4 people have the choice of being a doctor working long hours, and going to college for longer vs. being a window washer, who works from 9-5 and goes to college for 4 years. well since its a socialist society every job gets the same pay. Therefore none of the 4 people will want to be a doctor, when this happens we will lose most of our doctors, then we will need to hire under qualified doctors. So in the short term it may seem good, but in the long run it will defeat its original purpose.
Distribution is distribution. Food, water, housing, money, clothing, inheritance, reproductive rights, vacation, family support, leisure time and so on. Why just distribute money?
capital comes from hard work. the fallacy amongst the far left is that capital just comes out of thin air and is bestowed upon undeserving people who didn't work for it. but any hard working small business owner will tell you that capital is hard won and hard to sustain. the other fallacy amongst the far left is of course the idea that there is any system other than the market system in which political and economic rights are respected.
in practice the only difference at the end of the day between a socialist government and a fascist one, is the intentions of the people who elected them.
"I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature" – Sidney Hook, you can say that there has never been a socialist system, i wonder why... if "capitalism" = corporatism, which we have now, i'd far rather live in a corporatist country than an utter authoritarian shithole called socialism/communism.
why is everything on youtube so black and wwhite on this stuf, its either socialism or capitalism. every country should just mimic, the netherlands a little bit of both
A classless,monyless,stateless communities of humanity in cooperation to take care of our needs and well being , expressing our creative energies in freedom of being. Capitalism is the manipulation of resources and technology for the private gain of a few in a monetary system that enslaves immense humanity in wage slavery of useless employment system that dehumanises and denies our human creative potential for a world of harmony within and without.
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
@arzoyan: "...but the market [system] is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on."
Intersting conclusion you have there, but you never offered us the whole argument. You have yet to amuse us with your logic, your evidence, and your support for it.
To everybody: If you make a claim, where fantastic or realistic, please offer us some form of support or reasoning for its acceptance.
@Howsonify Over 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day where top 250 corporations control 1/3 of the world GDP, but then you are not really interested in the destructive,dehumanising,distorting effects of CAPITALISM ON OUR LIVES are you?
First, my interests were never disclosed, so let's not assume more than we know. Besides, I challenged your approach not your postion-- there's a distinction.
Finally, Let's suppose your data is true, that 1/2 the world's population makes $2 a day, how, then, does it follow that capitalism is the cause? There is, as you know, more than one economic system; and as you also know, there is the exact same "dehumanising" effects on labours in command systems like china's, for example.
It is not capitalism vs. Socialism. It is retards who do now know what capitalism is vs. somewhat smarter people who somewhat know what socialism is to some extent.
It could be correctly argued as private capitalism vs. public capitalism.
But this isn't really true as those who strongly support private capitalism over public capitalism, still enact public capitalism when they don't get their way.
So this isn't private vs public, but rather greedy vs less greedy.
From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs is nowhere near the same, nor sounds like, supply and demand. Supply and Demand is privately driven as consumers purchase product when the demand is there. This is not the same as a nanny state where all needs are provided through some labor front organization redistributing toilet paper and bread for the shorts-stained and the hungry. Capitalism 1 / Socialism 0
Comparing Capitalism and Socialism is like comparing dog crap to monkey crap. We are a corporate world controlled by profiteers that promote only political leaders for election that can keep the profits rolling to the corporate management. News media spins the message over and over please stop fooling the people into thinking they are living under such crap filled terms as Socialism, Communism or Capitalism these systems do not exist.
One huge glaring difference is that Socialism is forced by the government. Capitalism relies solely on the consumers choice.
Also under Socialism the consumer has no choice. Gov't runs business and decides what products are to be produced. Under Capitalism the market demands what products are produced.
There is a huge difference between liberty and slavery. Capitalism is liberty and Socialism is slavery.
@AlbaGoBragh And you know nothing of how the systems work together. one must have the other to work. only one will bring surtin doom to the economy, and America's TOO Capitalist, just like China's too Socilaist, you should make a system basted on Europe or Canada's, it works.
@dave19941000 Apparently you are the one who is in the dark. For you to even think to suggest that we become more like Europe when most of Europe in right on the verge of economic collapse is absolutely insane. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain and now Germany are moments away from collapse. England is not far behind them.
