I dont think anyone here is backing hilary. Normally I would never watch the news, but It was interesting I saw a bit at the gym (local community center, socialism at work) and they were talking about how hilary is the democratic establishment candidate. Very interesting to see it out in the open like that, either im paying more attention now or things are a bit more transparent.
lets look at these 5 point and really analyze them.
Number one is reasonable. There is a cost to anything, the old economic saying is theres not such thing as a free lunch. So the first point makes some sense. But the costs will be on the rich. The negative impact will be on them, because economic disparity is out of control. You cannot morally justify the disparity between people who have multiple mansions, yachts, private planes and the average working class individual. Freedom is not the freedom to have as much physical goods and money as you can possible acquire. That my friends is greed. Why would one individual ever need to take home more that 250k per year? IF you cannot live a full, happy life on that, maybe you should reanalyze your goals and priorities in life. No religion or spiritual outlook would justify such a huge amount of money as necessary for happiness.
2&4 can be analyzed together. How do rich people get their money? When someone starts a business, they rarely do all the labor themselves. They have employees do the physical work while not giving them the full reward for their output of labor. This is because the person who starts the business controls the means of production, but this does not mean they have the right to take a disproportionate share of the profit. People are entitled to much more of the outcome from their labor than they typically receive.
Further, when someone starts a corporation they use public resources- fire, water, sewage, roads, police, ect. They need to pay closer to the real cost of these things, via higher taxes or wealth redistribution to their employees. That money they make using peoples labor and public resources needs to be put back into the system which they exploit to make their profits.
When companies move manufacturing to other countries they need to be taxed very high. Anything coming in or out of the country needs to be taxed alot as well. This would promote local manufacturing and create jobs in our country. Some materials we need to get from other countries if cost is a concern, but we need to look at the big picture and ask if this is sustainable. The bottom line profits cannot be the driving force of policy (rebuplican way), because this would leave the world in shambles (we are well on the way).
This leads me to #5. This country is still the most prosperous in the world. But it wont stay that way if we have no middle class and all the wealth end up in the hands of the top % of rich people (again, we are getting very close). Innovation? IMHO we dont need more inventions and scientific break throughs. We have enough technology, we have enough resources, medicine is advanced enough (cancer can be treated in different ways, high cbd treatments, going after the root cause, ect.). I think most scientists working in medicine will still work in medicine for the good of all people and because they enjoy science. Even if innovation becomes stagnant, realistically why do we need to advance any more? We dont need rapid advancement, we need a better quality of life for all people in this country. Thats what socialism has as a goal.
Lets talk about classes. People say there wont be any motivation under socialism, I dont agree. IN a socialist system, the lower class would be for people who dont work, cant work, or only want to work 8-16hrs a week. They could still sustain themselves, having guaranteed food clothing and shelter. This would be the smallest class. The middle class would be the biggest. This would include most working people, unskilled labor more so than skilled. If you work had 16-32 hrs, you should automatically be in this class. This would be pretty kushy, with enough to have hobbies, a nice house, a nice car, ect. The upper class would be skilled or highly educated people- scientists, doctors, lawyers, ect. These people would make more than the middle class but not a lot more- only a moderate amount. Basically all jobs would land people in the middle-upper class. There would be no upper 1%. This would not be allowed, the money would be taken from anyone who earns that much and redistributed through profit sharing or taxation.
#3, we are already prosperous. We are going downhill because the rich are greedy and hoarding all the resources. These super rich are building their empires on war money, oil money, and exploitative business models. IMO socialism would generally make all decisions for the good of all people, restructuring business models through wealth redistribution across the board.
