The critical issue why socialist economies do not function is because they do not solve the issue of “asymmetric information”. This is where for example consumers know what they want to buy and for which price whereas Apple does not 100% know. You may not think this is a big deal, but economists suggest this problem of “aaymmetric information” could destroy entire markets (and therefore labour, money and products offered to people). More importantly, this stretches to the entire economy itself.
I know what I want to buy and at which price. Firms know what they want to produce and buy and at which price. However, the government does not know my buying behaviour and also does not know the behaviour of these firms.
This information simply does not exist in a simple package. Meanwhile, the socialist economy relies on the government knowing this and being able to roughly plan around this. Once you have a single state-bank and a single state producer of phones, for it to work as well as the market, the government needs to understand the behaviour of consumers and the firm itself. Except, it does not know this and it cannot know this.
That is also why socialist economies do not function. They are not efficient in allowing for consumer choice, it leads to a lot of welfare loss and the government steering the economy means that workers and money are typically not spent very well. Even if it would be possible for the government to understand the behaviour of all people and companies within the nation, it is absolutely impossible to plan for this. Those mathematical and economic models simply do not exist. Economists are capable of calculating thos for a single market (e. g. the demand for apples) but not for an entire supermarket with all its products, let alone the entire national economy.
In contrast, the market can (partially) solve these issues as the prices show to firms at which price I want to buy something. It allows for companies to understand which investments are worth making at a given time, and more. In essence, the market generally solves the issue of “asymmetric information.”
Then you raise that capitalism requires classes and/or exploitation.
The issue with this that free markets have been the main driver of economic welfare and development for people in the world. You may think it is exploitative (and yes, sometimes it is), but it has helped billions of people with higher standards of living.
In contrast, a socialist economy fundamentally does not work with the tools that are available at this point.
As a result, virtually everyone would be worse off under a socialist economy
That said, this is obviously more a critique based on contemporary economic theory as opposed to popular talking points with respect to socialism.
The average person has never heard of Joseph Stiglitz, George Akerlof or Michael Spence
It is critical to add here that the market is also far from perfect.
In economics, we like to create perfectly competitive markets, which basically means that there are a lot of firms, a lot of consumers, nobody can change the market price and you can easily enter the market (sell stuff) and leave the market (stop selling stuff).
In reality, there probably isn’t a single market that satisfies the criteria of a “perfectly competitive market”.
Many arguments you’ll see that go into the benefits of the market tend to base this on economics 101, which is economics 101 not because it is correct but because it simplifies heavily.
In reality, the market is not perfectly efficient and often needs help from the government to function properly (such as accounting standards).
So the market certainly is not perfect, but substantially better than no market or a market heavily concentrated in very few firms (and I mean this not in large multinationals, such as Nestle, but s. g. Two suppliers of steel worldwide).
Ironically that also provides a strong argument against socialist economies. We could theoretically calculate the general equilibrium of quite a few markets *if* there was perfectly competitive markets. It makes everything infinitely easier. Except these do not exist, which means the current economic models are also not suitable to any substantial production planning
OK hang on this will be along one, you cannot explain why socialism is not liked in a couple of paragraphs,
4 Reasons Why Socialism is disliked
The new “democratic socialists” want to make their followers believe that one could redistribute wealth and income and socialize a large part of the economy without harming production and productivity. They claim that a comprehensive control of the economy by the government would bring more justice and more prosperity. The democratic socialists want more planning and less market. Yet this postulate ignores that socialism does not fail by accident or circumstance. Socialism fails because it suffers from four fundamental design defects.
• First, socialism eradicates private property and markets and thus eliminates rational calculation.
• Second, socialism allows soft budgets, so there is no mechanism in place to discard inefficient production methods.
• Third, abolishing private property and replacing it by the state distorts the incentives.
• Four, the socialist system with its absence of private property and of free markets inhibits the economic coordination of the system of division of labor and capital.
The Importance of Market Prices
Socialism cannot bring prosperity because it destroys the market functions of private property. Under socialism, private ownership of the means of production no longer exists, and thus there are no market prices for capital goods available. Institutionally, socialism consists in abolishing the market economy and replacing it with a planned economy. By doing away with private property of the means of production, one wipes-out market information and valuation. Even if the socialist administration puts price tags on the consumer goods, and the people may own consumer goods, there is no economic orientation about the relative scarcity of capital goods.
Many supporters of socialism suppose that business management is nothing more than a kind of registration or simple bookkeeping. Vladimir Lenin believed that the knowledge of reading and writing, and some expertise in the use of the basic arithmetic operations and some training in accounting, would be enough for the conduct of business operations. The socialists promote engineering and science, but they believe that there is no need for the entrepreneur. The regime may spend heavily on education but when there is no entrepreneurial economy, the people will stay poor, nevertheless.
The Role of Scarcity
The socialists ignore scarcity. They assume that a plan could stipulate the allocation of goods and services according to needs and wants. Yet the planners must answer how such a plan should find its standards of valuation. Without prices and markets, there is no orientation about which factors of production are more and which are less valuable. The socialist planners have no knowledge of the costs of the production process. Without markets, the prevailing value structure remains unknown.
Supply in relation to want makes goods valuable. In a market economy, the relative prices show the degrees of scarcity. By observing the prices, the market participants receive the information that guides them to align their economic decisions to the market signals. The price system informs about relative scarcities. There is no need for a comprehensive system of detailed information about the origin and nature of the scarcity beyond the prices to make a rational decision. The price system reduces complexity for the individual decision maker to the single number of the price. In a market economy, the economic participants need only partial knowledge to act rationally. In capitalism, the motivation to gain profits and to avoid costs work as an incentive to behave rationally. In a market economy, the prices provide information and incentives simultaneously for the seller and the buyer.
All production faces the problem of an almost unlimited number of ways how to produce a good. One can manufacture a commodity with very differen
I find it hard to believe how everyone having healthcare and an education constitutes a redistribution of wealth when it benefits all of society. Now that all are healthly all are educated... everyone earns more more taxes are collected.
If i am paying 20% in taxes, shouldn't the rich person too?
The rich piss and moan about those welfare queens, but they are first in line for corporate welfare... sounds pretty lame doesn't it.
We have public schools, public roads, public parks... if socialism is so bad... why do we have those things?
You should listen to the stories of people who risked their lives to escape the hell of their socialist country. There are videos on YouTube of this. Socialism and communism both sound good to the average person. Making everyone equal sounds good, don't it? Take a look at Russia, China, and Nazi Germany.
( I know I will get angry replies from clueless people who will shout that the Nazi government was not socialist, and they will quote all kinds of so-called experts, but Hitler was a socialist.) After WW2, the socialists went on this PR campaign to try to convince the world that Hitler was not socialist. However, in almost every speech, Hitler pushed the idea of socialism as being the best system. He began his speeches by saying "We are socialists". The Nazi party was, after all, called the "National Socialist party". In the first couple of years of Nazi rule, Germany made incredible progress in recovering from the great depression. In the USA, president Rosevelt even sent a team of economists to Germany to study their methods. (The democrats have always admired socialism.) The result of this was social security and welfare. Those same socialist experts who after the war was denouncing the claim that Nazi Germany was socialist, were praising Hitler's progress in 1933 as a shining example of how well socialism works.
If socialism is so wonderful, why to people risk death to flee those countries who use it?
Lmao It's kind of funny seeing Americans talk about Nordic countries.
Social democracy != Democratic socialism
Strong labour movement and welfare state != Socialism
Collective bargaining != Socialism
A high percentage of the workforce unionized != Socialism
A large percentage of the workforce employed by the public sector != Socialism
Nordic model = Free market capitalism (ah well, for the most part)
No, Sweden does not even have government-regulated salaries. No minimum wage. Instead, there are very strong unions and union membership is very high. People negotiate their own minimum wages.
And no, I don't think socialism will work in America. Not with the current quality of your education, your lack of a collectivist culture like Japan or China or high degree of rational cooperation like Sweden, your new generation's sense of civic responsibility, your class and racial hatred and divison, and weak labour movement.
It would be very hard if not impossibls, even if those were in a better shape.
Opinion
60Opinion
In socialist societies, citizens rely on the government for the majority if not all of their needs. Because of this, the government has a monopoly on a variety of areas from healthcare and schooling to food to shoes. This may be fine or even beneficial if government officials are responsible or altruistic but in the vast majority of cases, they give better products to themselves and their families and skimp on provisions for general or lower society. Unfortunately, no matter what political system a society has, there will always be class levels. History has proved this time and time again. A socialist system requires people at the top to distribute the goods and manage the system. These people have, and do, take advantage of their power. Obviously, capitalism is flawed, but it provides choices. Companies compete to sell better products at lower prices and if a company sells cheap, poorly made, uncomfortable shoes for an egregious amount of money, a consumer can buy shoes elsewhere. Walmart sells sneakers for $9 that will last for two years. Not bad. However, in socialist countries, you get the shoes you get (if you're lucky enough to get shoes) and if you don't like them, there isn't anything you can do about it. You wear the subpar shoes or you don't wear shoes at all. And look at North Korea (a socialist country according to World Population View and according to various definitions of socialism) They provide free healthcare, but the healthcare is extremely poor. Unless you bribe doctors or live in Pyongyang, you don't even get painkillers or anesthesia. The government can offer terrible products (and garner plenty of free labor and taxes for them) and there is nothing the citizen can do about it. So it's not that socialism is a terrible concept, it's just that it makes corruption very easy. And when you look at the socialist states that have existed and do exist today, you find that the living conditions in these places (Nepal, India, Tanzania, Bangladesh, etc.) are very poor for these reasons.
First, you are using a communist symbol. That's a big difference.