The freer the market the more wealth is created for everyone, the more regulated the market the more poverty is created for everyone. This is just historical fact.
@AlbaGoBragh 1) You didn't mention Canada's economy, because it supports my point.
2) There only in trouble because they made a big mistake, do what the american banks where doing.
3) Free markets make wealth for the rich ans the poor lose more money. Regulated markets give everyone an even chanse to make wealth IF, and only if, it's not too regulated, and the US isn't regulated enuff.
@dave19941000 I didn't say anything about Canada because I have read anything about Canada. So don't know if they are suffering or not. My guess is that they are in about as much deep doo doo as we are.
Europe is in trouble specifically because Socialism cannot fully support all it claims to support. Whatever you are calling a mistake can be traced back to the fact that they ran out of other people's money.
The liberal myth is that free markets only help the rich. That defies reality.
@AlbaGoBragh As a canadian I can tell you, were doing fine. Our banks are regulated, and we avoided making the mistakes you US and european banks did. Not one bank in Canada nedded a bailout so none was ever given, and where repaying our deat at a good pace (exept in Quebec, but there gana raise the tax on products slightly to compainsait).
@AlbaGoBragh If the US was Socilaist, it could support all it's programs, because Socilaists and libirals know, unlike conservitives (this is why california's brock), that you can't lowwer taxes AND increas socila servises.
The conservitive myth is that free markets help everyone.
@dave19941000 If your happy in your Socialist utopia then that great for you. Stay in Canada and mind your own business.
Califonia's problems are caused by all the Socialists in that state who haven't a clue how to stop spending. They raised taxes on the rich so much that the rich are leaving the state in droves and taking the jobs with them. Now no matter how Cal. raises taxes they'll never take in enough.
@AlbaGoBragh I never said the FREE MARKET was a myth, I said the CONSERVITIVE version is a myth as they say it benifites all, but it's the rich more then middel or lower class that recive the benifit. the 1% richest peope in the US have MORE money then the 95% poorest in the US, no other country is so unbalenced. If the free market benifites all, why is the GDP higher in socialist countries?
@dave19941000 Who in the US are the only one's pushing for a freer market than the Conservatives or Libertarians. Certainly not the Liberals and Progressives. They want to clamp down so hard on the market that they kill it.
I question your stats on the rich vs the poor but let's say that you are correct. What is the underlying and most important principle that all socialists, fascists, communists, etc. never ever mention? The money that the rich have BELONGS to them. To take it is theft.
@AlbaGoBragh Yes but here's something you didn't know, the conservitive party of Canada is more liberal then your Democrats, or your democrats are more conservitive then our conservitives, either way we only have 3 parties that are "Libiral" to a different degree, and a scosialist party. Why do you think our 2 govs. work best together when we have a conservitive government and you have a democrat one? P.S. Why do you bring up Fascists? there on the right. And why Communists? there more authoriy.
@dave19941000 It doesn't matter the ideology. What matter is that Harper cut taxes and cut spending. That is a recipe for success.
Fascism was born out of Socialism. Mussolini was an avid socialist. He was considered one of the great thinkers in the socialist movement of the early 20th century. When he developed fascism it was a combination of socialism and militant labor unions. There was never right winged.. It has always been just another flavor of socialism like communism and Nazism
@dave19941000 Wealth redistribution is theft. It is the forcing of one group of people to surrender what they have worked hard to earn. 95% of the rich started off poor or middle class. They didn't inherit it, it was not handed to them on a silver platter. They didn't steal or plunder from the poor (as if the poor have anything to plunder). They EARNED it. It is immoral to take it by force from then or anyone else.
The best way to redistribute and CREATE wealth is through the free market.
@AlbaGoBragh You would be right about how the rich became rich if this was the 40's, 50's 60's or 70's, but starting in the 1980's, less and less of the rich are earning it, and more and more are inhairating it, yes, 15% of the rich earned it, 20% won it, but in 2008, 65% of the rich had inherated it or where give it for work they didn't do themselves. One thing about Socialism is, you get payed by the hour for what ever job you have (Equal disrtibution is Communism, not socialism).
@dave19941000 You need to read a book called "The Millionaire Next Door." The rich are still not inheriting their money. I don't know where you are getting your statistics but it does not hold water.
