonym of the same nature is distinct by definition. We are politically trained to struggle with elementary ideas, in denial about whether all wealth redistribution is called “wealth redistribution.” How do these tricks occur? Victims of self-perpetuating propaganda are not responsible for being misinformed AS LONG AS they understand that most publishers cannot be called “primary sources.” Reading bias publishing sources is not research.
Here is a brief line of questions to analyze the divisive tool known as the word "socialism"
A) Many people outside of the US understand the difference between the forcible collection and redistribution of wealth, complete government centralization, and the realities of utopia:
Do you pay taxes, and do you or anyone else have many legal choices not to?
When govt forcibly takes your money away through taxes, are our choices for how it is spent really being represented?
After the money is spent, whether on supply or demand investment programs or welfare, was it redistributed?
Is the term “wealth” really only an exclusive title for the people with the most money, as if everyone else’s money has another term we can use like “poor money?"
B) Many people around the world seem to have been tricked into misunderstanding the term “socialism” by believing the definition to include total state control of production and the word “communism” no differently except “more extreme:”
Are there in fact separate words for more and less extreme FORMS of capitalism, democracy, or even wealth?
Is the distinction between what we think of as “communism” and “socialism” like that between free markets and free-trade monopolism, or is distinguishing levels of state control more imaginary?
Is this widespread redundancy to use the wrong word an attempt to normalize centralism by making it sound friendly and “social?”
Here is AN APPLIED EXAMPLE of the logic behind the levying, collection, holding, and spending of taxes
PREMISE 1: Poverty in the US was at its lowest rate when economic policy spread tax revenues to all parts of the supply and demand side economy, with a heavy shift of power towards small businesses.
PREMISE 2: Economic prosperity in the US slowly began to decline in the 60s after the president agreed to sign legislation to cut more than 30% from the largest tax bracket levy.
PREMISE 3: As a result over time of less available tax revenues, effective spending programs were slowly forgotten and replaced with welfare-centered supply and demand programs, and poverty in the US has since been perpetually inflaming as less money is available and efficient management is forgotten.
CONCLUSION: While the Kennedy tax cut is in no way the sole cause that led to economic decline, the reduction of revenue dollars directly influences the ability to spend them. Furthermore, while a counterculture that decided doing drugs together in the streets was the best way to solve the world’s problems may not correlate with economic decline, there is a direct correlation between the physical and mental abilities to effectively collect/spend OUR public revenue. Most importantly, high taxes ALONE are not a formula for economic success. In fact, very low taxes on the majority of a population is critical for a prosperous economy. The formula that was so successful during only two US administrations was the combination of an income-cap tax and the relatively well-managed earmarking of those revenues.
Comments