Communisms :
The Russian communisms have the biggest number of civilian population murder. They did gulag where people who were against the regime had to do labor without much food and water. People in these camp died of starvation, exhaustion, unnatural cause. The people they threw in the gulag were "Criminal". The criminals with the worse offence were in charge of the camp and had the right to kill the one below them if they felt like it. They put people who were against the regime, people who failed producing the minimum quota that sometime was impossible to achieve, all kind of criminal, people that had too much power and was hated from their superior above.
During the WW2 their war tactic was throw more bodies and eventually the enemy will run out of bullet. During the battle of Stalingrad, they used to give one soldier a gun, one other soldier munition and the other nothing. They told their solder pick up the guns that are on the ground from the dead soldier. Then they proceed to charge big stationary machine gun. If you took 3 feet in the opposite direction they considered this treason.
Communist china is well known to make people who are against the regime disappear. Currently, there a genocide happening called Uyghur genocide.
Communisms is one of the worst thing that existed on earth. So many live were lost to this it's insane.
Socialism : That something different but some people got valid criticism against it. There's a idea where the redistribution of wealth through the social system. Some people believe it is wrong to pick some % of the earning of corporation and from the population so that everyone get services like medical services, welfare (Unable to work), employment insurance (lay off pay from the goverment for a couple of week), free education until university etc. Every society in the first world has some degree of socialism in it.
A socialist country can still be capitalist. In the USA, capitalism is often seem as a extreme version of it. People don't see the different degree of it. Same for socialism. Generally speaking PEOPLE SUCK AT SEEING NUANCE, DEGREE, LAYERS. So everything is always to the extreme.
No worries
You are young and we can't expect you to understand EVERYTHING in the world. Even if you were an adult we can't expect you to understand Everything in the world.
Sorry I should have used the word know instead. English is not my main language
"the goal of all socialism is communism" -lenin
Why? Because socialist dickbeards jerk themselves off to Yugoslavia/USSR/Cuba/China/Venezuela being socialist utopias and then when someone shows them that they are shitholes the morons will instantly default to 'that's not real socialism'. If I had a Venezuelan Bolivar for every time some dumb bitch said that [x] socialist country they've been praising for years isn't 'real' socialism I'd be a millionaire, sadly I'd still starve to death thanks to the 'fuck it, just print more money' brilliance of socialist dicktators.
But screw it, even if [x] place isn't real socialism, and 'real socialism was nevar tried' is true, you have to be a troglodyte not to realize the pattern of socialist countries turning into fascist dictatorships faster than you can say Das Kapital. Oh well, it'll work out this time, right?
Socialism is by definition antithetical to freedom and human rights. You have a right to own your work and to engage in trade the way you want so long as all parties are up for it. Socialism effectively decapitates people for doing nothing wrong, and there are so many stories of socialists doing horrendous things, up to and including perpetrating genocides, just because people didn't wanna give up their rights and surrender to a dictatorship that was ruining their lives.
Oh really, socialism "turned those countries into fascist dictatorships"?
Tell me all about how Imperial Russia, Nationalist China and Batista's' Cuba were shining beacons of liberty -_-
@Ad_Quid_Orator We've been over this shit already. If you're a revolutionist, by definition you're against the status quo authority, and you win, you have the opportunity to install the power you want. In places like France and any nation that's not an utter shithole, the power the revolutionaries wanted materialized in the form of presidents and prime ministers creating a liberal democracy. In the case of the the USSR and other commie hellscapes the workers of the world were united as cockroaches in an inhumane prison, placed there thanks to the dictators they themselves fought for in the revolution. You don't get to have a revolution bringing a new force to power and then when your revolution fails miserably blame the system that was destroyed in the said revolution. You're effectively blaming the downfalls of fascist Italy on the Roman Empire, disregarding all the revolutions and completely new systems of government the people wanted and brought about in the meantime.
"In the case of the the USSR and other commie hellscapes the workers of the world were united as cockroaches in an inhumane prison, placed there thanks to the dictators they themselves fought for in the revolution. "
Yeah that's not taking history out of context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y-TWFKw4tU
"France and any nation that's not an utter shithole, the power the revolutionaries wanted materialized in the form of presidents and prime ministers creating a liberal democracy." France didn't become a Liberal Democracy until years later and remained an Imperial power for over 100 years; so no it didn't immediately become free after the Revolution. And the US also kept slavery so saying the communism leads to authoritarianism because the USSR and the CCP were communist is like saying that Democracy and the freedom of speech leads to slavery because the after the American Revolution slavery was practiced in the US.
Now this isn't to absolve the regimes of the CCP or USSR of the misdeeds of authoritarianism but the notion that said authoritarianism came from their communist ideology is utter bilge. Threats to existing liberty always came from the right, not the left.
What am I taking out of context exactly? That video is half an hour long tape of an old man jerking himself off to a country he would never wanna live in. The multi millionaire born, raised and educated in the US is gonna preach about how great the USSR is. It would be funny if only it wasn't a sign of the times, a loaded motherfucker who's never experienced an s of socialism is praising a nation that would have silenced, incarcerated or even murdered him had he ever lived there.
Yeah, you're right the French Revolution didn't bring about a democracy, because it wasn't really asking for it. And they held the first elections before the end of the French revolution. It turned into a constitutional monarchy which meant that people were equal under the law. Also it gave the populous property rights.
The US spiel is retarded. A lot of the founding fathers were against slavery, but they were strong-armed into keeping it because the priority was getting a country in the first place.
"saying the communism leads to authoritarianism because the USSR and the CCP were communist"
You cannot tell me honestly that communism isn't inherently an authoritarian ideology. It seeks to abolish private property, takes your right to trade, make and profit freely.
Freedom of speech can exist under economic communism yeah I'm not even the one denying that, trouble is, find me a single commie who is in favor of free speech. Same for any other tyrannical law Marxist countries had in place.
"Threats to existing liberty always came from the right, not the left."
Would trying to gut the first and especially the 2nd amendment constitute as threats to existing liberty? Also, no, I wouldn't generally have a problem with that statement but the 'existing' part is pretty important. The left has new ideas, the right is only really defending status quo, hence 'conservatives'.
-Richard Wolff isn't a multi-millionaire but the point he was making was that the USSR industrialized at such a rapid rate (and this applies to China to) that it caused much suffering to its' people was not something rooted in socialist ideology but because it felt threatened and needed the industrial means to fight off an invader. And we know that this fear wasn't unjustified given what the Germans and Japanese did.
-You also had tyrannical rule in the colonies for 150+ years after the revolution.
-"You cannot tell me honestly that communism isn't inherently an authoritarian ideology." It's not, contrary to your claim, what you left out/lied by omission about is that it makes a distinction between private and personal property. But capitalism is an inherently authoritarian economic system regardless of what political system is in place. And the CPUSA platform doesn't call for the abolition of the first amendment. As for the second amendment, gun rights are a double edged sword in that it gives people the means to fight against a tyrannical regime BUT it also gives an authoritarian faction the means to organize a coup and seize power. Being against the government doesn't necessarily mean pro-freedom. In fact, the biggest rebellion in US history was intended to deny others freedom.
That's how you deal with people who think the second amendment gives them the right to deprive others of freedom.
networthpost.org/.../
Rate of industrialization means jack shit. If you have a shithole that never had fire and you waltz in there with electricity the rate is staggering, even if the situation is still shit.
Now riddle me this, why would a nation that is conducting genocides, murdering it's own people and taking over other countries feel threatened? This applies to a whole lot of Marxist countries.
Why would China ever get into combat? You know, aside from Tibet, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan and oh some half a dozen counters in the South China Sea alone. And the Uyghur genocide. And the fact that it's own citizens are treated like prisoners. And that global spying thing. What a Scooby-Doo mystery.
"And we know that this fear wasn't unjustified given what the Germans and Japanese did."
What the hell are you going on about here? Soviets even had a non aggression pact with Nazis. Stalin toasted Hitler. They split Poland together and they planned to take over the Baltics together. The USSR was only attacked when they broke the pact.
"it makes a distinction between private and personal property."
The only reason commies make this distinction is to take away your rights to do with your shit as you wish. It's a roundabout way of saying 'it's not tyranny when we do it'. How the fuck is this not authoritarianism? If I can own it, lend it, I can sell it and rent it, you can't tell me that it's not authoritarian for the government to tell me what I can and cannot do with my shit.
"But capitalism is an inherently authoritarian economic system regardless of what political system is in place."
Yeah, capitalism makes it so that you can't own, make or sell shit. Aha.
www.cpusa.org/.../
Second and third paragraphs are gold.
Just say that you're not in favor of the 2nd and stop pretending that you care about people's rights.
OK he's a millionaire, that doesn't mean what he said isn't true.
-Russia and China were engaging in genocidal practices long before Marxists came to power. China felt threatened because they were invaded by Japan and there were groups in Europe that openly called for the conquest of the USSR like the Nazis. You need an industrial base to supply a military and the change in the standard of living between the Russian Revolution and the Post-Stalin years was pretty much unheard of.
"The only reason commies make this distinction is to take away your rights to do with your shit as you wish. It's a roundabout way of saying 'it's not tyranny when we do it'."
No that just prevents you from using property rights to exploit the labor of others.
How the fuck is this not authoritarianism? If I can own it, lend it, I can sell it and rent it, you can't tell me that it's not authoritarian for the government to tell me what I can and cannot do with my shit."
OK, you can rent it but if the tenant refuses to pay rent and leave and you give them an eviction notice don't come crying to the government asking them to enforce it. You see libtards always say that they want the government out of business but the moment you ask the government to enforce business agreements, you've invited government involvement into that relationship. So what libtards like you really want is the use the government to leverage your power over others.
You can make and sell in socialism, you just can't exploit the labor of others.
No I'm not against the second amendment, I'm just saying more guns doesn't always mean more freedom.
See you're trying to make capitalism about free trade (which a socialist system can be if you look up market socialism) when it's fundamentally about the accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. And the author of that article isn't the chair of the CPUSA.
