RE: Capitalist Entitlement
Communism and socialism use the force of government to take other people's wealth and re-distribute it. Leftists get to hide behind the government to carry out their aims of stealing other peoples' stuff and claim that they "just want to make things better" while they are actually stealing from others.
As I stated above, 'the left' refers to 'anyone against traditional hierarchic dominance structures', such as monarchy. Therefore, 'the left' includes a very wide variety of people, some of whom are totally opposed to each other in major ways - but agree on their rejection of the 'right wing'. Capitalism relies on government to enforce property rights using violence - so it's not hugely different to your description of 'the left'. Who gets to decide who owns what under capitalism? Is it something that everyone has the ability to decide upon? No, it is not.
If you have a job in which you feel you are "enslaved", you are free to leave it and find a better one.
Did you watch the video? You seem to be rehashing points already responded to.
You are not free to find another job that's better if all resources are already hoarded by a tiny minority. At best, you - like many people - are free only in so far as you might be able to find a job doing whatever the wealthiest want you to do - that keeps them wealthy and you not so wealthy.
If the government has already told you how to live your life, you are not free to leave.
Again, 'the left' is not necessarily pro government whatsoever. Anarchism is 'left', but is 100% against all government.
"Capitalism" means that you can save money and invest it in things that you think are good ideas and, if the markets have the right laws, the business that you invested in pays you back for supporting them
Who enforces the laws? Government. So whoever controls the government gets to take stuff from other people.. Don't like what the government decides? What are you? Some kind of Communist?
"Socialism" means that the government (now through the banks) controls the economy
'The left' is not socialism. The government also controls the economy under capitalism in key ways too - though perhaps not in such an overt way as can be seen in some forms of socialism and communism, granted.
It is not a Democratic process where people vote with their money
Whoever makes the money automatically has much more power than everyone else. This is neither democratic, nor fair or beneficial.
Many things are produced that are not needed and there is much waste.
That's not something I associate with Socialism - usually pro capitalists like to highlight socialism's inability to produce enough. I do, though, see the massive waste of supermarkets under capitalist ideology, who dump millions of tons of food every year instead of giving it away.
If you haven't noticed, the globalist CEOs and banksters who are making disproportionate salaries are only allowed to do so if they proclaim socialist morals.
I suggest reading 'tragedy and hope' by ivy league historian, carroll quigley, in which it is excruciatingly demonstrated how in reality, behind the scenes, the shots are being called by some of the wealthiest families on earth who are extremely right wing.
And under socialism, the people who are stolen from are you and your peers while the wealthy get wealthier. You are never going to get a cent from "the club".
That is literally the exact definition that many people use to describe capitalism... so..
Maybe socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same turd.
Good point re that "same turd."
Most defenders of capitalism will show how capitalism, in its ideal form and expression, will create wealth and happiness for all. Remember, that's in its ideal form.
Then they'll excoriate socialism by showing how socialism, in its bastardized expressions such as in the Soviet Union, causes poverty, failed economies, and misery.
That hardly allows for a clear-minded, scientific argument of the matter. In fact, it causes insurmountable distortions from the outset.
....
What is needed is an economy that works for the benefit of all, regardless of terminology. That will probably require a blend of the various principles – or a system that transcends and includes the various principles of the 2 "...isms."
A prime example is Singapore. Founded on socialist principles, and developed by adhering to those socialist principles, it remains a democracy with a very successful capitalist economy. Probably the most successful capitalist economy in the world today.
Its founding father Lee Kuan Yew was a "strong man," but he was also very benevolent and truly concerned about the welfare of all citizens.
Under Lee, Singapore never instituted a minimum wage ... but almost all citizens and residents of Singapore make a livable wage.
Under Lee, Singapore never established a national health care regime ... but all residents have access to very reasonably priced health care, and can afford excellent health insurance.
(The 2 above accomplishments were not the result of the free market, but of the govt's working with the private sector to ensure that the private sector would not simply to stuff its own coffers with more and more cash, but work for the benefit of all, and to create a thriving economy. That turned out to be a very successful policy.)
And of course, we have the socialism of Scandinavia and other norther European countries, which seems to be working much better than the less-than-ideal capitalism of the USSA.
I don't know much about the details of Singapore or Scandinavia. I have seen people providing contradictory evidence regarding Scandinavia though. I agree that the 'classic' 'debate' that goes on forever about how 'pure' capitalism (that has never existed) is the best solution and how alternatives 'are just communism or similar' is absurd - it's possibly one of the biggest wastes of human energy ever!
Some of the issues here are the same as are faced in all public debates - namely, that most people haven't yet learned to apply logic in an open minded way without denial being involved. As long as denial creeps into the process, the outcomes are delusional, yet convincing to those who deny things. I feel at the core of the cause of this is a set of judgements that are taken to be facts, when they are not. These include such ideas as 'things can never be perfect' and 'i've just got to take whatever i can to survive and try to be happy'. Humans have never known or felt real peace and so are heavily imprinted to compete, also struggling under the weight of scars of having been abused and abusive. Until we heal our emotions and spirit in the deepest ways, as individuals, we will continue to go round in circles and history will repeat while we call it only 'revolutionary'. :/
I readily agree with your characterization of the debate as "possibly one of the biggest wastes of human energy ever!"
To say the least!