It appears you’re arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of the system you’re defending. You’re describing expanded government programs inside a market economy. That is not socialism. That is social democracy.
Under actual socialism, the state owns the means of production. There is no private sector to tax. There is no flow of revenue from independent businesses because those businesses no longer exist as independent entities. Your points about taxation, profit collection, and philanthropy only make sense inside a mixed economy, precisely the system you claim to be replacing.
In other words, you’re defending a model that isn’t the one under discussion. You’re arguing for more public services, not socialism. These are completely different frameworks, and conflating them is why your reasoning keeps circling without connecting.
You’re question is nonsensical and does not rebut any of my statements.
Socialism has nothing to do with value. The value of something is intrinsic to itself and has nothing to do with any kind of governmental system.
I have explained to you what socialism is in comparison to capitalism corporatocracy and social democracy and you still don’t even understand what socialism is. Do you understand that you don’t understand the definition of the word?
Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[15][16] A non-market socialist system seeks to eliminate the perceived inefficiencies, irrationalities, unpredictability, and crises that socialists traditionally associate with capital accumulation and the profit system.[17] Market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and sometimes the profit motive.
I understand that you limit socialism to non-market socialism.
Socialism does not work. It has never worked. No nation has prospered under socialism, and none will as long as scarcity remains.
Without markets, scarcity is indeed much more difficult to handle. But there is also scarcity in a single payer healthcare system. If it can be handled there, why does it not scale to the entire economy?
You are reciting information that you yourself do not understand.
I am not limiting socialism to non-market systems you are that’s what you said.
Scarcity in a for-profit healthcare system isn’t handled it’s what makes it profitable in the first place.
Sir or madam I implore you to stop this.
I will continue to respond to you because someone has to. Socialism does not work it is a detriment to human society I will fight against it at every turn especially from ignorant people such as yourself.
Unless of course you’re bot which I just realized was very likely because what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense none of it does.
The begining of this whole conversation was me explaining how universal healthcare has nothing to do with socialism and I have explained to you multiple times how what you’re describing is social democracy which is not socialism.
Can you tell me that you are acknowledging what I’m saying instead of asking nonsensical questions and avoiding my core statements like you’re some kind fundamentalist evolution denier talking to an atheist calling show on YouTube?
Under actual socialism, the state owns the means of production. There is no private sector to tax. There is no flow of revenue from independent businesses because those businesses no longer exist as independent entities. Your points about taxation, profit collection, and philanthropy only make sense inside a mixed economy, precisely the system you claim to be replacing.
That’s your explanation. I quoted Wikipedia showing that there can be a flow of revenue. So why can’t socialism work like single payer healthcare?
You claimed there was no private business involved, and I already addressed that. You’ve now quoted the very text I used in rebuttal.
Once again: what you’re describing is social democracy, not socialism. Universal healthcare does not require socialism to exist.
Take countries like Canada, France, or even Cuba, which is a socialist country. Their universal healthcare systems rely on taxing businesses to fund them.
The private sector supplies the healthcare infrastructure, and the government subsidizes that care for the population.
I encourage you to look up what a subsidy is, how taxation works, and how economies function across different forms of government. You lack the fundamental understanding needed to have a meaningful discussion about these topics, let alone form an informed opinion.
So far, you have not acknowledged anything I’ve stated. You still do not understand what socialism is, you do not grasp its definition, and you do not understand what you are advocating for.
It appears you’re arguing from a fundamental misunderstanding of the system you’re defending. You’re describing expanded government programs inside a market economy. That is not socialism. That is social democracy.
Under actual socialism, the state owns the means of production. There is no private sector to tax. There is no flow of revenue from independent businesses because those businesses no longer exist as independent entities. Your points about taxation, profit collection, and philanthropy only make sense inside a mixed economy, precisely the system you claim to be replacing.
In other words, you’re defending a model that isn’t the one under discussion. You’re arguing for more public services, not socialism. These are completely different frameworks, and conflating them is why your reasoning keeps circling without connecting.
How would socialism keep track of value? The USSR had money.
You’re question is nonsensical and does not rebut any of my statements.
Socialism has nothing to do with value. The value of something is intrinsic to itself and has nothing to do with any kind of governmental system.
I have explained to you what socialism is in comparison to capitalism corporatocracy and social democracy and you still don’t even understand what socialism is. Do you understand that you don’t understand the definition of the word?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I understand that you limit socialism to non-market socialism.
Without markets, scarcity is indeed much more difficult to handle. But there is also scarcity in a single payer healthcare system. If it can be handled there, why does it not scale to the entire economy?
You are reciting information that you yourself do not understand.
I am not limiting socialism to non-market systems you are that’s what you said.
Scarcity in a for-profit healthcare system isn’t handled it’s what makes it profitable in the first place.
Sir or madam I implore you to stop this.
I will continue to respond to you because someone has to. Socialism does not work it is a detriment to human society I will fight against it at every turn especially from ignorant people such as yourself.
Unless of course you’re bot which I just realized was very likely because what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense none of it does.
What’s your argument against it working if single payer healthcare works?
The begining of this whole conversation was me explaining how universal healthcare has nothing to do with socialism and I have explained to you multiple times how what you’re describing is social democracy which is not socialism.
Can you tell me that you are acknowledging what I’m saying instead of asking nonsensical questions and avoiding my core statements like you’re some kind fundamentalist evolution denier talking to an atheist calling show on YouTube?
That’s your explanation. I quoted Wikipedia showing that there can be a flow of revenue. So why can’t socialism work like single payer healthcare?
That was in response to your statement.
You claimed there was no private business involved, and I already addressed that. You’ve now quoted the very text I used in rebuttal.
Once again: what you’re describing is social democracy, not socialism. Universal healthcare does not require socialism to exist.
Take countries like Canada, France, or even Cuba, which is a socialist country. Their universal healthcare systems rely on taxing businesses to fund them.
The private sector supplies the healthcare infrastructure, and the government subsidizes that care for the population.
I encourage you to look up what a subsidy is, how taxation works, and how economies function across different forms of government. You lack the fundamental understanding needed to have a meaningful discussion about these topics, let alone form an informed opinion.
So far, you have not acknowledged anything I’ve stated. You still do not understand what socialism is, you do not grasp its definition, and you do not understand what you are advocating for.