Alright, I don't understand how you can throw a bunch of out of context quotes on a video and call it an explanation as to why Capitalism (a financial model, not a government model) and Libertarian (a policy model, once again not government) is better than Socialism (neither a financial model, nor a policy model... however an actual form of government).
Apples = Oranges much?
The EU is a coalition of governments interested in common agendas. a series of treaties and agreements. Nothing more.
NO matter..the 'CaPiTaLi$tIc Communi$ Chine$e ARE 'winning' because they are the 'Be$t' hYpOcRiTiCaL 'GeNiU$e$' in this Ever CrAzY CONTROL fReAkIn' WHiRRL'd google....c...a...hl=en&cp=19&gs_id=1g&xhr=t&q=why+china+is+winning+the+economic+war&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&rlz=1R2GGLL_enCA330&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=why+china+is+winnin&aq=0v&aqi=g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e0ac38f65e05c554&biw=1024&bih=568
@Superwolf1337 Socialist does not necessarily mean what most people think. Nazi = National Socialist.
National = country
Socialist = for the greater good
Therefore Nazi = for the greater good of the country. Nazi is actually a slur used to identify anyone from the national socialist party in Germany. Na is from national in German. Zi is from whatever socialist is in German.
@Superwolf1337 Thank you, sorry I guess I missed your comments. Yes, that is essentially what they did. However the word socialism in the German language is different than in English and creates some confusion.
They meant it in the rawest form, however the working class - which unfortunately back then was uneducated... assumed it meant socialism in the pseudo-communist aspect. Those votes were misplaced and misinformed. However, it was the fundamental fear of communism that created Nazi's.
@JCMJFCM Spare us the "greater good" arguement, it's really what you beleive to be the greater good. Everyone has a different opinion of what Fairness is, where as Freedom we all have a pretty general understanding. This is why Freedom will always be better than Fairness.
@CyberTechWolf Spare me the "Individuality & Opportunity" argument, it's really the rich getting richer. Everyone is different and capitalism turns us all into dredges. We hate our jobs, we're the working class poor. How can anyone that works 40 hours a week no matter the job NOT have a livable wage? Its not what I think is "the common good", it's just common sense. We all have something to contribute to society and should be allowed to, not coerced into choosing slavery via debt over starving.
@JCMJFCM Right, so get government out of business and I can promise you the monopolies will fall. Slave labor, haha. You realize you can quit your job whenever you want right? The answer is yes, therefore it isn't slave labor, typical marxist arguments. In a Free Market Capitalist society there is oppertunity. Corporatism is what we have right now, and that only happens because the people allowed it to. Show me one instance where Free Market Capitalism did not work.
@CyberTechWolf Ok - America. Rigth here - right now. That is an instance where your "Free Market Capitalism" failed; it allowed modern day Corporatism to take over and reduce our societies to "I have a big house and big car = happy" when in reality we should all be concerned with the direction humanity as a species is going. It won't take long for us to become extinct in the grand scheme of things with our current ideologies.
@JCMJFCM America is NOT a Free Market Capitalist society. We haven't been for over 100 years, hell maybe even we are at the 200 year mark. With a comment like that you look almost as economically illiterate s Michael Moore. I agree that we need to get government out of business and business out of our politics, but I disagree with a Marxist solution.
@NobiscumDeus1 you are obviously fucked up in the head, social capitalism doesn't exist because it's socialism, and free market socialism doesn't exist becuse it's facism. But then again, you liberals have always been in favor of communism, socialism, and facism. While i go with capitalism, objectivism, and corporatism. Facism is not socialism, but it's decsended from socialism.
@Barry62152 Facism is not descended from Socialism. It is descended from the fear of socialism. It is not on the left side of the spectrum, but closer to your conservative agenda.
Fascism is free market enterprise taken to the extreme, just as communism is socialism taken to the extreme. Don't challenge an obvious truth. Hitler was elected because the people did not want communism to destroy everything they worked for, so he talked to Mussolini and they both came up with Fascism.
@JCMJFCM Oh no, another idiot liberal, You should know that socialism turns into other left wing systems, one is communism and 2nd is facism. That occurs when socialism is at it's worst. Free market enterprise is when you earn money by doing your job right, it's called capitalism. But since you hate us rich folk, you should live in a socialist country where you have no freedom at all, where you live in total slavery forever.
@Barry62152 No need for ad hominem you retarded conservative dipshit. Not once did I insult you, until you insulted me.
Secondly, Fascism is derived from intense fear of the left wing. It is a corrupted police state spawned from capitalist insecurities.
Socialism does not entail slavery. Do you have any understandings of pension funds or retirement? Disabilities? People whose lives got fucked over for reasons not their own?
Do they deserve to be fodder for the masses? Human rights > all
@JCMJFCM You still don't fuckin get it, do you? First, I don't remember insulting you unless if if you're a socialist idiot, a religious nut, or a canadian dipshit that loves socialism so goddamn much. Second, socialism once it's implemented gets worst and once it does it turns into 2 different systems, communsm and facism. Third, socialism is a new form of slavery because people in those countries don't have a choice in what career they want, like they do in capitalist countries. Socialist ass
@Barry62152 "Oh no, another idiot liberal, " = insult. If not, go back to school you fucking putz.
First things first. Germany was never socialist, neither was Italy... but they both became fascist via DEMOCRATIC MEANS. jesus christ, if you don't know this.... go end yourself.
Second... socialism can be implemented via democracy. You can still have freedom of choice AND a democratic government that implements socialist policies - think it doesn't exist? Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland
@JackyB92 I'll give you that one, I was just typing really fast there and happened to include them because it typically is a system in Nordic nations and somehow I decided to include Switzerland in that list. But yes, they are quite libertarian and conservative. My apologies for the misinformation.