Don't you find it funny that an guy who could have lived in his Marxist utopias for some reason didn't. It's almost as if capitalist nations gave him the freedom to become a millionaire. He wouldn't have been allowed to say this, let alone become a millionaire in the very countries he's praising.
I'm not saying that the economic system has to do with genocide necessarily, but it's funny how the social Marxists don't care about the atrocities committed in the name of Marx.
> China is conducting a genocide against Muslims today
'that's because 7 decades ago the Japanese...'
> Russia was invading Eastern European countries
Why would Eastern European countries want to fight with the Soviets?
Change in the standard of living between fucking starving to a bit less starving, in large thanks to the deaths from wars, revolutions, inhumane prisons and the government just murdering people they didn't like. Again, rates mean shit, it's all about what you're actually comparing. If you came down to the North Sentinel Island and gave the people clean water and plumbing, the rate is very high even compared to the US, yet the actual situation is still shit, especially compared to the US.
'hey wanna engage in trade?'
'sure.'
eXpLoTaTiOn
You either have or don't have property rights, no in between of 'well, you can do this, but I won't allow you to do that. No, I'm not an authoritarian, why do you ask?'
'Don't come crying to the government when someone's basically trespassing at your property.' So what exactly is the point of the police then? Cause here on planet Earth some dipshits infringing on your property, or your bodily autonomy rights are precisely the reasons we have the cops.
Why yes, I'd like the the gov to leverage power over pedos, murderers, rapists and people who infringe on other's rights. Have a problem with that?
>libtards like you
Words have meanings.
"You can make and sell in socialism, you just can't exploit the labor of others."
www.journals.uchicago.edu/.../NTJ41790680
Sure, guns don't have morals. But you can't pretend to be for the 2nd and want it gutted thanks to rich retards who never even touched a gun.
"free trade (which a socialist system can be if you look up market socialism)"
The word 'can' is doing an awful lot of work. When did this materialize exactly? Was there ever a socialist system that didn't strictly prohibit or at least tax the shit out of imports?
Capitalism doesn't infringe on property rights.
*link to an article published on CPUSA*
'it's not the chair'
Way to move the goalpost. You get that if it's published there it obviously reflects their opinions at least to the extent that they aren't strictly against the writer's ideas.
-The system that occurred under the USSR was a variety of socialism that didn't allow free trade just like the variety of capitalism in Nazi Germany didn't. That doesn't mean that either socialism or capitalism prohibit free trade.
-But you also can't pretend that people only oppose the second amendment because they want to prevent people from being able to defend themselves against a tyrannical rule.
-There are worker cooperatives across the world that engage in free trade.
-That would be like someone saying that because some in the GOP want to ban flag burning, they're autocratic.
Not talking just about the USSR. Funny how Marxists seem to really hate free trade. Almost as if it goes directly against their other beliefs and goals like creating a self sufficient country and ensuring that everything is controlled by their government.
'No, you can't buy a FIAT 128, anyway here's a poorly constructed Zastava with even worse handling and a design that's 2 decades old already. Why no, we're not authoritarian, what makes you say that?'
"That doesn't mean that either socialism or capitalism prohibit free trade."
No, but socialist free trade never happens because socialist want all the control to themselves and their tyrannical government.
"But you also can't pretend that people only oppose the second amendment because they want to prevent people from being able to defend themselves against a tyrannical rule."
Sure, but the goal is the same, by definition, reducing civil liberties and taking people's rights away.
"There are worker cooperatives across the world that engage in free trade."
And exist in capitalist countries. Don't forget that important little tidbit. Because if what you're saying is true, that means that coops can survive on their own even without socialist economies and the government forcing such business structures. Of course, if they can't survive on their own, it means that they fail in a competitive environment and free trade, suggesting that socialism is the only way they can survive and a necessary crutch for them. So either they can be successful in capitalism, ergo socialism isn't necessary, or they can't survive in capitalism meaning that socialist policies are failures. Fun.
"That would be like someone saying that because some in the GOP want to ban flag burning, they're autocratic."
I'm not sure what you're referencing here.
"Funny how Marxists seem to really hate free trade."
Are we talking about Socialism or Marxism specifically? Marxism is a variety of socialism that prohibits free trade just like fascism is a variety of capitalism that prohibits free trade.
"No, but socialist free trade never happens because socialist want all the control to themselves and their tyrannical government." Free trade happens between worker coops and other business firms and they exist in countries with free trade (again you're conflating capitalism and free trade to try to make it about freedom when it's an authoritarian means of production).
"Sure, but the goal is the same, by definition, reducing civil liberties and taking people's rights away."
Or it's to prevent people from depriving others of civil liberties.
-I'm saying that you claiming that because someone in the CPUSA wants to ban hate speech means it's an autocratic movement is like saying that because someone in the GOP wants to ban flag burning, it's an autocratic movement.
I meant that there isn't free trade in socialist countries, nothing to do with coops existing in capitalist nations.
"Or it's to prevent people from depriving others of civil liberties."
So trading liberty for security? You deserve neither. Can't wait for 2054 and Tom Cruise to start busting down doors 'we think that maybe, someday someone might do something that will get someone else hurt, so you, a law abiding citizen today will have your civil liberties trampled on. I ensure you, this government overreach is for your own good™. Trust the plan.'
To what extent exactly are you ok with having civil liberties fucked in order to maybe get a bit of safety?
Again, by the fucking definition, those gutting 2nd a are restricting civil liberties, bullshit and sugar coat it all you want but that's the simple reality.
Funny how both people who claim to want to ensure democracy, and those who seek to end it want guns banned.
The rogue person is then against freedom of speech, not the entire party necessarily, but it is cause for concern when the party allows you to write articles on their official site about how civil liberties aren't universal and come with the condition of 'if you support my party'. At that point it's clear that at least to some extent the party is in agreement.
-Because the socialist regimes that came to power were communist, not market socialist (and before you cry "no true Scotsman" I'm not saying that they weren't socialist).
-When it comes to firearms (especially given the disparity between civilian vs military grade weaponry) security vs liberty is a false dichotomy.
Tyranny doesn't come about by putting the collective over the individual; it comes about by the concentration of power in the hands of the few unaccountable (non-governmental) elites which is why we have to recognize the totalitarian right for what it is:
How was Yugoslavia not a socialist nation?
"When it comes to firearms (especially given the disparity between civilian vs military grade weaponry) security vs liberty is a false dichotomy."
Aha. You're just gonna leave it at that then. Good argument. The left does have a point that less guns would likely result in a relatively safer society. The right is clearly correct in saying that pissing on 2nd a is pissing on civil liberties. What the hell do you have a problem with here?
Tyranny means that you're being stripped off your rights. 2nd a is a right. Just the L and move on.
> totalitarian right - 'libertarians'
Literally the party of don't tread on me. Literally the only political group that gives any amount of shit for your rights. Fuck me this is monumentally stupid. First off don't mislabel ancaps and libertarians, these two are like rabbis and the geastapo. Them 'libtards' (cause fuck words having definitions) aren't fans of monopolies and corporate asshats, they merely recognize that government, being the only institution with fucking nuclear weaponry, and being the only one's with legal power to deny you your rights are a bit more important than some jerkoff who's worst crime is avoiding taxes.
Tyranny can absolutely come from putting the collective over individuals. This is literally the 'ask not what your country can do for you' shit. Remember your arguments about the US slavery? By democratic votes, slavery would have probably been kept in place and it did benefit the rest of society at the cost of individual's freedoms.
I love how you had to add parentheses there '(non-governmental)', fun. I'd actually agree with you saying that it can come from unchecked corpos, but also from the gov.
-I didn't say it wasn't
-If something can be taken away (which the 2nd can for a number of reasons such as committing a felony) it's not a right it's a privilege.
-Libertarian in the US sense is a misnomer, the more accurate term would be proprietarian. Fascists seek to expand private power via the abolition of negative rights while proprietarians seek to do so via the abolition of positvie rights. BOTH positive and negative rights are needed to protect individual liberty.
I said that there wasn't ever a socialist nation with free trade, to which you came in with 'cuz not rEaL sozalizm', now you're not denying that Yugoslavia, a federation that didn't have free trade, is socialist. So you've just admitted that even 'ReAl' socialist countries don't have free trade.
You like twisting yourself into knots?
"If something can be taken away (which the 2nd can for a number of reasons such as committing a felony) it's not a right it's a privilege."
'well jails exist so freedom of movement isn't a right it's a privilege'
'well searches are there so right to privacy...'
'well death penalty...'
Brilliant argument. Thank you for this amazing showing of the fascinating thoughts of the human mind. Legit, is there a single human right that cannot possibly be taken away? Just because a right isn't absolute doesn't mean that it isn't a right.
We're not talking about convicted felons here. We're talking about people exercising their rights.
But fuck it, call it a privilege all you want, you gotta admit that it's a civil liberty that is being pissed on.
"Libertarian in the US sense is a misnomer, the more accurate term would be proprietarian."
When your entire understand of 21st century libertarians comes from a communist book from the 1800s.
And yes, property rights are human rights, and I'm gonna do with my stuff as I wish. Cry about it.
"Fascists seek to expand private power"
What do words even mean anymore?
"via the abolition of negative rights while proprietarians seek to do so via the abolition of positvie rights."
That's not even true. No, and I mean fucking no lolbert in the universe ever said that you don't have the right to meds/education/whatever commie shit point. Their point is, and I'm gonna use your talking points against you, that you don't have the privilege to force someone to do something for you just cuz you shout muh roights. People have a right to choose their employers, patients/students have a right to chose their doctors/professors.
And the entire concept of positive and negative rights is complete and utter bullshit. I can't imagine how you wouldn't consider 'positive' rights privileges when you think that negative rights are just that.
"BOTH positive and negative rights are needed to protect individual liberty.'
Would one of those rights that need protection be the right to own, lend, sell and rent property?
