If you’re a liberal, don’t you agree that free enterprise moves society forward?

@whowasthatmaskedman If someone calls themself a Liberal, they're a Liberal. If someone calls themself a Centrist, they're a Fascist.

@BohoBabe The terms have been overused and distorted to the point of meaninglessness. I prefer to focus on the cash flows and how it gets distributed. My own priority being to grow the revenue at the best sustainable pace for the long term and do the most good for the greatest number.. I have no idea what you think that makes me in your eyes. But I see myself as somewhat right of centre..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman I can understand that since the terms do mean different things depending on context. On the internet, if someone calls themself a "Centrist," they virtually always vote for Fascism. In mainstream media, they use "Liberal" and "Leftist" interchangeably, whereas on the internet they use the terms correctly.
Still, I find the labels useful, though of course the issues themselves are what really matter. If you support expansion of unions, I won't say it doesn't count unless you call yourself a Leftist.

@BohoBabe Even in the case or Unions it is context. Unions broght into being many of the safety and equality outcomes and even social justice which some countries enjoy and actually profit from. Its cheaper to keep a worker healthy and alive than retain a replacement every year or so..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman Sure, but the union as a concept is left-wing. It's the workers owning the means of production, which is Socialism. Not everyone who supports unions is a Socialist, but they are supporting a socialist concept at least on this issue.

@BohoBabe But is it? I agree Socialism/Communism is the workers owning the means of production.. But what union is about that? Its another one of those situations where the words have lost their meaning. A union in its strictest sens is a balancing force to unite workers in support of work related matters. So the power of capital doesnt bully the individual.. Now we can argue the right or wrong or that if you wish..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman So it does vary from union to union, but essentially it does give control to the workers. In some cases, the workers can even vote to have the owner fired. In practice it's a lot more complicated and difficult, unions often have to make compromises, but I would say the union is a socialist concept in that it gives workers democratic control.

Now of course, that's just one element of Socialism. America isn't a socialist country because it has unions, or because the post office is a public service, or because there's social security. But it's important to note that these are socialist elements because then we can say the more socialist elements a country has, the happier the people there are. Look at the "Social Democracies" of Europe. Maaaaaybe we go a bit further someday and have full Socialism as a treat. 🥰

@BohoBabe Full socialism isnt the answer any more than full Capitalism.. The best result comes from a case by case mix. I might argue public health and education and public town planning to control rampant development without infrastructure.. Sanitation and essential services like fire and police..Why? Because a healthy, educated, law abiding community provides both a good workforce and a better customer base for the goods and services producted for profit..😷

@whowasthatmaskedman It sounds like you're saying essential services should be publicly owned, but other businesses shouldn't be, unless there's a special circumstance that calls for it.

I would gladly take that, but keep in mind that even under this system, a lot of workers would be exploited in businesses that we'd consider non-essential. We can offset this by enacting pro-union regulation, and only giving subsidies to companies that have a co-op model, which is proven to be more profitable anyway. The results of all this would be a country where the public owns the essential means of production, non-essential corporations are owned by the people who work there, and the remaining companies would at least have strong unions. At that point, we'd have Socialism.

@BohoBabe To coin a phrase I suppose thats "near enough for jazz".. The thing is that the American perspective seems to be the workers V the corporations. And thats just not how the system is meant to work. It is supposed to be a three cornered contest. Capital pays the workers to produce. the Unions negotiate and keep the workers safe and protected.. (anf heres the kicker) The government regulates what the companies are allowed to do and collects taxes from them (as well as taxing the workers) and sees to the provision of roads, water and other services where housing is needed and other services like schools. These are the things with no immediate profit margin. But which add value to the community and provide services to the businesses too. These things are called "Public goods" and the government can contract out the building and the provision. But sees to it they are put where they are needed.. Not just where they are profitable..