@Barry62152 But, you are obviously too ignorant and blinded by your prejudices to know of anything that goes on in the world.... so I will leave you alone so you may go jerk off to Bill O'reilly or some other CNN propagandist bullshit.
Dude, social capitalism doesn't even exist, because its socialism which kills and exploits. Capitalism does not do that because its governed by what YOU want to do in the free market, what your also talking about is free market socialism, which also doesn't exist because its facism. But you know i can tell you liberal numbskulls are in favor of communism, socialism, and facism. But i'm in favor of capitalism and objectivism which saves jobs, money, and lives.
@Barry62152 Social-capitalism is a new idea that takes the best of socialism and capitalism. Anyways, people like you believe in that ideological capitalism that doesn't exist. In capitalism, the ones who govern are the rich that delude us that we have a choice. Free market are only for the rich, it's not for anyone. Socialism is not Fascism as Fascism is a corporate state. You're just a dreamer, and dreams are just for people who are asleep.
"Socialism is a new form of slavery". Why new? Maybe because capitalism was the other one? Random quotes from people who never experienced or studied socialism at it's fullest don't prove socialism wrong.
In capitalism, unless you are in the elite, you are a wage slave. You produce something but you get very little of it, as your production goes to the boss. In socialism, there's something called "To each according to his contribution". You might want to check it out.
@GeneralKlaas Capitalism is not slavery as you can choose who you work for or you can set up your own business. Well Ludwig Von Mises wrote the greatest dismissal of Socialism, FA Hayek used to be a socialist in his youth and before Pinochet came to power Chile was a mostly Socialist country.
I believe the correct quotation is "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". You are so incorrect it's not even funny.
@IrishLibertyLover The second statement "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" comes after socialism with communism, the next stage, in which the state is abolished. Mises theory of socialism not working is based on the impossibility for socialism to allocate resources for it doesn't have enough subordinates. This theory is not acceptable with the calculation progresses made in the years and with the modern technologies it is perfectly possible to regulate the econom
@IrishLibertyLover I call it slavery under form of "wage slavery". People are forced to work for somebody else if they can't start their own business. In this way the boss takes all the product the worker made and repays him with a little piece of the production. There is also a 10% unemployment in most of capitalist countries so it's not that simple to find the job you want. And I don't know about Hayek.
@GeneralKlaas That was merely a stepping stone to be taken during the conversion from capitalism to socialism. Which even itself is illogical seen as that is the system used in capitalism and is a complete contradiction of what socialism aims for.
Too for you that a lot of the families are atheistic and humanistic then! According to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll 60% of the British population are atheists. Other polls put it as high as 62% or 63%. The 2001 Census puts it at about 30%, I can't wait for the 2011 census results.
LOL the guy holding the gun at the end should be Capitalist/ lobbiest. See what A corporate company becomes a *person by law. Corporate pays less taxes then the next jo blow, but keep on thinking america is free. YOu are bound to debt currency like the rest of the world. We are all slaves.
@666or999 you have hit the nail on the head with this comment - there are no conservative capitalist countries in the world, USA was the last standing
You know, I don't care what people said, specially that quote of Pinochet. The truth is that pure Capitalism with libertarian thought will not work. It's the same with pure socialism and pure communism, both are idealistic but not realistic. Pure capitalism with liberterianism creates some sort of corporate state with the freedom of doing whatever they want. A proof for this is the Industrialize revolution, where children even work like ten hours with almost no rest. It was a dictatorship.
@NobiscumDeus1 Children work if their parents make them it has nothing to do with others. Pure capitalism means no goverment which is as Rothbard said anarchocapitalism. I want minimum goverment + free market. It was done once in America and it worked perfectly. The reason it collapsed is because socialists made it out to goverment and changed everything.
@Linek98 Tell that to the children, women and men that suffered in that age. It was a reason it gave birth to socialism. If it would be so perfect, socialism and communism wouldn't have existed. Moreover, there are more argument than those you speak of. It can turn into a corporate state, and as well make people work hard in properties like the owners want. The owners will find a way to do as best as he can to make more money without paying a lot to the workers.
@NobiscumDeus1 The only argument that has some logic sense against anarchocapitalism is that people would most probably force others into the country they create (it would be dictatorship country). There is no other known to me logically correct argument against this system.
@NobiscumDeus1 And also it's good to know that capitalism does nothing bad to human natural rights (freedom, free will etc) while communism tries to destroy them completly and create some sort of super human race. Capitalism does nothing about "there will be murdereres". In capitalism they are executed and thats all. In communism it's like "we have to make human race better so there is no murderers". Capitalism accept peoples imperfection which makes it pretty much real system.
@Linek98 It does, actually. It praises greed, and from greed many bad things happened, like Mafias and gangs. Communism is the control of those who want to impose their belief. Both will have the same end, and that is the destruction of the country. Wrong, both creates criminals, and both have given liberty to criminals. If you see the imperfections, why many capitalist praise the rich. Like I said, both are irrealistic and deluded.
@NobiscumDeus1 You don't understand. The thing is capitalism is economy system and doesn't care about crimes etc. This system is clear only as anarchocapitalism (no goverment means fully free market). Capitalism + libertarianism makes free market and it doesn't try to prevent any crimes. It just heavily punish criminals. Communism tries to prevent crimes which leads to slavery while capitalism leaves free will. Which means you can buy weapon and kill someone but your punishment is dead.
@NobiscumDeus1 If you leave no free will there is no good and bad people. Only and only then when you allow people to choose, moral rights can be created. If you try to prevent crimes slaving people (just like disallowing to bear knife) you are just acting like people were actually animals. This is what is happening today all over the world. people are treated like animals by socialistic/communistic goverments. Capitalism leaves free will which unlocks whole brain potential.