"And yes, property rights are human rights, and I'm gonna do with my stuff as I wish. Cry about it."
But don't bitch and moan when the government has a say in the terms of an agreement that you make with someone about said property if you want the agreement to be enforceable. Proprietarians just see "freedom" as the freedom to use the government to leverage their power over others.
-Fascists support private concentrations of power (i. e. businesses)
-I consider positive rights (like healthcare) rights while proprietarians view them as entitlements.
"Would one of those rights that need protection be the right to own, lend, sell and rent property?"
Now you're conflating the freedom of agreement with the freedom of contract.
"But don't bitch and moan when the government has a say in the terms of an agreement that you make with someone about said property if you want the agreement to be enforceable."
What are the terms? It's one thing when the term is 'don't enter into contracts with someone who's under the the influence of drugs' and another thing when the term is 'no jews'. Both parties can have their freedoms denied by contract and missuses should be handled in court. There are legitimate complaints about the contract and there are illegitimate complaints. This also goes both ways.
"Proprietarians just see "freedom" as the freedom to use the government to leverage their power over others."
Any specific scenarios here or is this word salad as meaningless as the words it's comprised of?
"Fascists support private concentrations of power (i. e. businesses)"
You get that fascist Italy had a metric shittone of labor unions, right? You understand that fascist aren't exactly anarcho capitalists, right?
"I consider positive rights (like healthcare) rights while proprietarians view them as entitlements."
How do you not see 2nd a as a right but as a privilege that can be taken away, yet shit that requires you to have other people as your servants isn't a privilege?
"Now you're conflating the freedom of agreement with the freedom of contract."
What are you on about now?
"Any specific scenarios here or is this word salad as meaningless as the words it's comprised of?"
Your inability to comprehend something doesn't make it a word salad. And a real world scenario would be the government having a say in a wage-labor agreement (i. e. minimum wage), without which the owner of a company can make their employees work long hours with low pay; things a market under capitalism can't fix.
Anarcho capitalism and fascism have the same end product: the domination of society by the interests of big businesses. You take different roads but end up in the same place.
"How do you not see 2nd a as a right but as a privilege that can be taken away, yet shit that requires you to have other people as your servants isn't a privilege?" Access to public services isn't the same as having a "servant".
"Now you're conflating the freedom of agreement with the freedom of contract."
For two individuals to agree to a transaction without third party interference is a freedom; for two individuals to to have a third party enforce an agreement without the third party having a say in it is an entitlement.
I don't see how it's the capitalists who are using the gov power, and not the socialists in this regard. It's literally the left that's using their power in gov to strongarm companies into doing something they don't want to. And this isn't something that libertarians are really against. Contrary to your beliefs, libertarians do wanna help people, they just think that their way of helping people is better. Libertarians aren't necessarily against a min wage, but there are plenty of examples of places where min wage only promoted inflation, resulting in the values of their services to stay the same as the prices of everything started to jump in order to accommodate the min wage. This isn't a problem that leftys can fix with just pumping up min wage even more.
Sure, I kinda agree with that fascist and ancap policies result in the same thing.
Nobody is saying that you don't have the right to access public services, the problem is that you aren't entitled to getting something just because you exist. It's the same exact right as with guns - you can own them, manufacture them, sell them, but the government isn't freely distributing them just because you exist, you have to buy them and no one is saying that they're rights are being taken away because the government didn't just hand them a gun for free.
"for two individuals to to have a third party enforce an agreement without the third party having a say in it is an entitlement."
But this is blatantly false. First off, libertarians want the gov to exist pretty much with the sole reason of doing this. Disregarding most of gov policies and agencies, they mostly want a gov that is a referee, not a nanny.
Secondly, this can be turned against you. If I sell you a phone for 500$ under the guise of 'it works, brand new' and later you find out that it's broken and a decade old I wouldn't call you entitled i you'd call the cops. I'd call you stupid if you didn't.
Thirdly, gov already has a say in it that they're getting your tax money from every trade, libertarians would call it the price you pay for a secure trade.
"I don't see how it's the capitalists who are using the gov power, and not the socialists in this regard." Because capitalists are using the power of government to enforce agreement without the government keeping the power of the employer over the worker in check.
" It's literally the left that's using their power in gov to strongarm companies into doing something they don't want to." Yeah the left supports that for employee and customer protection.
" the problem is that you aren't entitled to getting something just because you exist. " Yeah but we still have things like police protection and K-12 education that are rights for existing.
Life is not a sport and as for the "nanny" statement, people have a say in the government while businesses are completely unaccountable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-TydNlj7d0
And that makes the "nanny state" mythos utter bilge.
So two people make a contract, there's an institution that already exists with the sole purpose of solving legal differences where either party can win or lose, but you want to have a third institution in the governing body to create special laws and clauses that would only benefit one party. This is the use of gov power, something lefties do.
"Yeah the left supports that for employee and customer protection."
The employees can protect themselves, though. No one's forcing them to sigh a contract they don't wanna sign.
"Yeah but we still have things like police protection and K-12 education that are rights for existing."
Because, and especially when it comes to cops, that's pretty much the full extent of what people get from the gov in exchange for half their earnings and considerable amounts taken from each financial transaction. Cops ensure human rights, that's why they and the courts are there for. And even if you aren't personally directly benefiting from them, schools boost the economy and cops rid the streets of dangerous people, wither way you're benefiting.
Are you familiar with the concept of analogies?
Businesses are far from completely unaccountable, we live in the age with some of strictest laws against companies, especially when you only look at US history.
"So two people make a contract, there's an institution that already exists with the sole purpose of solving legal differences where either party can win or lose, but you want to have a third institution in the governing body to create special laws and clauses that would only benefit one party. This is the use of gov power, something lefties do."
-This is the government not letting those in a position of economic power using it to dominate the lives of others.
"The employees can protect themselves, though. No one's forcing them to sigh a contract they don't wanna sign."
We tried that in the Gilded age; how did that work out?
"Because, and especially when it comes to cops, that's pretty much the full extent of what people get from the gov in exchange for half their earnings and considerable amounts taken from each financial transaction. Cops ensure human rights, that's why they and the courts are there for. And even if you aren't personally directly benefiting from them, schools boost the economy and cops rid the streets of dangerous people, wither way you're benefiting."
What's the total police budget compared to the national tax revenue dumbass?
"This is the government not letting those in a position of economic power using it to dominate the lives of others."
You can sugarcoat it all you want, bullshit is still bullshit.
"We tried that in the Gilded age; how did that work out?"
It depends on what the 'protection' is. Protecting the employee from being used for 12 for 5c for work that gives the employer 5$ is one different from the government basically making all the stipulations with the employee being stuck with a contract that is too 'protecting' of them to the extend that they actually want a more lenient contract is another thig entirely. In such cases the real bad guy is the gov for forcing you to be 'protected' when you don't want a protector.
"What's the total police budget compared to the national tax revenue dumbass?"
Hey retard, we're talking about an ideal libertarians want, just like we're discussing the ideal socialists want. In both cases we're shitting on each other because of regimes that didn't fully represent the ideals people wanted, but rather used the inherent loopholes of their respected systems of governing to create a world that benefits the interests of rulers, either creating dictators or corporate asshats.
What's "bullshit" is saying that you want the government out of the economy while you still want it to enforce all business transactions (and why the title "Libertarian" Party of the United States is about as misleading as "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea and the National "Socialist" German Workers' Party); it's a Totalitarian ideology.
-The Government isn't perfect but better it be calling the shots than unaccountable private concentrations of power.
-What Libertarians want is power to be given to unaccountable organizations who were built from the ground up to reconcile power and exploit the public and that's what you'll get when you do away with public services. Theft can be accomplished through force or trickery and power can be reconciled through the threat of violence or exploitation.
You still don't understand the difference between wanting the gov to have a smaller role in economy (libertarians) and wanting the gov to have no role in economy (ancaps). You're fighting all of what? 30 people? Ancaps don't even have a moderately relevant party in the US.
"while you still want it to enforce all business transactions"
You get that's precisely the purpose of taxes on transactions, right? Libertarians are alright with paying taxes so long as it serves a purpose, this is purpose. Otherwise they wouldn't pay that tax, instead paying a fee to a hypothetical private organization that would have the authority over these matters. It's the same fucking thing.
"(and why the title "Libertarian" Party of the United States is about as misleading as "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea and the National "Socialist" German Workers' Party); it's a Totalitarian ideology."
Say you you know shit about politics without telling me you know shit about politics.
You're embarrassing. People who want less government are totalitarian, meanwhile retards who don't give you property rights aren't even authoritarian.
"The Government isn't perfect but better it be calling the shots than unaccountable private concentrations of power."
It depends on the shots. We've been over this. What the are the shots and do the people they're 'protecting' actually want that shit? Is the shot 'don't make fraudulent statements in the contract' or is it 'don't go into business with black people'. You're disregarding the fact that the gov, even if truly well intentioned (which fuck me it isn't) can still royally fuck up.
Learn what libertarians actually want. You're as bad as when republicans call Biden a commie just because he's a democrat. Stop fighting extremes that are unicorns in reality.
"Theft can be accomplished through force or trickery and power can be reconciled through the threat of violence or exploitation."
And libertarians are against all of that. This is their entire platform.
-Government can royally fuck up but businesses are designed from the ground up to extract as much wealth from the rest of society as possible.
-The idea that we should do away with consumer and employee protection is an extremist view.
-No, they want to expand the capacity of private concentrations of power to attain it by coercion by doing away with public services.
"businesses are designed from the ground up to extract as much wealth from the rest of society as possible."
Sure, but society needs businesses and too much 'protecting' of people who don't wanna be protected is just tyranny. I'm not arguing that companies should be controlling people's lives, but the government shouldn't either.
"The idea that we should do away with consumer and employee protection is an extremist view."