Also never mentioned is that the rich is not a static group of people. The rich lose their money and the poor climb their way out of poverty all the time.
Why, then, are so many socialists on this wealth redistribution band wagon? What would you do to even the disparity between rich and poor?
I would not even the disrtibution of wealth, but I would raise taxes for the rich by 2% and eliminat taxes for lower and middle class people, because that would 1) bring in more money in taxes and 2) alow the poor to easaly tak care of them selves. 2% is not that much, especialy when the people eho would be paying would 1) not notice and 2) the rich at one time payed 90% in taxes, and irronicly. Watch "Capitalism a love story".
@dave19941000 Micheal Moore wouldn't know what Capitalism is if you through Marx's Das Kapital at him and hit in the head. Don't trust Communist propaganda. His movies are not based in truth.
Read any book by Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman.
If you don't want wealth redistribution then why are you for taxing the rich? Where should that money go? Why do you feel entitled to take if from them?
Lowering taxes has always been the best economic stimulus just like in your own country.
@dave19941000 so you think you should able to take their money even more because they inherited it? nice thought process dumb fuck. Your just a rich hater. Im not rich and im not a hater. Go get a better education or look for a better job or invent something or start a business. Stop waiting to take somebody's family money or hard earned money. Make it yourself "Government Boy?"
@dave19941000 How coincidental that I just read an article on Canada's economy just a few minutes ago. It was on the front page of Yahoo. While touting Canada's economy it did mention that your last PM was a liberal who shoot your debt up to 30 billion causing Moody's to downgrade your credit rating. When Stephen Harper took office he cut taxes and spending.
So you're right. The US should follow that model. We should cut taxes and spending. Then our economy will grow like Canada's.
@AlbaGoBragh It's to bad you don't raise taxes for upper class people by 1%, your gov. would make more from that then all the money (100% tax) made by the lower and middle class. That's 150 million people with no taxes, but 3 million (who can afford it) pay 1% more in the US. That's a part of Socilaism, althought socialism is offten mixed up with communism, but the simalarities are like that of conservetism (republican party) and fascism (nazi's).
the chinese really?!?!?!?! thats the worst example of socialism because a their communist not socialist, b china has had to kill thousands of their own people to stay in power, and c they have been commies for how long? and its only been in the past 10 years that they have started to have an economy and thats bc they have started to adopt capitalist ideals
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
"From each according to his abilities..." Is supply and demand but it doesn't act like supply and demand. Incentive is erased and thus productivity suffers. To be honest, with technology today, both capitalism and mild socialism would work. The problem is corporate welfare, lobbyist, and rediculous regulations based on misleading statistics. But really it is the monetary system. Money created out of thin air by banks. The Federal Reserve being the "Lender of last resort" makes banks fearless.
Capitalism is all about benefiting the rich, while fooling the middle/lower class into supporting it.
These small level "i have 10 you have 15" metaphors dont hold true when you are dealing with a whole country. you cant just simplify like that, its not the same
No, it's about supply and demand and a free market, rather than creating a useless welfare state. If you just take from the rich to give to the poor, the poor don't work and the rich hide their work.
in forest there are ten deer to eat and ten hunters.one hunter who is slightly faster or stronger or smarter or maybe just luckier, catches all the deer before the others. When the other hunters come to this man and say "you have much more deer than you need, and we have families to feed" the first hunter says indignantly "I WORKED for these deer.What right do you have to take them from me?" that is capitalism.
You are probably a product of public education system... Work gives goods, and there is always more goods to exchange until some better knowing "equalizer" starts to divide them (redistribute).
of course capitalism is about sharing rescources. Its all about doing so in a unfair manner for the advantage of the elite. Socialism is to make it rather more equal
im a shirt maker. i make ten shirts. youre a pants maker. you make ten pairs of pants. i want five pairs of pants and you want five shirts. i give you five shirts for five pants. we both profit. that's capitalism. simple as that.
Actually, Socialism is about equal distribution of resources and economics, not about holding anyone at gunpoint. If anything, pure capitalism holds people at gunpoint.
Socialism is not Communism/Marxism. The latter is a totalitarian form of govt and DOES hold The People at gunpont; it's a police state.
Socialism is not a yes/no prospect...it's a spectrum. A democratic/market economy nation can choose a lot of socialism (Sweden) or choose less (Britain). So...socialism is an aspect of market driven democracies...has nothing to do with communism.