@Linek98 Free will is a delusion. We have a will according to our experiences. According to the perception of that free will, we choose our path and desicion. Moral right comes through reasoning, and like I said, our experience. Are you saying that we should permirt buglary, murdering, and rape? Wow... What socialist and communist government? Capitalism doesn't do that! A socio-capitalism will.
@NobiscumDeus1 I said that you should not try to force people do something but you should punish them for hurting others. If you make children not do something by force it will never learn and even try to do it in the future. Corporate state cannot happen in free market for one strong reason. Concurency. If someone offers bad paid jobs concurency will automaticaly offer good paid jobs to earn more money. Corporate state you are talking about is happening now because of social goverment.
@Linek98 If someone does something wrong, the person will pay. We will, of course, teach morality and ethics. You talk about socialism like everyone has a solder beside them. Nevertheless, the people must know what's best for the country, and what is not, unless you want a Mexico. Yeah, sure. There is one problem, when corporations become more stronger, they will do anything to maintain justice in silence. Not really. Social gov. will intervene, but in a capitalist, they will not.
@NobiscumDeus1 In Poland because of lack of concurency people are paid really low money and lack of concurency is because goverment makes companies pay money for almost everything and that makes new companies non profitable. In USA it refers to car companies etc. Because of lack of concurency goods made by companies are getting worst every day. They are not scared of bankruptcy because there is nobody to offer better staff then them.
@Linek98 I never talked of high taxes, but moderate ones. USA, companies pay low taxes, and even some pay none. Now, you can talk about the law in papers, but in action no. Some big corporations are even paying 0 taxes because they have money in other banks, or even have connection in the government. They find the excuse for their globalized corporations, and this is another reason why the capitalist government fail. Like I said, corporations should be nationalized so they pay low-moderate ones.
@NobiscumDeus1 Moral rights comes from experience you are right and thats why I said to don't force people do something but let them choose. If they know they can choose they will be more moral, thats really simple and completely true. Nobody can "make people work" they sign contract if they want it or not. That's free choice.
@Linek98 It's true, it comes from experience. You haven't read Machiavelli, isn't? If you read it, you will see corporations actions, political actions, and even sociecity's action. They will deceive, and try to control the society no matter what. Even if they have to put some sort of chip, which I am against of. The law, however, needs to be taught.
@NobiscumDeus1 Ofc people want power. This is our nature we have to deal with it. The thing is there is no known better solution then system which allows great amount of concurency which still ofc doesn't make it perfect solution. There is simply no perfect system but we have to choose the optimal one. Why USA isn't 100% slaves country yet? Because of countries like China which runs on pretty big economic freedom and thats why USA can't create complete slavery because China is the concurency.
@Linek98 We have to deal with it in a way that will not screw the country. If we destroy Mafia and gangs, then we get rid of one big problem. This is one reason I am in favor of legalizing drugs.The other problem is more stronger, which is economical and political. True, there is no perfect system, but we can try to make a good and quite stable. This is why I am against globalization. If USA concentrate on it's own business, then it would have been better.
@Linek98 By the way, sometimes jobs are not good. Whether their payments are low for their low education, or any external problems, like children with moral problem as their parents are the only ones that can help them in that area, they might turn into robbing. If the children see and learn from them, they will as well go robbing. It's a problematic cycle.
@NobiscumDeus1 The things is to let parents do what they think is best and not try to intervene in their family because the connection between you and the parents is same as master and slave because only slaves can't decide about their childrens.
@Linek98 If that so, we still have criminality. That's still applied today, and gangs still on the raise, and as well drugs. Parents sometimes do not know how to be parents. That's why people before they are married, or have parents, should be taught to be parents. This was applied once in Iran, or somewhere else( I don't remember the country), and parenting improve incredibly. The education was taken of by muslim conservatives, and now they have problems with parenting.
@NobiscumDeus1 Also you are talking about those childrens. Today many childrens don't work and are just destroying privte property of others, attacking people with knifes, etc. Ofc not everyone of them is doing it but there is large percentage of them doing so. This is because they have nothing else to do. They are bored. Because of parents cannot force them to work or hit them to show them they can't do some things they have no moral teacher anymore.
@Linek98 So you promote children labor too? A child should be studying, not wroking! By the way, those children with knife belong to poor families that have almost no money! Their parents should teach them sport, or buy them videogames, or even to read or many other activities. Of course, if they have no money, how do you expect them to do anything I just mentioned.
@NobiscumDeus1 Don't tell me that childrens doesn't act like that. I know they do and I know that no work/punishment for them is the reason. Ofc there are "no moral parents" that will not teach their childrens morality but this is what I said human imperfection. The thing is to allow those parents who wants their children to be moral teach them this morality as they will. Ofc I'm not saying to let them hit childrens to death or something but that will always happen doesn't matter what.
@NobiscumDeus1 And we can't place video camera in every single house to "prevent parents from tortuing childrens" because it will make those "good parents" not able to make their childrens "good" as well. We have to accept that some people are retarded Hitlers and just kill such people with no looking back. Socialism created high criminality and destroyed morality in Poland and I'm pretty much sure in other countries too, even if I've never been there.
Money, markets, capital, etc - NONE of these is inevitable. They have no special claim to being THE "natural" mode of organizing socially useful labor or distribution of goods.
Fundamentally there is a cultural reappraisal to be had, that will likely be faciliitated by a change in material conditions - the realization that we CAN do this differently, in the service of our own values, our own interests, and not that of a minority that passes off its greed as "nature."