Yeah, and how many people support that? This isn't necessarily libertarians, you'd have to get more specific, but generally libertarians aren't in favor of just ridding these protections. I don't know if you're intentionally disingenuous or if you really don't know the first thing about libertarians, instead painting them as extremists when they're anything but.
"No, they want to expand the capacity of private concentrations of power to attain it by coercion by doing away with public services"
That's a flat out lie. Libertarians don't wanna get rid of public services, they just don't wanna pay for shit they don't need or use. Their platform is making the fees more voluntary. This is clearly stated on damn near every LP party website from Alaska to Texas. They don't wanna end public services, they wanna bring the management to the local level and make it so that people who don't get anything from them don't have to pay for them. In line with your statement about theft, libertarians don't wanna be robbed under false pretenses or be forced to give money to services they aren't a part of. Libertarians are in favor of donations, not the gov sending peanuts to people while increasing their own spending's year on year.
"Sure, but society needs businesses and too much 'protecting' of people who don't wanna be protected is just tyranny. "
We don't need firms designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few and we live in a democracy; if lawmakers put protections that people don't want they'll be voted out of office. Those protections prevent tyranny, they don't result in them.
"Yeah, and how many people support that? This isn't necessarily libertarians, you'd have to get more specific, but generally libertarians aren't in favor of just ridding these protections."
Proprietarians are dumb enough to think the market can act as a substitute.
"That's a flat out lie. Libertarians don't wanna get rid of public services, they just don't wanna pay for shit they don't need or use."
Even if you don't use them you still benefit from them. For example, you may not use unemployment payment but you still benefit from it because people being willing to spend their money (because they're not sequestering it in case of unemployment) stimulates economic growth and gives more opportunities.
First off, yeah we need companies. Give me a single country that is anywhere remotely well off that doesn't have private businesses. Even to some extent, big corps are necessary for stability of the economy. An easy example is motor companies, you can have a thousand Tuckers and Studebakers, trouble is they go out of business, so you'll need Daimler and VW. Not to say independents can't survive or even thrive, Tesla is an example, but you need the support of established corporations that can supply enough motors for society.
"if lawmakers put protections that people don't want they'll be voted out of office"
You don't even buy this shit. How many wars could have been prevented this way? How many laws, from minority rights and gay marriages to abortions could have been implemented sooner if this was really the case. Even if democracies weren't dogshit, given we've already talked about the failures of the democratic process concerning slavery, they take time even if +50% of the voting populations agrees, and much of the regulations can't be passed by one person either. It takes counties and states across the nation to pass a law. A man from Idaho shouldn't be suffering the consequences of a law passed by Hawaii. And people never agree with their candidates 100% either. You'll always have major issues and things you can live with if you have to.
And when you have a law that is meant to 'protect' you, yet it fucks you over and you can't do shit about it, yeah it's nothing short of tyranny regardless if majority population wants that 'protection'.
"Proprietarians are dumb enough to think the market can act as a substitute."
Oh for fuck sake learn the definitions of words and stop acting in bad faith.
Tangential 'benefits' don't mean shit. Stop it with the butterfly effect, you can easily end up in very ugly places. Even libertarians don't necessarily wanna end programs like unemployment.
-We need firms but (coming back to my point) we could have coops instead of companies.
-Democracies aren't perfect but corporations are pure tyranny. As for Idaho and Hawaii, we allocate powers to state and federal governments. But if two different places have such different ways of life that they're incompatible with one another, what's the point of being in the same country in the first place?
"And when you have a law that is meant to 'protect' you, yet it fucks you over and you can't do shit about it, yeah it's nothing short of tyranny regardless if majority population wants that 'protection'."
Yeah you can do something about it, you can let others know about it but way more people will be fucked over with a lack of protection.
And coming back to what I said, if coops can survive in capitalist countries, socialism isn't necessary, if they can't, socialism is a failure.
I'm not against people having coops if they wish, but forcing other's to lose their ownership is stripping people of their rights.
"Democracies aren't perfect but corporations are pure tyranny."
'People having rights is pure tyranny.'
lmao, no
According to many a polls, there really isn't a point in letting other states influence other's. States should have more rights, as evident from polls about support for succession, just generally people should have more power in their own communities, not influencing what's going on on the other end of the continent. This isn't to say that balkanization is good, but other options are worse. I don't fancy myself 4 bloody wars and a genocide, but I don't see why Washington should be controlling the daily in Alaska nor do I see the difference between this situation and the situation from centuries ago and the fight against the crown.
"Yeah you can do something about it, you can let others know about it"
'Hey kulak, we don't take yer rights, you can still talk about it ay. Now face the wall.'
The numbers of how many people are fucked over don't matter. Fact is, it's your right to engage in a contract on your own term. Again, YOUR own terms. Not the terms of some jerkoff who doesn't know you exist, let alone gives a shit about you. That's just blatantly taking people's rights away. If you wanna have a contract on your terms, mine shouldn't be affected by it. And dickheads saying 'it's for your own good' don't mean shit if the consequences are bad.
"And coming back to what I said, if coops can survive in capitalist countries, socialism isn't necessary, if they can't, socialism is a failure."
Any first world country needs government involvement in the economy to sustain its' standard of living. So instead of supporting corporations, a socialist government would support cooperatives (and worker coops are far more resilient to economic perturbations than corporations).
We aren't talking about whether states should have more or less power compared to the federal government; what I'm saying is that if the ways of life between people in CA and AK are so different, they shouldn't be in the same country in the first place. But the current electoral college system gives more power to people in the small states to dominate the lives of people in the large states. But there was a more recent conflict than the revolutionary war in which the issue of states rights was resolved.
"Don't tell anyone about how you got phossy jaw or you won't have a job anymore" (and unlike your example, that happened in this country).
"Fact is, it's your right to engage in a contract on your own term. Again, YOUR own terms. " But if you want "Not the terms of some jerkoff who doesn't know you exist, let alone gives a shit about you." to enforce that contract then they have a say in the terms of that agreement. You don't want the government to stick its' nose in contracts fine but know that the moment you ask the government to enforce that agreement, you've invited government involvement in that relationship.
Libertarians don't want the gov to give money to private companies.
Coops are so resilient they need special support by the gov just not to go under.
The need for regulations doesn't mean the need for socialism. You don't gotta jump from one extreme to another.
Lots of people do wanna succeed.
The ec gives states power, not just a couple megacities. States are states, the US isn't a unitary country. When you look at other federations trough history, the US election system is oddly unifying as everyone has the ability to become president at any given time. It's not on a rotation system by states every few years nor does the ec block people from casting their votes depending on their state at a given time.
"But there was a more recent conflict than the revolutionary war in which the issue of states rights was resolved."
Not really. The implications of The Civil War are clear, you can't neglect human rights hiding behind 'state rights', but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate issues that should be handled at the state level. We're not talking about 'oh well state's rights mean I can commit a genocide', but not giving locals direct influence over stuff like schooling, policing and medicals is moronic. Their tax money, their decisions is the way it should be instead of it going to the other end of the continent so that some douchebag can decide for you.
Can you for five minutes act in good faith. Libertarians don't wanna get rid of basic fucking protections, the problem is that some 'protectees' don't want 'protectors' who don't represent them and who's policies are actively hurting them.
We've been over this. The basics of the court system are this:
- two people have a contract, they pay a fee to a third party who will act as a neutral arbiter
- they both agree that that arbiter has the authority
Weather the fees are called taxes and the system is called the court and there's an official judge means shit. I don't see a reason for why this system can't be applied to even a private company, however in reality that's not the case because the fees are taxes, and the authority is clear from the get go. If 2 people didn't wanna pay that fee in taxes, instead opting for a private solution maybe you'd have a point. No one really asks the gov to step in the contract, they step in them fucking selves and make you do this shit. Taxes aren't optional, if they were maybe we'd have a situation where the court system could be privatized at least in cases such s these.
-I didn't say libtards want to give money to corporations, the issue is that if their vision of America was realized, the economy would dilapidate to that of a third world country.
-If you look at American history, the States have a WAAAY worse track record of abusing their power than the federal government.
-"but not giving locals direct influence over stuff like schooling, policing and medicals is moronic. " As for policing, ever heard of Mississippi burning? And as for schools we need some national standardization because often times people don't live in the location that they had grown up in.
-In your scenario, the third party isn't accountable to the well being of the nation; the government is and while every policy will have positives and negatives, just saying we'll enforce any consensual agreement, no questions asked will only allow for private unaccountable concentrations of power to gain more influence.
"the issue is that if their vision of America was realized, the economy would dilapidate to that of a third world country."
Highly debatable. Besides, you'll never get two 'libtards' to agree with each other on much regarding the economy.
"If you look at American history, the States have a WAAAY worse track record of abusing their power than the federal government."
Well the feds are the ones staring wars, but sure, I generally agree with that statement. This is precisely the reason why civil protections and the bill of rights are so important, and upholding them is the foundation of the federation. That still doesn't mean that states should be mandating each other's schooling and the like.
"As for policing, ever heard of Mississippi burning? "
Sure, go to insane extremes no one's arguing for. After all, why should you argue in good faith.
No one wants there to be no national standard in schooling, issue is giving local communities some flexibility. But I suppose you agree with this principle when it comes to healthcare, boy I can't imagine why. It's almost like all this shit is highly partisan.
Accountability can be agreed upon in the very contract. The wellbeing of the nation means jack fucking shit to me, besides you were the one arguing that the gov isn't initially inherently involved in the contract, whatever happened to that logic?
"just saying we'll enforce any consensual agreement, no questions asked will only allow for private unaccountable concentrations of power to gain more influence."
And no one's really asking for that, just giving the people power over their choices and have it so that they are the one's making the decisions instead of some rando politician from across the country.
-No it's not debatable, lack of government protections and insurance is why the third world looks the way that it does.