BTW, "pure" capitalism is not good and does not exist; All the western nations have significant govt regulation
I never said it was. Socialism originated from Christian worker luddites in the 17th century, now a day Socialist are very different, and are much closer to Communism/Marxism, which isn't a promotion of authoritarian or totalitarian ideals, which such ideals call for the abolition of the state, no the the strengthening of the process.
Neither Britain or Sweden are socialist or communist or of the sort. Government regulation is neither, they are just welfare states (of different degrees).
Socialism is just the "theoretical" stage between Capitalism and Communism, and it originated as it's own movement from Christians who disagreed with Communist and believed a state should just stay Socialist.
What's the point? That capitalism and marxism aren't that far apart? They're both about "sharing resources"? You must be kidding. Marxism is about sharing resources at gunpoint. Total state control; the individual serves the state and is nothing but a tool...like a fleshy tractor. Captialism is a free and mutually beneficial exchange. Plus, the incomparable concept of "profit". A brilliant, automatic mechanism to measure efficiency and guide allocation of resources. History's verdict is in, pal.
Actually Marx was against state control, he once said "Democracy is the road to Socialism." And in Marxian Communist theory the final goal is a stateless society. But I do agree that in the past the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has always been hijacked by the greedy and turned into a plain nd simple dictatorship.
zapata: Some will argue that Marxism is true and correct, that the nations that tried to implement it made mistakes, and concluding that we should try Marxism again. IMO the implementation of Marxism in the 20th century was done by many countries and in EVERY instance it was a colossal failure. At some point, we must agree Marxism is a flawed concept and simply cannot work. A better prospect is to stick with representative democracy and market economies (with appropriate govt regulation).
All we've seen of so-called "Marxism" were social experiments in under developed countries. In order for Communism to "work" it has to be a world economic system like capitalism has been for so long. It is very possible my friend, just not in our lifetme.
Socialism is just the economics of sour grapes. I'm poor so that must be someone else's fault besides my own.
Maybe people were less responsible for their own lot in lives 150 years but today the blame lands squarely on the poor. At least in industrial nations.
This video is dumb.
bacabu30 4 months ago
I think he;s high during this... Seriously
StoneThrowingDevil 7 months ago
4 people have the choice of being a doctor working long hours, and going to college for longer vs. being a window washer, who works from 9-5 and goes to college for 4 years. well since its a socialist society every job gets the same pay. Therefore none of the 4 people will want to be a doctor, when this happens we will lose most of our doctors, then we will need to hire under qualified doctors. So in the short term it may seem good, but in the long run it will defeat its original purpose.
djnsports05 8 months ago
Comment removed
gustavo1988ish 9 months ago
Comment removed
gustavo1988ish 9 months ago
Distribution is distribution. Food, water, housing, money, clothing, inheritance, reproductive rights, vacation, family support, leisure time and so on. Why just distribute money?
jpollard117 9 months ago
It sounds nothing like supply and demand.
jeebiskebowski 10 months ago
capital comes from hard work. the fallacy amongst the far left is that capital just comes out of thin air and is bestowed upon undeserving people who didn't work for it. but any hard working small business owner will tell you that capital is hard won and hard to sustain. the other fallacy amongst the far left is of course the idea that there is any system other than the market system in which political and economic rights are respected.
chrispollock 1 year ago
in practice the only difference at the end of the day between a socialist government and a fascist one, is the intentions of the people who elected them.
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz 1 year ago
"I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature" – Sidney Hook, you can say that there has never been a socialist system, i wonder why... if "capitalism" = corporatism, which we have now, i'd far rather live in a corporatist country than an utter authoritarian shithole called socialism/communism.
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz 1 year ago
why is everything on youtube so black and wwhite on this stuf, its either socialism or capitalism. every country should just mimic, the netherlands a little bit of both
lucm159 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A classless,monyless,stateless communities of humanity in cooperation to take care of our needs and well being , expressing our creative energies in freedom of being. Capitalism is the manipulation of resources and technology for the private gain of a few in a monetary system that enslaves immense humanity in wage slavery of useless employment system that dehumanises and denies our human creative potential for a world of harmony within and without.
arzoyan 1 year ago
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
arzoyan 1 year ago 3
@arzoyan: "...but the market [system] is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on."