@SecondAgeOfReason that does not make them socialist - equating nazis to socialist is an old trick to discredit socialism with little basis in reality
@conorucd reason(dot)com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt They use the EXACT same arguments. Their economic system is very similar. Statist socialism is top down national state planning in the economy and elsewhere. You can't add superficial qualifiers to keep the Nazis from being grouped. The common identifiers for fascism, however, involved a strong tie to the Catholic church, as well as a similar top down state approach marketed differently, so there is overlap.
@SecondAgeOfReason overlap - as i said equating nazis to socialists is an old tactic. i have not once seen it in any scholarly history article seen them described as socialist except for their name
@conorucd They are entirely similar statist systems with similar structures and goals. Some use religion, some use class divisions, and most all use crises to achieve their ends. You should actually read that article for some political similarities. Differentiating socialism and fascism becomes meaningless. The economic "third solution" crap is shared between all of them.
@SecondAgeOfReason you are confusing socialism for just another "third solution" and basing it on the fact that socialism is badly implemented by states. differentiating socialism from fascism is not meaningless, it is obvious it is appearent and it would have gotten me a big fat F in any history essay had I or anyone wrote the crap you are writing down
@conorucd I know how to ace a history essay and that does not make the shit true. You just write that FDR's spending programs or WWII spending helped America out of the great depression, etc. Many of the things you have to say are obviously false after any study of the topic. The "third solution" economic similarity is based on the exact policies of those mixed economies, not on socialism being badly implemented. The original fascists and state socialists used the same populist means for = ends.
@conorucd Not only did you see nothing of the facts in the article but proposed nothing of your own other than an appeal to popularity and/or vague appeal to authority. One must seek to accurately describe movements rather than relate superficial elements. Modern state socialism is itself different but the socialist and fascist movements after WWI shared more than most realize as they were nearly identical.
Reagan speaks about communism and then somehow one ends up with the EU and the Euro.
I wonder if the maker, when intending to wash his car ends up doing the dishes, cause those two are not quite the same either, you see.
Modern European "socialism" is ordinary capitalism with higher taxes and more gov. regulation that in e.g. the US that doesn't even have "socialism" and turned out to become an utterly totally bankrupt failure anyway.
@Efteling4Ever They should not have quoted him particularly because he was a tyrant but the free market reforms in Chile helped the economy and led to the reforms ending the dictatorship. China may be a similar story although they are working in much smaller steps toward freedom. I honestly have no idea why they would chose him though, lol, unless they are trolling
@dialoguequent Anyway what are you trying to tell me about natural selection because my english is propbably just not enough to understand your thoughts. How do you even imagine living WITHOUT any goods?
@dialoguequent You don't read what i write do you? I wrote "Or wait, animals actually has property". You just don't want to read and find something that doesn't exist in what I wrote. You are a communist and communism is not possible in any way. You all think that people without goverment would create a voluntary goverment that is simply NOT possible doesn't matter how you try to do it.
@dialoguequent No, then we will be animals, not humans anymore. Or wait, animals actually has property. Lion got his land that he protects. Anyway if we have no property who will get food for you? Where will you live? Come on thats just communist talk..
@dialoguequent No property is not possible. How do you think there could be no private property at all? Do you think it's even possible to just make it go? Then I can come to your house that is no longer your but belongs to everybody and I will take your laptop with me because it's as mine as yours. No property is not possible just like communism. No property is no humanity.
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
@wtfjaftw The capitalist class (now the ruling class) did not "poof" out of thin air. The capitalist estates arose out of mercantilism under the feudal order.
@OuTofJoY LMAO! Capitalist class? Socialists make up words everyday! LIAR! Capitalism is the means of a free market to exchange goods and services without government intervention. Capitalism is as old as civilization itself, or civilization would of never started. Because humans cannot undertake command and control economy without it falling apart in a few years. It's true the ruling class uses capitalism, and were stuck with socialism, but I think that just proves my point of what socialism is
@OuTofJoY When I buy a laptop. There is an agreement against me and the seller. I make him owner of my cash and he makes me owner of his laptop. Now my property is that laptop and his property is cash i paid with. Now we both possess something. If you say there is NO private property then you say that laptop is not 100% mine but still belongs in 50% (less/more) to the seller. This makes public property. If there is property there is also private property. Get over it.
Societies can arrange themselves along the lines of title. Clearly they do - though, this is almost NEVER done with the conscious recognition that it is the inter-subjective consensus which forms the basis of any customs which arise in this regard - instead such regressive systems show their barbarity by articulating the matter in terms of so called "natural rights."
This is the leftovers of theology. It's a ruling class hoax.
Once a society gets beyond the fiction of "property rooted in natural rights", the ability for conscious social negotiation of the topic is opened up, and useful questions can be asked. Like - for instance - what interest does a community have in protecting and respecting the accumulation of an individual that exceeds his abilityto maintain or use such things? What is our stake in supporting nepotism? And why not those who work also be the same as those who manage said labor?
@OuTofJoY So as you say you should have no property so your computer is pretty much as mine as it's your so I can go to your home and take it away, right? How do you even imagine behind those empty words of yours world without any goods? Communism does not exist and if it does then only for a very little while which probably will never happen anyway. It's simply against "the rules". You as others communists are trying to say that humans should act like gods which we clearly are not.
@Linek98 You fail to understand the difference between private property and personal property.
In a communist state you can own personal property. However, the means of production, that which generates the food, power and resources, must be owned jointly by the people.
@weaselfierce "Personal property" <- that's nothing more like private property but cutted down to something that can't be explained because my laptop can generate powerfull applications which are goods as well as is wood or stone. Also if I create some engine that generates power for my family so we have light etc (just by my own with my "personal goods"...) does it belong to me or to others already? Did my "personal goods" change to "public goods" because I made them one thing?