"That still doesn't mean that states should be mandating each other's schooling and the like." No but it does mean we should have a federal standard.
As for this whole states rights BS, there is more variation within states than there is between states. A person in downtown Denver has more in common with someone in LA than someone living in a small farming town in Eastern CO.
-The well being of the Rest of the country is what your economic opportunities are dependent on. And if you are going to invite government involvement into the relationship, they have a say in the terms of the agreement.
"And no one's really asking for that, just giving the people power over their choices and have it so that they are the one's making the decisions instead of some rando politician from across the country." Politicians are elected, not randomly selected. The Government isn't "big brother" it's big us.
"lack of government protections and insurance is why the third world looks the way that it does."
Far from the full picture. Besides I've told you that libertarians have very different views on the economy from one 'libtard' to another, and most don't wanna eliminate such protections.
"No but it does mean we should have a federal standard."
Which is something libertarians want. You're arguing with a particularly shitty strawman here.
"A person in downtown Denver has more in common with someone in LA than someone living in a small farming town in Eastern CO."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're making an argument about the way of life, not the functions of government agencies.
Regardless really, libertarians would want things to be carried out on the smalless scale possible, even giving counties more power is desired by most. Yeah states are states, essentially different countries with some same principles and agreements between them. This should allow the populous to have the kind of social services they want, not the kind Washington wants.
"The well being of the Rest of the country is what your economic opportunities are dependent on."
Point?
I've already told you, the gov barges into the contract dick first themselves. It's not like you can really tell them to fuck off and that they don't haver the authority here, they are the fucking government. What world are you living in?
"Politicians are elected, not randomly selected."
If we're talking about the local level maybe you'd have a point, but if Florida's representatives are affecting Michigan's healthcare this is obviously not really the case. Not everything has to, nor should be, handled at the federal level. Giving states power over their own institutions and the locals more of a say in their own lives is a good thing that benefits everyone.
The Government isn't "big brother" it's big us.
lmao, imagine believing that unironically
If they were really the 'big us' a lot of politicians wouldn't have a job giving that 'did not vote' is a damn popular option.
Capitalism is not tied to classist/exploitative societies.
The same opportunities exist for great success for anyone who may be any one, or a combination, of ambitious, hard-working, innovative, clever, or smart.
Throw in whatever other adjectives you can think of that would give an individual a recipe for success.
There are different levels of these attributes throughout society.
That doesn't indicate class.
It indicates any particular individual's natural abilities along with whatever level of ambition they may have.
That will filter out into different economic success levels, but again, it is not due to class.
It's due to the combination of ability and ambition.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
If you're wondering, I myself am not sitting on a high throne looking down at the rest of society saying, "If I can do it, why can't everyone else?", but I am satisfied with my level of ability and success.
Some individuals may have an easier road than others, but it's been shown time after time than anyone can achieve great economic success.
Anyone.
The problem I see is that many people are unable to realize that they can be successful, and wallow in attitudes of defeatism and self-victimization.
Is that a societal problem?
Possibly, to some extent, but socialism won't fix that problem at all.
Attitude adjustments will fix it to a great extent.
Socialism would certainly dampen the productivity of those who do strive to improve themselves, at whatever their level of ability.
Statistically that isn’t true though, if you’re already well off in an upper middle class/rich family than you’re more likely to get a better education because of property taxes paying for better teachers/better schools/textbooks and if you have more money you’re more likely to be able to afford university/college tuition.
Becoming successful isn’t as easy as just going to a good college and getting a job. I have an aunt that graduated from an Ivy League, she’s never gotten a stable job. Not once.
Capitalism’s exploitative because it exploits workers who arguably do the most work, for the benefit of already rich millionaires so they can blow their money on luxury cars and houses meanwhile it’s getting increasingly harder and harder for the average American to even buy a house to live in.
We have enough houses to end homelessness, yet we don’t.
Most of the billionaires you see aren’t self made, they were born with a golden spoon already. Generational wealth is the easiest way to become wealthy.
I just don’t see the reason why it’s ok for some human beings to have way too much and others to have way too little, especially when we can solve it.
@doopayo
In my original reply, I acknowledged that some individuals will have an easier road than others.
That doesn't mean that anyone is barred from having a successful life.
Are there people with silver spoons in their mouths? You bet.
Do they owe you, me, or anyone else anything? Not at all.
Entrepreneurism can be embraced by anyone at anytime, potentially resulting in highly successful enterprises.
Regarding exploitation -
The risk takers of the world provide opportunity for those below their level of ambition.
As stated in my initial reply, there are different levels of ability and ambition.
Individuals will gravitate towards whatever level they're capable of achieving.
The successful risk takers can potentially do extremely well, as they should.
The followers of those highly successful risk takers will benefit from those successes in a descending order according to ability and ambition, down to the lower levels of the economic ladder. As it should.
Where is the exploitation in that description of how capitalism works?
If the risk takers didn't take those risks, there would be less opportunity for everyone else.
I don't disbelieve the situation with your aunt. Ivy league diplomas don't guarantee success.
There is and has been a serious economic problem in the U. S. for the last few decades or longer, due to the exportation of manufacturing.
Many jobs have been lost as a result.
That needs a solution, but socialism is not the answer.
See next reply box.
@doopayo
As far as my being an adult goes, I entered the work world at roughly the beginning of the downturn era. Adults told me when I was young that it was going to harder for my generation.
Unfortunately, I in turn say the same to you, unless jobs are created, especially for non-skilled and limited-skill workers.
What I'm reading between the lines of your posts is you believe that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.
I see that attitude from many people these days. 'Spread the wealth and everyone will be happy'. That's socialism.
The myth of the poor being poor because the rich are rich is not true.
There isn't X amount of money in the world, with the rich having 99%, and the rest having 1%, with percentages of X being shuffled back and forth.
What actually happens is that when something of value is produced, in other words, work, the amount of money in the world goes from X, to X plus the value of the additional work being done.
The more work that is done, the more wealth there is in the world, benefitting all to varying degrees.
Socialism would stop the risk takers from taking those potentially highly successful risks, with the level of incentive to be productive decreasing the further down the ladder of ability you go.
You're left with a unmotivated work force, which will result in the wealth of the country going from X to X minus the accompanying loss of productivity.
Here's one last way of looking at it.
If I were unqualified and unambitious, would I deserve the same compensation as a highly skilled, ambitious person?
When people think of socialism, they think of authoritarian communism. They think people lose their rights under socialism. They see it as dictatorial big government where people are not allowed to keep what they earn and where they are told what they can and cannot do.
What they don't seem to realize is that capitalist economic systems can also be totalitarian. Right now, we are living under fascism - the merger of corporations and government.
Unregulated capitalism is what we had during the laissez faire Robber Baron days.
I see socialism and everything between communism and unregulated capitalism.
Teddy Roosevelt was called a socialist when he broke up the Standard Oil Trust. When workers began demanding rights in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the capitalists called it socialism. Worker safety regulations, the 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation time, sick leave, unemployment, and Social Security are "socialist". Taxpayer funded police and fire protection, as well as roads and other infrastructure and socialist. Both socialism and capitalism are good unless taken to extremes. The key is to find the right blend.
The golden age in USA was post WWII, when top marginal tax rates were over 90% and corporations were regulated. Things have been going down hill ever since the globalist, neoliberal privatization and deregulation agenda started taking root in the 80s.
@Liam What you described, is not TRUE Socialism. It is a perverted form of Authoritarian dominance by an elite. I am not currently aware, of any nation, that is living TRUE Socialism.
The Scandinavian Nations are close, maybe fusing Socialism with Capitalism, and seem to be doing well, with that.
@JackSmy, I see what you mean. I agree that there's never been an example of true communism. I don't even think that would be possible on a national scale.
But, as I tried to say in my initial comment, socialism and capitalism go hand in hand. You can have varying degrees of socialism in a capitalist economy, but virtually every capitalist economy has some socialist programs.
@Lliam Nobody seems to know what will work, and partly, it is our society, and the "GET MONEY" ideal, and "Being RICH" makes you happy, bullshit! Our level of evolution, and social understanding, makes Socialism, and Communism, in their pure forms, impossible!!
Maybe in 2,000 years, these ideals might work, but not now, no way!
@JackSmy, I suspect you're right. I can't see pure communism every working, that for sure. I don't even think I would like that.
Pure capitalism is terrible, too. It's dog eat dog, the strong eat the weak.
I like some of the ideas of various left-libertarian (libertarian-socialist) schools of thought. Power to the workers.
@JackSmy. That's where it gets complicated. The global bankers have caused each and every crash and most wars. They want to rule over a global totalitarian system and have been working toward that for centuries.
I know, it's hard to wrap one's head around.
I had a good idea what was happening, but I just finished a book called The Globalization of Poverty, published by Global Research. It blew my mind what the World Bank and IMF have been up to for the past 40 years. But the people who control those institutions have, as I said, been at this for a long time. They control the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and much, much more, including most governments and media. Mega corporations are also involved.
Klaus Schwabb of the WHO has been talking openly about the plans. What they have in mind looks like communism to the average person, but it's actually slavery for the people of the world with unelected, unimaginably wealthy and powerful leaders controlling everything and profiting from everything.
Unfortunately, no government system is ideal. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once people get a taste of having something, they often just want more. If you read Animal Farm, you'll discover that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Socialism sounds great as a concept, but the question is whether it is workable long-term. A good example is the documentary A Bold Peace https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3096908/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 Costa Rica decided to eliminate their army and put all the money into education and social services. In the beginning, it worked beautifully. Most of the movie promotes the ideal, but between 1 hour 6 minutes and 1 hour 8 minutes into the movie there is an admission that it can't work without a strong middle class. True socialism can't exist when all you have are the haves and the have nots, which is what is created by this type of social state.