Intersting conclusion you have there, but you never offered us the whole argument. You have yet to amuse us with your logic, your evidence, and your support for it.
To everybody: If you make a claim, where fantastic or realistic, please offer us some form of support or reasoning for its acceptance.
Howsonify 1 year ago
@Howsonify Over 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day where top 250 corporations control 1/3 of the world GDP, but then you are not really interested in the destructive,dehumanising,distorting effects of CAPITALISM ON OUR LIVES are you?
arzoyan 1 year ago
@arzoyan
First, my interests were never disclosed, so let's not assume more than we know. Besides, I challenged your approach not your postion-- there's a distinction.
Finally, Let's suppose your data is true, that 1/2 the world's population makes $2 a day, how, then, does it follow that capitalism is the cause? There is, as you know, more than one economic system; and as you also know, there is the exact same "dehumanising" effects on labours in command systems like china's, for example.
Howsonify 1 year ago
It is not capitalism vs. Socialism. It is retards who do now know what capitalism is vs. somewhat smarter people who somewhat know what socialism is to some extent.
It could be correctly argued as private capitalism vs. public capitalism.
But this isn't really true as those who strongly support private capitalism over public capitalism, still enact public capitalism when they don't get their way.
So this isn't private vs public, but rather greedy vs less greedy.
Tom101229 1 year ago
Supply and demand has nothing to do with that. Especially because capitalism makes hard workers happy. Socialism amkes losers and hobo's happy.
RadioHyperactive 2 years ago
@RadioHyperactive
Don't forget about hippies. Hippies love socialism, and the idea of leeching off the taxpayer and never working a day. :-P
TheCapitalistdog 2 years ago
From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs is nowhere near the same, nor sounds like, supply and demand. Supply and Demand is privately driven as consumers purchase product when the demand is there. This is not the same as a nanny state where all needs are provided through some labor front organization redistributing toilet paper and bread for the shorts-stained and the hungry. Capitalism 1 / Socialism 0
VasiliusKonstantinos 2 years ago
To each according to his ability, from each according to his need.
Well I just want to be lazy and mooch off those of ability, and I'm sure 99.9% of us would do the same.
What's that? I'll be forced to work according to my ability at the point of a gun?
This sounds like an awesome idea! Boo for freedom! Yay for state sanctioned slavery!
BallsInYourJawsBitch 2 years ago
Comparing Capitalism and Socialism is like comparing dog crap to monkey crap. We are a corporate world controlled by profiteers that promote only political leaders for election that can keep the profits rolling to the corporate management. News media spins the message over and over please stop fooling the people into thinking they are living under such crap filled terms as Socialism, Communism or Capitalism these systems do not exist.
jobedied 2 years ago
One huge glaring difference is that Socialism is forced by the government. Capitalism relies solely on the consumers choice.
Also under Socialism the consumer has no choice. Gov't runs business and decides what products are to be produced. Under Capitalism the market demands what products are produced.
There is a huge difference between liberty and slavery. Capitalism is liberty and Socialism is slavery.
AlbaGoBragh 2 years ago
@AlbaGoBragh And you know nothing of how the systems work together. one must have the other to work. only one will bring surtin doom to the economy, and America's TOO Capitalist, just like China's too Socilaist, you should make a system basted on Europe or Canada's, it works.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Apparently you are the one who is in the dark. For you to even think to suggest that we become more like Europe when most of Europe in right on the verge of economic collapse is absolutely insane. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain and now Germany are moments away from collapse. England is not far behind them.
The freer the market the more wealth is created for everyone, the more regulated the market the more poverty is created for everyone. This is just historical fact.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh 1) You didn't mention Canada's economy, because it supports my point.
2) There only in trouble because they made a big mistake, do what the american banks where doing.
3) Free markets make wealth for the rich ans the poor lose more money. Regulated markets give everyone an even chanse to make wealth IF, and only if, it's not too regulated, and the US isn't regulated enuff.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 I didn't say anything about Canada because I have read anything about Canada. So don't know if they are suffering or not. My guess is that they are in about as much deep doo doo as we are.
Europe is in trouble specifically because Socialism cannot fully support all it claims to support. Whatever you are calling a mistake can be traced back to the fact that they ran out of other people's money.
