I don't think Trent or Jesse would be impressed by any of these arguments. Trent wasn't all that bright, but even he would know that these are emotional and superficially ideological arguments rather than one's built on any sort of understanding of the political-economy.
Socialism and capitalism do not operate as simple binaries. They are on a spectrum. America's economy while leaning into the capitalist side of the spectrum, retains many socialist aspects.
The military is a good example of one of these socialist aspects. The government's broad interjection of money into the economy and support of individuals is very far from what any sort of pure capitalist would want. I feel your issue here is not one about the actual workings of the military, but instead, the idea the military is loved by conservatives, so it must be anti-socialism in every and any aspect. Similar to how the NFL is great at presenting itself for conservative tastes, but under the surface it has unions, shares television revenue, limits salaries, and makes sure the weaker teams get first pick at the draft (worst team gets first pick). All things those who want a more socialist political economy would be in favor of and "capitalist" would be against.
If you want a purely capitalist military, I suggest looking at the private firms like Blackwater (who renamed themselves Academi and is part of Constellis) to see how they operate. A purely capitalist form of military would be very unlikely to offer lifetime healthcare and a real pension plan. And any executive would certainly get a chuckle out of the idea that someone is owed a lifetime benefit for "serving their country." They wouldn't give a fuck about nationalistic ideas of serving a country. Instead, the soldiers would likely get a 401K and be told to "figure it out" once they no longer had a job. Just like most other private jobs in America.
Your billionaire argument is also weak. Alan Turing's government funded work and the American military's ENIAC, DARPA work played a big role in developing the computer. As did ARAPANET in the development of the internet. GPS was developed by the Department of Defense. And, CSIRO (Aussie government) helped create WiFi. Private companies certainly did a great job moving this into mass production, but lol, thanking my billionaires, calm down Pam.
Not to mention this argument assumes important innovations = wealth beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Tesla, the guy who vulcanized rubber for tires, Babbit invented the circular saw and many others didn't benefit from their inventions or discoveries that changed society. And, even more direct to your wifi point, Hertz discovered electromagnet waves and never tried to make himself rich. It seems to me, he just liked science.
Finally, this fails to separate the benefit of an invention or a service and the distortion of power and democracy when a few people hold massive amounts of wealth. It isn't being upset with the service or the invention, but the concentrated power and wealth some people are allowed to hold. John Locke (huge advocate for private property and whose ideas helped justify taking lands from Native Americans) said:
“Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man; since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”Locke's point here being that private property is cool, as long as there is enough left over for others. With the mass concentration of wealth in a society where people in America are without homes, food, healthcare, even Locke might say, "Well, shit. Maybe there isn't enough left over for the commons and we need to do something here. This isn't good for society. This is not holding true to the ideas I put forward in my work."
Yes, Venezuela is a great example of socialism.
Let's bring them into the picture rather than Denmark, Norway, Finland, or places that obviously have a high quality of life. Let's ignore that China who is "communist" is also the biggest fear of most Americans and the second most powerful country on the planet. An equal argument would be "South Sudan and Burundi are capitalist nightmares, all capitalist ideas are terrible."
Honestly, these superficial but loud arguments are annoying. They are more emotional than based in reasoning or any sort of grounding in an understanding of economics or political theory.
Topic: Changes under Trump 2.0 (Read 188674 times)