I have friends who were raised behind the iron curtain. They shared frustration with work situations there. Since everyone shares equally, there is no motivation for people to do more than they have to do. This limits growth.
On paper, all government systems look beautiful, but once you apply them to real life, the results are less than ideal. I wish I could say there is a perfect system, but I haven't seen it.
Because redistribution of resources for equity doesn't change the fact that the people at the bottom are still at the bottom. The only people anything changes for are the rich, who get the same access to resources as the people at the bottom, but because they are rich, had access to better resources before the government mandated the redistribution of the rich person's resources. You aren't actually giving the person at the bottom more opportunities for a better life because the life you gave them is just a standard life... Does what I'm saying make sense?
Socialism, by it's very nature, prevents enrichment and social upward mobility because the cost to the average person of becoming wealthier doesn't reward you with better stuff (the megarich will always clean up no matter what). Capitalism allows people to move around in their social/financial position which allows them to dream and work and aspire to have more so they can gain access to a better quality of life. The system isn't always fair, but people who figure out a way to enrich themselves have the ability to do so in capitalist societies.
Socialism doesn't allow that mobility because ensuring the same lifestyle quality for as many people as possible takes away that preferential treatment people get for spending more money. If our society agrees to give all people totally subsidized healthcare; the hobo is still a hobo. We barely improved his life because he's still just a hobo. The rich guy however, now gets the same basic healthcare as the hobo, but he's paying a lot more for his access to that healthcare by way of his taxes. So the rich guy is living a worse life because his expenses have gone up, and the hobo's life is only marginally better because his health problems probably aren't what's making him a hobo.
Cold war propaganda talked endlessly about how socialist countries like the USSR, China and Cuba were authoritarian so that must mean that socialism is authoritarian. But if you pick up a history book you can see that these countries were authoritarian long before they became socialist (also, starvation was rampant long before the rise of socialism as well). And no I'm not going to say that what happened in the USSR wasn't "real socialism"; it was just like what went on in the US and the Russian Empire were both real capitalism even though one was authoritarian and the other was democratic.
And I would consider myself a market socialist.
Also, they think capitalism is about free trade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiMvcpRPUNE&t=11s
As a freedom thinker, I see socialism as equivalent to a zoo where once wild animals that roamed freely are placed into captivity. Some survive this transition and some do not. Second generation captive zoo animals become accustomed to being fed and having their cages cleaned such they are now completely dependent on an artificial system run by their masters. Their masters can now determine their worth and if they decide, euthanize the undesirables. Socialism hands personal survival and responsibility over to an entity that is still human and possesses of the evils of human such that slavery eventually becomes the typical endgame. Socialism cannot be supported long term without forced labor; who will grow the food and feed the zoo animals?
Have you ever tried talking to people who come here from socialist and communist run countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and China just to name a few?
I have a couple of friends from Venezuela who fled the country within the last three years losing family from separation and death because of inflation rates (over 3000% at that time), absurd government control and killing each other to survive, little to no food or medical aid in hospitals.
They came here from there for a reason. Opportunity and to escape that system, so you can imagine the ones I know are heartbroken or pissed when they see people here wanting that lifestyle.
Early in the 20th century socialism swept the nation (USA) and became very popular. Then the USSR and China and certain other countries had either socialist or communist revolutions and all the wealthy people in the west were afraid that what happened to the Russian Czar would happen to them so a campaign of demonizing took place. Neither socialism nor capitalism is as evil as the other side would claim. Both have their place but neither should ever be embraced in it's purest form. The best system is where people are permitted to own and run businesses and get rich but be taxed and regulated to both protect the worker and to provide for those unable to take care of themselves. Rich have a tendency of being selfish and not helping out where needed without some coercion. But without capitalism there is little incentive to actually accomplish anything.
How you described what the best system would be just described how America works.
The biggest problem with socialism is that no matter how many intelligent people you put together to determine how resources ought to be allocated, it will not be done anywhere near as effectively as free markets and a profit driven economic system can. We need prices that emerge from voluntary exchanges. We need entrepreneurs to be able to predict what people are going to want in the future. We need profits and losses that are measurable so we can know if the output of a business endeavor is worth more or less than the opportunity costs.
However, the reason most people are against it is because it is utopian and has failed everywhere real socialism has been tried.
Because people are uneducated and intolerant. They don't know what Socialism is, so they start labelling. There has been a lot of treachery in Marxism-Leninism, but that doesn't make the whole idea bad. It has worked and it still works, but it needs to be done right - Cuba, Paris Commune, Tito's Yugoslavia, Socialism with Human Face. Europe has taken much from Socialism, even the whole world - you have regulations regarding trading and work (8 hours long working day, no child work, safety...).
I don't like to generalise, but Americans, in particular, have no idea what Socialism is. They live from verbally delivered lies that carry on throughout history.
@Paige90 I've mentioned four examples there and said quite a lot about the EU and regulations regarding work and economy. Read the original opinion.
Also, if we want to be correct, China is a working country with its own Socialism, right? We can talk about how this kind of Socialism is oppressive, but in terms of working, there is almost no poverty.
When people are saying that Russia had one of the worst Socialisms that killed millions of people - imagine the situation that you are to run a country (and prepare defences) without any development at all. It's easy to judge, I am not saying they did right, but maybe let's first learn about their situation in depth so our judgement is objective and not just pure hate?
Socialism in Europe and Russia has worked for almost 50 years - in Europe, there was no poverty as everyone had stable and well-paid work. In terms of travelling, there were restrictions, but it wasn't hard to go to Russia, Poland, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary... we had an enormous industry which provided everything we needed - modern clothes, cars, electronics, an abundance of food...
Persecutions? Absolutely. Has it worked though? Absolutely. Czechoslovak Socialism with Human Face could be possibly one of the best regimes of all time. Just benefits, no freedom restrictions.
Look at Venezuela and you will have your answer. Capitalism may seem rougher to people who do not want to work for what they have, but it allows upward mobility for those who do want to work. Think of it this way. In socialism, one person can make $200 and another $100. The government takes $50 from person A and gives it to person B to make life easier for person B. Person A knows this is going to happen so he will do less work to knock his share down to $50 so nothing gets taken from him AND person B must give him $50. Basically, both person A and B are competing to see who can take from the other. In capitalism, Person B would be expected to work harder to get to the $200 instead of Person A losing their hard-earned money just to give someone who works less a better life.
Because every time socialism is tried it get hundreds of thousands of people killed if not millions. Not only that it leaves people impoverished and reliant on the government for everything which when the system collapses the people don’t know what to do or the government has all them resources refuses to give it up to the people when the people are reliant on them to distribute the resources.
You want examples of where socialism has been tried. Cuba Venezuela China Russia Zimbabwe chili Columbia Mexico Yugoslavia (which no longer exists). And don’t let people tell you that none of these countries were true socialist because there really were socialist. It’s the no true Scotsman argument they use to act like socialism has never really been tried trust me it has
capitalism is defined correctly as follows... people owning their own stuff and deciding what to do with it. capitalism is a literal synonym for freedom. if you are against capitalism you are against freedom.
there is nothing inherently classist or exploitative about capitalism. america is already a classless society as much as possible (not completely because humans inherently form hierarchy) i have parts of my family that are very very rich and others that are very poor. rich people in america frequently marry not rich people like jeff bezos and bill gates who both married middle "class" women. American society has no rigid class structure.
and socialists just call things exploitative without any explanation of why. who is exploiting me? how?
They aren't
Americans just don't understand what socialism actually is. They think it's "soviet sounding" and this fear it for that reason.
Makes me think to that experiment where they asked a bunch of hicks if "Arabic numerals" should be taught in American school. The denials ranged from "We don't want Islam in our schools!" to "what's wrong with American numerals?"
Which just goes to show most of these cunts just exist in an echo chamber and hear only what they want, and don't care they know jack shit.
Socialism is basically the government holding a gun to your head saying take care of the poor people in and take care of the poor people and give me all the resources so I can live like a king or I'm going to kill you.
Capitalism is you have a ownership of your own property and freedom and freedom and life. You produce value you make value for yourself making your life better. Capitalism is actually the natural state. Failures just hate capitalism because they just hate they just hate being judged on a merit based system and want everything for free
But most ranters here are not against socialism. They are only against it if it involves people of a different race, ethnic group, poor folks, etc.
Remember socialism is defined as government regulation of the means of production/distribution within a given society.
But in the U. S. we are taxed regularly to supplement these industries. We just have no say in how they are run.
Because they've been brainwashed by the media to think socialism is evil.
The reason most people hate it, is because of mass propaganda. Due to this, Americans seem to think that if you want socialism, you can't have democracy, even though they are completely separate things. Socialism being an economic platform and democracy being a way of creating a government.
But as the years went by, and big companies started buying up all the media, and to please the people who owned them started leaning more and more to the right, away from socialism which would make all the big companies lose money (gasp). as the media started become more and more right wing, Americans started believing that it is a great idea for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Americans got so caught up in their own bullshit that they didn't even realize that their quality of went down so much even in just one life.
well extreme socialism is really terrible, like the USSR and whatever never worked, but people who say that free healthcare, free education or whatever is wrong are massive idiots
people shouldn't need to pay to live
I agree. Theirs no reason that a human being shouldn’t have food or water. Especially in countries like America where we have multi billionaires that are so rich they can have their own space races. Meanwhile it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the average American to even be able to afford a house
These are the reasons why people are against Socialism:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fdfru9NHGvEhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/l3GfCmbPDN0https://www.youtube.com/embed/WCUq0V-3mgohttps://www.youtube.com/embed/MvF_D4tVfYU I’m sorry but prager U? They’re a fake university that spread misinformation, most of their videos have been debunked many times and a lot of their sources are sketchy. They’re also known for bringing on fake professionals to talk onto their channel.
https://youtu.be/5uRG4RB_Nvo
This video goes more into depth on what I’m talking about
Parger u? Lol we all know what your agenda is
Oh you're against socialism? Then stop calling the cops, EMTs & fire department when shit goes south. Start fronting the bills to pay for infrastructure repairs. Home school or cough up the cash to send your children to private school. Stop applying for government assistance for XY&Z. And so forth, because ALL OF THAT is socialism.