The liberal myth is that free markets only help the rich. That defies reality.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh As a canadian I can tell you, were doing fine. Our banks are regulated, and we avoided making the mistakes you US and european banks did. Not one bank in Canada nedded a bailout so none was ever given, and where repaying our deat at a good pace (exept in Quebec, but there gana raise the tax on products slightly to compainsait).
dave19941000 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh If the US was Socilaist, it could support all it's programs, because Socilaists and libirals know, unlike conservitives (this is why california's brock), that you can't lowwer taxes AND increas socila servises.
The conservitive myth is that free markets help everyone.
That defies reality
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 If your happy in your Socialist utopia then that great for you. Stay in Canada and mind your own business.
Califonia's problems are caused by all the Socialists in that state who haven't a clue how to stop spending. They raised taxes on the rich so much that the rich are leaving the state in droves and taking the jobs with them. Now no matter how Cal. raises taxes they'll never take in enough.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Free market economics is no myth. Look at who are in "poverty" in the US compared to most of the rest of the world.
Even a better example, compare Hong Kong's free market to mainland China's heavily regulated market. The comparison is night and day difference.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh I never said the FREE MARKET was a myth, I said the CONSERVITIVE version is a myth as they say it benifites all, but it's the rich more then middel or lower class that recive the benifit. the 1% richest peope in the US have MORE money then the 95% poorest in the US, no other country is so unbalenced. If the free market benifites all, why is the GDP higher in socialist countries?
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Who in the US are the only one's pushing for a freer market than the Conservatives or Libertarians. Certainly not the Liberals and Progressives. They want to clamp down so hard on the market that they kill it.
I question your stats on the rich vs the poor but let's say that you are correct. What is the underlying and most important principle that all socialists, fascists, communists, etc. never ever mention? The money that the rich have BELONGS to them. To take it is theft.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh Yes but here's something you didn't know, the conservitive party of Canada is more liberal then your Democrats, or your democrats are more conservitive then our conservitives, either way we only have 3 parties that are "Libiral" to a different degree, and a scosialist party. Why do you think our 2 govs. work best together when we have a conservitive government and you have a democrat one? P.S. Why do you bring up Fascists? there on the right. And why Communists? there more authoriy.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 It doesn't matter the ideology. What matter is that Harper cut taxes and cut spending. That is a recipe for success.
Fascism was born out of Socialism. Mussolini was an avid socialist. He was considered one of the great thinkers in the socialist movement of the early 20th century. When he developed fascism it was a combination of socialism and militant labor unions. There was never right winged.. It has always been just another flavor of socialism like communism and Nazism
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Wealth redistribution is theft. It is the forcing of one group of people to surrender what they have worked hard to earn. 95% of the rich started off poor or middle class. They didn't inherit it, it was not handed to them on a silver platter. They didn't steal or plunder from the poor (as if the poor have anything to plunder). They EARNED it. It is immoral to take it by force from then or anyone else.
The best way to redistribute and CREATE wealth is through the free market.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh You would be right about how the rich became rich if this was the 40's, 50's 60's or 70's, but starting in the 1980's, less and less of the rich are earning it, and more and more are inhairating it, yes, 15% of the rich earned it, 20% won it, but in 2008, 65% of the rich had inherated it or where give it for work they didn't do themselves. One thing about Socialism is, you get payed by the hour for what ever job you have (Equal disrtibution is Communism, not socialism).
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 You need to read a book called "The Millionaire Next Door." The rich are still not inheriting their money. I don't know where you are getting your statistics but it does not hold water.
Also never mentioned is that the rich is not a static group of people. The rich lose their money and the poor climb their way out of poverty all the time.
Why, then, are so many socialists on this wealth redistribution band wagon? What would you do to even the disparity between rich and poor?
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh This is my last responts to you.
I would not even the disrtibution of wealth, but I would raise taxes for the rich by 2% and eliminat taxes for lower and middle class people, because that would 1) bring in more money in taxes and 2) alow the poor to easaly tak care of them selves. 2% is not that much, especialy when the people eho would be paying would 1) not notice and 2) the rich at one time payed 90% in taxes, and irronicly. Watch "Capitalism a love story".