Nevermind that there is no intrinsic need for market allocation, mediation with currency, etc.
Or that the real, basic fact of use/possession could just as well be the standard for respect of a commodity's placement in a given person's hands, rather than "title" (nevermind perpetual title.)
Fair trade would be an exchange of equal value, rendering "profit" impossible.
"Profit" is the result of unmerited advantage and/or the impoverishment/ignorance of another (whereby he would consent to being ripped off to survive.)
@OuTofJoY You are wrong. Everyone evaluate things differently. Bread might be worth 1 back of salt for me and 2 backs for others. When you trade, both sides make profit. If I want my room painted and I think it's worth to spend 20 gold coins on then I will spend it. Both, me and the painter will make profit. I got something that is worth more (in my eyes) then 20 gold coins and the painter will paint my room and get something that is worth more (in his eyes) then the work he just did.
Don't confuse various methods of measuring use-value (and means of disciplining labor - one of which being "the market") with "value" itself.
"Value" is - for purposes of exchange - defined by social usefulness (use value.) Not all effort is "useful labor." Socially useful labor is the source of value in a commodity. Don't confuse the imprecision of the mechanism of evaluation for the source of the addition of value (labor) being appraised WITH an exchange value/price.
@OuTofJoY There is no "value itself". You are again completely wrong. You are using word "social" like there was no individual man but only groups of people. Value of goods is as big as much is man willing to give away for them. For example people are willing to pay for water more in africa then in europe. There is no "various methods..." there is only one method. If I can get 2 backs of salt for 1 bread then bread is worth 2 backs of salt and if salt is worth 1 gold coin then bread is worth 2.
It does. From income tax, through VAT, to taxes put on producers, who have to price higher just to make profit. The poor lose most here, because the wealthy can afford anything regardless. Take Poland. Official income tax has two steps: 18% and 32%, but when we include all the taxing, money lost to the state is about 83% of income. That's a lot more for the poor than the rich, dude.
>>It does. From income tax, through VAT, to taxes put on producers, who have to price higher just to make profit.
So your complaint isn't with socialism, it's with a government's tax system. Those change from country to country. Over here, if you make less than 24000 Zloty annually you are not taxed on your income. VAT and similar are per-state controlled.
If you still have market driven/disciplined production, money, wage labor/private ownership of means of production, and taxes, you don't have "socialism" - you have welfare-state capitalism. The proliferation of state-programs under capitalism is nothing other than life-support for said system, not "socialism."
what a bunch of retarded fascist Bull shit. You are anti revolutionaries You see your power slipping away and you are preemptively forming a counter revolution.
Pinochet really doesn't belong there...and his point isn't consistent with free market ideology. You don't have to treat rich people well. You have to treat them fairly. They can keep what they earn, no more and no less.
@2DRonaldo Your points are silly for diverse reasons so I'll be brief. 1) libertarians accept taxes to support the armed forces for defense. 2) roads would exist whether the government builds them or not. The fact that a thief buys me somethign with my money does not require me to thank him or assume that I wouldn't have what he bought if he didn't take my money. 3) the internet sucked until the free market grabbed it. 4) see 2. 5) see 1.
@2DRonaldo World is not a perfect place. Socialists who want to build a perfect world will build a prison , because a prison is the only place where you will get your "equality" and "order".
LOL, your views benefit the Minority, you lot should learn by now that the destiny of Humanity is governed by the MANY and not the Greedy few, you need US more than we need YOU.
I doubt you know anything about Socialism other than what your Rand Paul's, John Birchers etc. are feeding you at the Troth.
I don't want a 100% Socialist World, but where there is Greed, Corruption and a lack of Social Justice, you will give Birth to Socialist views, it's inevitable.
@2DRonaldo Wrong on so many levels. Basic math suggests that the only thing you achieve with socialism is making the poor poorer and the rich a lot poorer. Also you shift the wealth from people who have earned it, to politicians, who have no skill whatsoever and are unworthy of fortune.
Also, humanity is in decline since it's governed by the many. This MANY is as smart as it's dumbest member divided by the square root of it's quantity. The few - right or wrong, the many - always stupid.
>>the only thing you achieve with socialism is making the poor poorer and the rich a lot poorer
We live in a scaricity-based society. Socialism more evenly distributes wealth, which results in a society that benefits everyone but a fraction of a percent. However, in capitalism, that fraction of a percent has a really loud voice and lots of power, hence the "dispute."
Europeans tend to live much more comfortably than we do. It's all thanks to that "evil" socialism.
I am a European, friend. And I see the evils of socialism. Like the state closing sugar factories one day only to see sugar prices skyrocket the next. Because no one person or group of persons can handle the needs of millions. Only the millions - one by one - can.
> ...bunch of the top states in the world for quality of life.
Indeed, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia are known for epic quality of life.
> Socialism varies in practice from country to country
Brussels decides on the total collapse of Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Moscow decided to starve Ukraine. All the same.
>...a few CEOs?
You need to brush up on your knowledge of elementary terms. Monopoly, which you were clumsily meaning to refer to, is not a capitalist thing, it's socialist.
>>Indeed, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia are known for epic quality of life
In healthcare, for example, France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Malta are high on the list.
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands made the top ten list for places to live.
>>Monopoly, which you were clumsily meaning to refer to
No. I meant CEOs. Heads of companies which own vast franchises or service empires. They decide what's good for you. Also, monopolies naturally form under capitalism.
Yeah, it seems when you rely on a capitalist economy which creates bubbles, and there is international trade, when a bubble pops it drags the world with it.
>>That's it. Monopolies.
