Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I think no one ever gave it 100% but if it were like Sanders Said. We would had better free schools, free healthcare, damn it no debt.
Socialism eliminates class structure.
Yeah it does but if you think it is going to be successful, start a company with no class structure and see far it/they go. These organisations/ companies exist but they are not very successful. buisness world just can't work without a class structure just because someone taking care of which building has to be cleaned next is not on the same level of competence as the person taking the most important decisions. And if you don't think so feel free to donate your paycheck to anyone not as well of as you are.
Okay you say that because you were raised in country where overall good of the country isn't a top priority but your paycheck and your monthly salary is. Let me ask you. If I said am giving ur kids money for school free. Health free. Roads n better ecofriendly lifestyle options free. Still you only contribute 30% of ur income while u pay almost same now in taxes. What difference is it.
That's not how socialism works lol, money doesn't go on trees. You can't give everyone more service if everyone is working the same without taking more of their paycheck. That's just not how maths work. What I said was factual, it wasn't me stating just a random opinion, really. On a side note I still wouldn't take it if my tax was increased far higher.
I view socialism favourably, as a non-Marxist socialist, and in my understanding of socialism, people would not be paid the same amount unless they were to engage in an equal amount of work and produce an equal amount of goods.A great basis of Marx’s critique of capitalism comes from his understanding of the labour theory of value, the relevant portion of which noted that capitalism has robbed the worker of the true value of their labor by having them work not only to produce what is necessary, but also what is greater than necessary as well. The wages one earns throughout the day at first go towards the worker, but after one has earned their salary in labour, the rest of the day’s work goes purely towards the capitalist’s profit.In doing so, the capitalist takes the labour value that was rightfully that of the worker, yes?And if people view this as unjust, as Marxist socialists do, then we must on some level view the taking of properly earned wages (or any labour. value) as bad, yes?Then I am left with the notion that if one’s duly earned labour is surrendered to the factory or the people, as a collective, that would be the taking of surplus value, and thus unjust under the LTV, would it not?So I tentatively believe that, in accordance with the labour theory of value in a socialist society, workers would reserve the right to the full value of the labour they produce. This is only socialism and not communism, which is a different subject, but one may assume that, within socialism, people would not be paid the same
You are a capitalist. The payment actually goes to the workers first and has to be paid regardless if the company goes bankrupt (and many of them do). Capitalism is a way of paying and determine what the real value of something is. And as I said before money doesn't grow on trees, you can't provide me the better level of service when you are taking the same percentage of my income, the maths doesn't add up.
You rather work 8 hours even though your worth is far greater. Wow thank God am self employed.
Yeah but you have the freedom to that, won't have the same level of freedom when the 'means of production' is controled the 'goverment' lol.
You realize there is no such thing as "self employed" in Socialism or Communism?
You’d also have no money. Nothing is free
Totally Agree. Maybe its time we tried Authoritarian rule. Lol Trump already doing it. Keep him in office no more elections. Period.
One point to improve here: let's get a Ruler girl with whips (and all the other bells and whistles) :D
Denial, denial, denial. When will white people accept reality
Well look at this fact. Communism and socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried. How did these failed economies help minorities?
Your poll certainly isn’t going your way either is it?
Failed because rich did not want them to succeed. If you were Apple, or Amazon u think u would like to see billions gone each year because the PRESIDENT said so. That's why kings n PRESIDENTs who were in support of Capitalism supported toppling them.
That’s not why. Apple Amazon weren’t in any of those failed economies.
What Is socialism in your view.
Means of production not controlled by business owners, but by the “public” enforced with violence by the state.
People in China do both half Capitalism n half socialism. What problem is China having aside from being proof it can beat U. S economy.
Their edge lies in their population. They are no beating anything if you compare gdp, income per capita or the millitary. So no. If you compare us with 300m population and china with 1+ billion population with a gdp still less than is they are not doing so well.
They have to put nets around their manufacturing buildings to catch the people committing suicide.
China has over 3 million people in concentration camps that are worked to death as slave labor! That combined with decades of unfair trade deals has proped China up as the world's second largest economy. www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...n-Muslim-prisoners.htmlwww.theguardian.com/.../if-you-enter-a-camp-you-never-come-out-inside-chinas-war-on-islam
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!