Study world history. Socialism has never, ever worked in any country or society, never. All you end up with is tens or hundreds of millions of people killed by their own governments. If you want things, work for them. If you don't, then don't work. The only time society should take care of people who don't want to work for what they have is if they are unable to work, those people should be given everything they need, and if they later become able to work, give them a little time to catch up.
Socialists have no connection to reality, they do not understand economics, the things they say only make sense if you don’t think them through enough, and there’s a reason why young people love it and as you age you tend to pull away and become more conservative
If I am not mistaken Margaret Thatcher once said..
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "
I think she is the one who said that but regardless that is the primary problem with both socialism and communism.
To boil it down and make it very simple.
Socialism is a system that is designed to equalize everyone by bringing everyone down.
Capitalism is a system that is designed to bring everyone up based on how hard you work and where you want to end up. So it's not equal, but everyone gets ahead in one way or another.
Socialism killed over 100 million people in the last century. Nuff said.
.
Seriously, though. Think about the following:
You are at school. You are working and learning hard to get good grades. In the next exam you get an A. The teacher decides to reduce it to an C, because the F student needs to be evened out and also get an C despite not having worked for it at all.
Would you feel that it is fair? And would that make you continue to work hard?
When you're old enough you understand the ways of life and realize socialism isn't but a trap to the dreamers who believe "social justice" will be brought like some kind of miracle. It has never happened, it will never happen.
They just take advantage of foolish people who put their faith in them, just look at Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.
From what I heard from close relatives, a lot of them associate socialism with communism and associates communism with authoritarianism.
I mean a lot of people call my ideas to be extreme and too much to ask for. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for society to make sure people not starve for not having a job or financially crippled in order to get medical care.
"The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin
@rcljr The assumption that people who are poor are lazy and just aren’t willing to work is a flawed assumption. Many of them just don’t have as much of an opportunity to get jobs because of the conditions they were born into. Supporting their needs like food and healthcare would allow them to get the proper education to get a better job and they will get a better job because of the desire for luxury goods.
Also, I would think letting someone starve because they can’t get a job to be quite unethical.
Probably because historically socialism has not had many success stories, while Capitalism has.
However I think China has recently shown that Capitalism with Socialist or Communist elements is more efficient that straight Capitalism.
30 years ago people were saying the same about cuba. china will fall apart like the rest
If you do well with capitalism you win overall
If you do well with socialism you are rewarded the same
If you do well with communism you are shot
Basically socialism only benefits the lazy whilst capitalism benefits the hard/smart working and communism benefits no-one but the top few like a pyramid scheme
it's a form of slavery to the Government in which it creates more dependence on a centralize entity and less freedom for people to choose there own means of making wealth. It's much easier to tear down corrupt corporation like Google than corrupt Governments like Venezuela when things get out of hand.
Ultimately its a system that has always failed.
It has a very long history of oppression and brutality.
Even systems that incorporate "socialism" and are successful, tend to be capitalist, democratic.. etc
Capitalism is by no means perfect, and many have abused the system
None the less... anyone who has studied the 20th century would grasp why Socialism is viewed with such negativity today.
Mostly because people confuse socialism with communism or with the Nazi party o in some cases both. Nordic countries have the best examples of modern Democratic Socialism, and not coincidentally also have the highest wellness rating of all countries. Americans are hostile to socialism because they all think they can "win" the casino lottery that is Capitalism and become rich, not realizing it's a rigged game.
because socialism is a doomed Ponzi scheme bent on controlling people.
Take it from a socialist leader - - -
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Margaret Thatcher
The United States is a country that was born prizing personal liberty above all. Socialism flies in the face of that. We are taught since childhood that capitalism and freedom walk hand in hand.
But in actuality Capitalism in it's purest format can be just as dangerous as Socialsm.
Too much of one is never a good thing.
Usually older ones are because of its ties with communism and naziism. But usually also because they equate it with more governmental control and higher taxes.
I'm not a goon who can't do anything useful for myself. I'll handle my life, go figure out yours.
Because you have to work for your success, not be handed it. And why should i have to give hand outs to people who didn't work for something as hard as i did
History has shown that if you give the government too much power they will abuse it. That is the basis of how the US is set up because we had to flee examples of that as well as seen plenty of examples show up especially during and after WWII
Mostly because billionaires pay good money to keep people frothing mad about socialism.
I love socialism. It’s sad that us socialists are oppressed in today’s society. I would recommend looking into national socialism to get started into the socialist community
@doopayo since you liked this, National Socialism is the full name of the ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany with fervent antisemitism, anticommunism, racism and eugenics. Also, extreme nationalism
@tartaarsaus and what’s wrong with liking that?
@Donaldtrumpisorsnge
Let’s see. Extreme nationalism, racial hierarchies, genocide, imperialism, classifying millions of citizens as enemies of the state.
@tartaarsaus I mean anything for a white Europe
@tartaarsaus hitler was a socialist
First, tell me what you KNOW of Socialism, so we are talking about the same things!
Because famine, poverty, destruction of freedom, and government tyranny always follow socialist ideas.
because it results in extreme poverty/violence? i think what your trying to defend is social democracy like the scandinavian countries have but they are still capitalistic countries just with a large welfare state
If you think you like socialism go live in Cubs for 5 years.
Most people who have lived through don't want to experience it again. That should be a good sign. Also look at whats going on Cuba.
Cuba is a comuniste country. Not a socialist one.
For a socialist country you need a capitalist system. A socialist country is like Canada. You got free healthcare and free education. There are still corporation making money.
@potatohuhjj you don't get to communism without socialism. You also wouldn't have the same people praising cuba's government that love socialism.
@potatohuhjj , that’s right, socialism won’t work without a capitalist base, where else are all those lazy freeloaders gonna get “ free” stuff without hard workers to pay taxes.
Sorry to say Russia is no longer a socialist state but if the democrats have their way we will be soon.
Talk to people who have left countries that had it. I think that's a good start.
Because socialism has never worked and capitalism has worked. Easy as that. Classes will always exists hierarchy has existed for billions of years it's not something you just make disappear.
The simple answer is that socialism looks great on paper but doesn't work in the real world.
You are just a young girl who doesn't know how destructive communism is. More people have been plunged into poverty because of communism than any other form of government
The question was about socialism.
Government has waaaay too much interference in personal lives already.
Socialism does not mean that the Government will interfere with everything.
@potatohuhjj No. Just everything they can to control your personal life.
I live in Canada a capitalo-socialist country. Last time I check, the government do not control my personal life.
You know believing the government is always there to do you wrong is a symptom for a mental illness...
@potatohuhjj lol yes it does, socialism is the very concept of the government telling everyone what to do to make them "equal" to hold down the best members of society and raise up the worst
@potatohuhjj Childish insults aside, the US versions of Democrats and Republicans are after complete control of the lives of everyone in the USA. Just working to do that two different ways.
@potatohuhjj , BULLSHIT !
@potatohuhjj , believing that your government is all knowing, benevolent and always there to help you do whatever you please is the sign of a 10 year old that needs to start researching world governments… start with Rome…
Because socialism is a regulated market where an authority decides who gets the goods.
Sounds a lot like capitalism to me.
@NightHawk99 Maybe everything is a trap...
The cake issss a lie
@NightHawk99 What did you expect from a white cage with teleporting capabilities?
I expected it to teleport whatever I put inside of it
@NightHawk99 But if there isn't any cake you cannot teleport it.
Except if you are a good cooker.
Guess I'll take a culinary class
@NightHawk99 At Black Mesa.
They aren't truly theyve just been told to hate it without truly understanding what the word means
Because it's outright evil and the ideology who's champion on death up to this date.
Look at the Communist countries, are they having fun there with lack of freedom?
Because they want the rich to stay on top while poor people stay at the bottom
100 million dead in the last century. I think that is a sufficient reason to hate socialism.
That's debatable in itself and with that argument historians also say that over 158 million deaths can be contributed to Capitalism in the 2 centuries via wars waged for profit and trade, slavery, political repression of rejecting the capitalism system, ethnic cleansing and displacement due to seizing of land from native peoples, starvation caused by the mass privatisation of common land, increased poverty, barbaric working and living conditions in urban areas caused by unregulated big companies and completely unregulated free market during the first and second industrial revolutions etc. I'm no Communist, but the extremist socialist ideologies and unregulated free market greed for the world's elite have been the biggest killers out there for the last century for the far left and the last 2+ for the extremist capitalists just out for a buck
The 100 million people are citizens of socialist countries killed by their own government. Capitalist countries don't execute anywhere near that many of their own citizens.
Where are you getting 100 million executions from? The Black Book of Communism? That's one of the most unreliable sources of data ever. They include deaths from the Nazis as Communist faults, a 15 civilian death toll from the Axis Powers invading the Soviet Union as the fault of the Soviet government? the death toll of the Russian Civil War as the fault of the Communists, and the author was so obsessed with rounding the number up he added 40 million deaths out of nowhere to the toll anyway. Not to mention adding people who died of natural courses in Marxist-Leninist countries into the death toll, which is ludicrous. Actual ordered executions that took place in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin together range from 800,000 to 3 million. Mao 400,000 to 6 million. The famines I'm not even going to go there as most of those in the Soviet Union were caused by severe droughts and the Kulacks burning crops and killing tens of millions of livestock. No one's talking about executions for Capitalism either, the unregulated free market itself mixed with imperialist expansion and the feudal system itself has indirectly killed tens of millions on it's own in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. Not a Communist myself, many of my family lived behind the eastern blocs boundaries. But 100 million? That's just stupid
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