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Micheal Moore wouldn't know what Capitalism is if you through Marx's Das Kapital at him and hit in the head. Don't trust Communist propaganda. His movies are not based in truth.
Read any book by Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman.
If you don't want wealth redistribution then why are you for taxing the rich? Where should that money go? Why do you feel entitled to take if from them?
Lowering taxes has always been the best economic stimulus just like in your own country.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@dave19941000 so you think you should able to take their money even more because they inherited it? nice thought process dumb fuck. Your just a rich hater. Im not rich and im not a hater. Go get a better education or look for a better job or invent something or start a business. Stop waiting to take somebody's family money or hard earned money. Make it yourself "Government Boy?"
TheHosswood 1 year ago
@dave19941000 How coincidental that I just read an article on Canada's economy just a few minutes ago. It was on the front page of Yahoo. While touting Canada's economy it did mention that your last PM was a liberal who shoot your debt up to 30 billion causing Moody's to downgrade your credit rating. When Stephen Harper took office he cut taxes and spending.
So you're right. The US should follow that model. We should cut taxes and spending. Then our economy will grow like Canada's.
AlbaGoBragh 1 year ago
@AlbaGoBragh It's to bad you don't raise taxes for upper class people by 1%, your gov. would make more from that then all the money (100% tax) made by the lower and middle class. That's 150 million people with no taxes, but 3 million (who can afford it) pay 1% more in the US. That's a part of Socilaism, althought socialism is offten mixed up with communism, but the simalarities are like that of conservetism (republican party) and fascism (nazi's).
dave19941000 1 year ago
Socialism = fail. USA + Federal Reserve System = Fail.
aikido776 2 years ago 2
love the lishp
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago
good little libs always want to share others wealth but not their own
AStranger999 2 years ago
in socialism what you have is taken and you don't have a choice
AStranger999 2 years ago
The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way. They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust
- Karl Marx
Peoples paper April 16 1859 Journal of the history of ideas
EPVermelis 2 years ago
the chinese really?!?!?!?! thats the worst example of socialism because a their communist not socialist, b china has had to kill thousands of their own people to stay in power, and c they have been commies for how long? and its only been in the past 10 years that they have started to have an economy and thats bc they have started to adopt capitalist ideals
mjthree45242 2 years ago 2
China killed millions, not thousands.
turisas1234 2 years ago
Chinese Government is not communist, it is an authoritative socialist republic. A communist society has never existed.
trehansen 2 years ago
China's right-wing.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
GrahamJorgi 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
Grebryspell 3 years ago
From your interpretation of Marx to the qoute in the description, I detect errors in your thinking.. The cure is to learn to think in fundamentals.
An example: Take the Marx quote. Consider the implications of serving need over ability.
snakeinthegrass20 3 years ago
"From each according to his abilities..." Is supply and demand but it doesn't act like supply and demand. Incentive is erased and thus productivity suffers. To be honest, with technology today, both capitalism and mild socialism would work. The problem is corporate welfare, lobbyist, and rediculous regulations based on misleading statistics. But really it is the monetary system. Money created out of thin air by banks. The Federal Reserve being the "Lender of last resort" makes banks fearless.
jgposner 3 years ago
good post
rickiller59 3 years ago
Capitalism is all about benefiting the rich, while fooling the middle/lower class into supporting it.
These small level "i have 10 you have 15" metaphors dont hold true when you are dealing with a whole country. you cant just simplify like that, its not the same
imthatguyyy 3 years ago
No, it's about supply and demand and a free market, rather than creating a useless welfare state. If you just take from the rich to give to the poor, the poor don't work and the rich hide their work.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
in forest there are ten deer to eat and ten hunters.one hunter who is slightly faster or stronger or smarter or maybe just luckier, catches all the deer before the others. When the other hunters come to this man and say "you have much more deer than you need, and we have families to feed" the first hunter says indignantly "I WORKED for these deer.What right do you have to take them from me?" that is capitalism.
BillaWoh 3 years ago
Wow, your avatar looks really familiar. Have we met before?
gypsybandito 3 years ago
You are probably a product of public education system... Work gives goods, and there is always more goods to exchange until some better knowing "equalizer" starts to divide them (redistribute).
grraadd 3 years ago
Yeah, only the thing is, in capitalism, the 'hunters' choose their own abilities, so can choose to be faster and stronger, etc.