No, CEOs. They routinely decide for you.
>>they can't exist in capitalism
So Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil are just fantasy. The great trick of your ideology is to change the qualifiers of words. When a capitalist economy creates a monopoly, suddenly it isn't capitalist.
@kDest You:.. France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Malta..
Me: All half-bankrupt.
Who are you trying to fool?
> No, CEOs. They routinely decide for you.
If they decide for you only if you've one choice. That's socialist. Capitalism is multiple choices. If you don't, you've just found market for a different, perhaps superior, product. Go for it!
>So Carnegie Steel
Lol. Won with local competition only to lose with larger competition. Monopoly?
You're already fooled, so really I'm trying to unfool you.
>>Capitalism is multiple choices.
All owned by the same CEOs, who bought out their competition; or your choices are meaningless, like with insurance, no matter who you choose, none of them cover you.
>>If you don't
You're broke because your banks, jobs and potential competitors made you too poor to compete with them.
>>Monopoly
Those were textbook monopolies. Formed in a free market.
> like with insurance (...) none of them cover you
Create a company that does, tell everyone and see those fall due to inferior service. Serve the nation and become rich in the process. Do not fail to do so. If you do, you won't afford research and will fall to betters.
> banks
Why'd you give'em your money then? Check their integrity first, otherwise it's your fault.
> jobs
Quit and find another then! What? (You can't, due to worthless public education?)
>>Create a company that does, tell everyone and see those fall due to inferior service.
You don't understand insurance or capitalism. Capitalism works based on profitability. Insurance is most profitable when it covers the least number of people. Ergo, the most successful businesses are those which cover the fewest people, but manage to trick the most into signing on.
>>Why'd you give'em your money then
No other choices. Capitalism. CEOs/Bankers. Competition bought out.
@kDest >top healthcare providers are government-owned.
Top at what? Profit? You said it's nonprofit. QoS? Is that why every1 in Europe goes to private MD offices/clinics or even fly to US when requiring more than aspirin or prying the appendix with a crowbar? Here's how it works: people die in queues to cancer specialists or cope with agonizing toothache for months. When they reach the dentist, painkillers and fillings aren't refunded & they pay AGAIN. So they go to private doctors, who thrive!
Quality of coverage and care. Measured in terms of average lifespan, infant mortality, patients per doctor, etc. The top healthcare providers use universal (socialist) healthcare.
>>private MD offices/clinics or even fly to US when requiring more than aspirin or prying the appendix with a crowbar?
...
>>people die in queues to cancer specialists
Actually, they don't. That's propaganda that insurance profits pay for. It's cheaper to instill fear than provide service.
I'm not continuing this.You fail to address arguments, instead sloppily trying to exploit single words. You're going red herring all over me while exhibiting poor knowledge of economics. Not just it's finer processes, but the very definitions (COST OF PRODUCTION & PROFIT). You're throwing around slogans like "CEOs gave me no choice" - in fact selfcontradictory and divulging your uncritical, irresponsible state of mind. Return when you're more a knowledgable interlocutor than zealous troll
>>Return when you're more a knowledgable interlocutor than zealous troll
If you're just butthurt, you could excuse yourself with grace, you know. No need to manufacture conspiracy and excuses for your inability to argue a successful case. Your "facts" are plainly and demonstrably wrong.
'Basic Maths' Doubt very much you've done any sums into this? More like an opening line to sound smart.
The Peasants who couldn't read under the Czars, increased 10 fold under Lennon.. But of course, sadly, Stalin ruined all that.
Those dumb People you talk about are doing a good job so far in the Arab Springs.
Many die because of the Few like yourself, you're not saying anything to me that no Dictator hasn't said in order to keep their wealth and privilige. suck it up.
In short, it'll always be Mob Rule, the Many ALWAYS make the difference when they get sick of People like you hoarding their wealth and abusing their power.
It only takes one Spark to set off an Arab Spring, America, the way it's going is on it's way to having it's own Arab Spring, the many will not be silenced by the Plutocratic few.
I guarantee most of your life is in the hands of a Socialist Programme/Service paid for by the Federal Government.
It's Taxation/Socialism that gives you Schools to teach Children that an Education is better than Poverty/Crime.. I don't think you even comprehend how much Socialist Programs have bettered your life without you even knowing.
Most Anarcho-Capitalists are Hypocrites that feed off the very Socialist System they oppose.
@2DRonaldo Some taxes have to be payed and nobody is denying that, Such examples are military and police force.
As for schools or medical aid , all this can be done via a private schools system , still cheaper than being ripped off by the government. I have a private medical insurance , it doesnt cost me much , there is no "free" healthcare , you pay a lot more for it via taxes.
No, they couldn't and cannot. Do you know why child labor was such a big problem in the United States? People could NOT afford school, it was a luxury. When schools were made public, they became affordable, and mandatory attendance wiped out child labor's source.
Private healthcare maximizes profits by finding the optimal way to deny you coverage; public healthcare is not for profit and thus is universally available, plus it divides the costs more.
Why should "everyone" go to school, since most Americans prove that was a loss of money? And claiming that mandatory schooling eliminated child labour is illogical.
Private healthcare means business grows & you can help more people. Non-profit means your resources degenerate. Also, elementary economics suggest prices go 300% up with public healthcare. Soon, state can;t afford good healthcare. Everyone just goes to private doctors, while still paying the state (true in all of Europe atm)
Thank you. You just admitted you'd like to take us 150 years back.
>>claiming that mandatory schooling eliminated child labour is illogical
If you read history, and studied child labor, you'd understand why it worked. It turns out that when schools are too expensive and wages are low, children make great disposable workers. When schools are public, they are less expensive, and mandatory attendance reduces child exploitation.
Which is moot when it is public healthcare, and thus available to EVERYONE.
>>elementary economics suggest prices go 300% up with public healthcare
No, insurance company propaganda does. You see, part of your private healthcare costs go to spin media which is designed to cause fear of public healthcare.
>>Everyone just goes to private doctors
The best healthcare systems in the world are socialized. We're number 19 in the world. France is number 1.
Norway will be Carbon Neutral by 2030.. They will not be wasting much Oil which leads to a MANY Buisness Oppertuinities that are keeping the people of that Country happy.
American Tycoons have done EVERYTHING possible to stop renewable energy from being brought into America that would create THOUSANDS of Jobs.
The Rich are Parasitical control freaks that hinder progress.. If you hate the Government so much? then throw your Internet in the trash your taxes paid for that through the Military.
@2DRonaldo Are these the same Tycoons that are bragging about their green energy policies and lobbying congress for subsidies for their green energy projects that can't make money in an open market?
The idea that the rich are parasites is completely contradicted by even a wink at any evidence. Who pays taxes? The rich. Who creates jobs? The rich. Who works more hours, rich or poor? Rich. Who works more years of their lives rich or poor? Rich.
@2DRonaldo "American Tycoons have done EVERYTHING possible to stop renewable energy"
No wonder they dont want "green" energy , unlike complete idiots ruling europe . That :green" energy has to be heavily subsidized from TAXPAYERS money because of high cost and its inefficiency.
If "green" energy made ANY SENSE then private sector would have been producing it a long time ago.
Ahhh capitalism... thriving off the labors of asian slave children.... creating a wealthy few who have the power to pay off congress to make more money from themselves, less for others and create a rise in social immobility "hey, give us subsidies! not enough money? take it from the programs that help feed and educate the poor!"
I thought that was happening... but then i watched a video with quotes and spooky music and it changed my opinion!
@judofighter10 Ahhh you're absolutely right! Much better poor asians not have jobs at all! I mean, how dare they actually get paid for work rather than be starved and beaten to death in the field under the dictates of socialist superstars like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Kim Jong Il! Poor asians to Judofighter10, "You took our jobs!"
@tmoallen considering that the biggest reason for asians not creating their own jobs is the greed of corporations persuading other countries leaders to pass laws to help give them an outlet for cheap labor... your argument holds no water. Its the same thing that is happening domestically with corporate lobbyists.
and it seems like you, Mr."free market" would love if the asians created their own jobs.
@judofighter10 Hmmm, let's see. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore. Yes, I do love it when they create thier own jobs. It's makes the world and thier lives much, much better. The truth is, those jobs have brought them far more wealth than they ever had before, a country doesn't develope overnight. All wealthy capitalist societies started low and built up. It's how life works. You can't wave a socialist wand and create wealth, it must be built from the ground up in any place.
>>You can't wave a socialist wand and create wealth, it must be built from the ground up in any place.
The problem is that capitalist societies in the early stage fight to keep the working class poor and exploitable. We see this in modern nations where sweatshops exist. Predatory companies set up shop there and barely pay the workers anything, while taking in vast profits from the fruits of their labor.
@kDest I see, so capitalism is bad because it pays them, just not enough for your tastes, but socialism is good because it starves and beats them to death in the fields. Good thinking.
>>I see, so capitalism is bad because it pays them, just not enough for your tastes
Capitalism is bad because it deprives generations of people from realizing their dreams. It turns entire populations into cheap labor to be put under the heel of a wealthy ruling class. It is the opposite of egalitarianism.
>>but socialism is good because it starves and beats them to death in the fields.
Totalitarianism again? You really have no clue. In socialist Europe people are actually happy.
That's a false dichotomy. They could have well-paying jobs but the capitalists in their nation actively work against that.
>>socialist superstars
Those were totalitarian dictators. However, nice apologetics. Keep defending the capitalist faith through the spreading of slippery slopes and fear. Now tell us how our capitalist masters are all-loving, and gave us utopia until the serpent of SOCIALISM corrupted that Eden and banished us.
@kDest is apparently unaware that they are/were all socialist dictators! Which is quite amazing considering neither they nor the world have ever claimed or considered them to be anything else!
But you're right, look at the hell holes capitalism has produced in asia: Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea. The poverty stretches as far as the eye can see in those countries where capitalists have been actively working against well-paying jobs for decades.
Music? Who? What? Where? And the why is evident! It's epic!
BiffaTW 1 month ago
Alright, I don't understand how you can throw a bunch of out of context quotes on a video and call it an explanation as to why Capitalism (a financial model, not a government model) and Libertarian (a policy model, once again not government) is better than Socialism (neither a financial model, nor a policy model... however an actual form of government).
Apples = Oranges much?
The EU is a coalition of governments interested in common agendas. a series of treaties and agreements. Nothing more.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
NO matter..the 'CaPiTaLi$tIc Communi$ Chine$e ARE 'winning' because they are the 'Be$t' hYpOcRiTiCaL 'GeNiU$e$' in this Ever CrAzY CONTROL fReAkIn' WHiRRL'd google....c...a...hl=en&cp=19&gs_id=1g&xhr=t&q=why+china+is+winning+the+economic+war&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&rlz=1R2GGLL_enCA330&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=why+china+is+winnin&aq=0v&aqi=g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e0ac38f65e05c554&biw=1024&bih=568
JBME 4 months ago
Nazis were not socialists. They just said they were to get liberals to vote for/support them.
Superwolf1337 4 months ago
@Superwolf1337 Socialist does not necessarily mean what most people think. Nazi = National Socialist.