SaviorOfLogic 2 years ago
@BillaWoh
Yea, Im gonna be the guy with ten deer. you're not afriad of a little competition are you? good luck hunting...
StoneThrowingDevil 7 months ago
of course capitalism is about sharing rescources. Its all about doing so in a unfair manner for the advantage of the elite. Socialism is to make it rather more equal
joshofbodom 3 years ago
im a shirt maker. i make ten shirts. youre a pants maker. you make ten pairs of pants. i want five pairs of pants and you want five shirts. i give you five shirts for five pants. we both profit. that's capitalism. simple as that.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I dunno, I think sustainable capitalism would feature a much more egalitarian distribution of resources.
gypsybandito 3 years ago
History shows socialism succeeds, not fails.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
Yeah right, look at the millions murdered in Russia.
foxrat123 3 years ago
Actually, Socialism is about equal distribution of resources and economics, not about holding anyone at gunpoint. If anything, pure capitalism holds people at gunpoint.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
Socialism is not Communism/Marxism. The latter is a totalitarian form of govt and DOES hold The People at gunpont; it's a police state.
Socialism is not a yes/no prospect...it's a spectrum. A democratic/market economy nation can choose a lot of socialism (Sweden) or choose less (Britain). So...socialism is an aspect of market driven democracies...has nothing to do with communism.
BTW, "pure" capitalism is not good and does not exist; All the western nations have significant govt regulation
JohnR22926 3 years ago
>>>Socialism is not Communism/Marxism
I never said it was. Socialism originated from Christian worker luddites in the 17th century, now a day Socialist are very different, and are much closer to Communism/Marxism, which isn't a promotion of authoritarian or totalitarian ideals, which such ideals call for the abolition of the state, no the the strengthening of the process.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
Neither Britain or Sweden are socialist or communist or of the sort. Government regulation is neither, they are just welfare states (of different degrees).
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
Socialism is just the "theoretical" stage between Capitalism and Communism, and it originated as it's own movement from Christians who disagreed with Communist and believed a state should just stay Socialist.
thetruedarkvision 3 years ago
What's the point? That capitalism and marxism aren't that far apart? They're both about "sharing resources"? You must be kidding. Marxism is about sharing resources at gunpoint. Total state control; the individual serves the state and is nothing but a tool...like a fleshy tractor. Captialism is a free and mutually beneficial exchange. Plus, the incomparable concept of "profit". A brilliant, automatic mechanism to measure efficiency and guide allocation of resources. History's verdict is in, pal.
JohnR22926 3 years ago
Actually Marx was against state control, he once said "Democracy is the road to Socialism." And in Marxian Communist theory the final goal is a stateless society. But I do agree that in the past the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has always been hijacked by the greedy and turned into a plain nd simple dictatorship.
zapata420 3 years ago
zapata: Some will argue that Marxism is true and correct, that the nations that tried to implement it made mistakes, and concluding that we should try Marxism again. IMO the implementation of Marxism in the 20th century was done by many countries and in EVERY instance it was a colossal failure. At some point, we must agree Marxism is a flawed concept and simply cannot work. A better prospect is to stick with representative democracy and market economies (with appropriate govt regulation).
JohnR22926 3 years ago
All we've seen of so-called "Marxism" were social experiments in under developed countries. In order for Communism to "work" it has to be a world economic system like capitalism has been for so long. It is very possible my friend, just not in our lifetme.
zapata420 3 years ago
Socialism is just the economics of sour grapes. I'm poor so that must be someone else's fault besides my own.
Maybe people were less responsible for their own lot in lives 150 years but today the blame lands squarely on the poor. At least in industrial nations.
coolbreezed 3 years ago
China is a state capitalism. The US has more in common with them than you know. The chinese are not socialists, sorry.
kittiest34 4 years ago
or they are diametrically opposed
abiddle726 4 years ago
overlaps?
from eatch acording to his ability to eatch acording to his need? equals suply demand?!
it think capitalism is more about from eatch acording to his INability to eatch acording to his GREED!
Quiebus 4 years ago
yeah this vid makes me go hmm too
seigneurvoland666 4 years ago
this video makes me go hmmmmmm
phileeep 4 years ago
interesting
nomekop321 4 years ago
great great great
deathrecycle 4 years ago