National = country
Socialist = for the greater good
Therefore Nazi = for the greater good of the country. Nazi is actually a slur used to identify anyone from the national socialist party in Germany. Na is from national in German. Zi is from whatever socialist is in German.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Good pooint, but the Nazi's main reason for calling themselves socialists was to get marxist working class people to support them.
Superwolf1337 2 months ago
@Superwolf1337 Thank you, sorry I guess I missed your comments. Yes, that is essentially what they did. However the word socialism in the German language is different than in English and creates some confusion.
They meant it in the rawest form, however the working class - which unfortunately back then was uneducated... assumed it meant socialism in the pseudo-communist aspect. Those votes were misplaced and misinformed. However, it was the fundamental fear of communism that created Nazi's.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Thanks for the history. You're pretty right. Nazi's seem to be far more scared of communists than communists are of Nazi's
Superwolf1337 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Spare us the "greater good" arguement, it's really what you beleive to be the greater good. Everyone has a different opinion of what Fairness is, where as Freedom we all have a pretty general understanding. This is why Freedom will always be better than Fairness.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Spare me the "Individuality & Opportunity" argument, it's really the rich getting richer. Everyone is different and capitalism turns us all into dredges. We hate our jobs, we're the working class poor. How can anyone that works 40 hours a week no matter the job NOT have a livable wage? Its not what I think is "the common good", it's just common sense. We all have something to contribute to society and should be allowed to, not coerced into choosing slavery via debt over starving.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Right, so get government out of business and I can promise you the monopolies will fall. Slave labor, haha. You realize you can quit your job whenever you want right? The answer is yes, therefore it isn't slave labor, typical marxist arguments. In a Free Market Capitalist society there is oppertunity. Corporatism is what we have right now, and that only happens because the people allowed it to. Show me one instance where Free Market Capitalism did not work.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Ok - America. Rigth here - right now. That is an instance where your "Free Market Capitalism" failed; it allowed modern day Corporatism to take over and reduce our societies to "I have a big house and big car = happy" when in reality we should all be concerned with the direction humanity as a species is going. It won't take long for us to become extinct in the grand scheme of things with our current ideologies.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM America is NOT a Free Market Capitalist society. We haven't been for over 100 years, hell maybe even we are at the 200 year mark. With a comment like that you look almost as economically illiterate s Michael Moore. I agree that we need to get government out of business and business out of our politics, but I disagree with a Marxist solution.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago 5
@NobiscumDeus1 you are obviously fucked up in the head, social capitalism doesn't exist because it's socialism, and free market socialism doesn't exist becuse it's facism. But then again, you liberals have always been in favor of communism, socialism, and facism. While i go with capitalism, objectivism, and corporatism. Facism is not socialism, but it's decsended from socialism.
Barry62152 4 months ago
@Barry62152 Facism is not descended from Socialism. It is descended from the fear of socialism. It is not on the left side of the spectrum, but closer to your conservative agenda.
Fascism is free market enterprise taken to the extreme, just as communism is socialism taken to the extreme. Don't challenge an obvious truth. Hitler was elected because the people did not want communism to destroy everything they worked for, so he talked to Mussolini and they both came up with Fascism.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Oh no, another idiot liberal, You should know that socialism turns into other left wing systems, one is communism and 2nd is facism. That occurs when socialism is at it's worst. Free market enterprise is when you earn money by doing your job right, it's called capitalism. But since you hate us rich folk, you should live in a socialist country where you have no freedom at all, where you live in total slavery forever.
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM FOREVER!
Barry62152 2 months ago
@Barry62152 No need for ad hominem you retarded conservative dipshit. Not once did I insult you, until you insulted me.
Secondly, Fascism is derived from intense fear of the left wing. It is a corrupted police state spawned from capitalist insecurities.
Socialism does not entail slavery. Do you have any understandings of pension funds or retirement? Disabilities? People whose lives got fucked over for reasons not their own?
Do they deserve to be fodder for the masses? Human rights > all
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM You still don't fuckin get it, do you? First, I don't remember insulting you unless if if you're a socialist idiot, a religious nut, or a canadian dipshit that loves socialism so goddamn much. Second, socialism once it's implemented gets worst and once it does it turns into 2 different systems, communsm and facism. Third, socialism is a new form of slavery because people in those countries don't have a choice in what career they want, like they do in capitalist countries. Socialist ass
Barry62152 2 months ago
@Barry62152 "Oh no, another idiot liberal, " = insult. If not, go back to school you fucking putz.
First things first. Germany was never socialist, neither was Italy... but they both became fascist via DEMOCRATIC MEANS. jesus christ, if you don't know this.... go end yourself.
Second... socialism can be implemented via democracy. You can still have freedom of choice AND a democratic government that implements socialist policies - think it doesn't exist? Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Lol, sorry but Switzerland isn't socialist. If anything they are far more conservative and libertarian than the US of A is at the moment.
JackyB92 2 months ago
@JackyB92 I'll give you that one, I was just typing really fast there and happened to include them because it typically is a system in Nordic nations and somehow I decided to include Switzerland in that list. But yes, they are quite libertarian and conservative. My apologies for the misinformation.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM No problem, it just made me chuckle slightly when I saw Switzerland on a list of 'socialist' nations :)
JackyB92 2 months ago
@Barry62152 But, you are obviously too ignorant and blinded by your prejudices to know of anything that goes on in the world.... so I will leave you alone so you may go jerk off to Bill O'reilly or some other CNN propagandist bullshit.
JCMJFCM 2 months ago
@JCMJFCM Fascism is Free Market? HAHAHA!!! Fascism is toltaltarinism. If the government controls the market then it isn't a Free Market.....
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
Dude, social capitalism doesn't even exist, because its socialism which kills and exploits. Capitalism does not do that because its governed by what YOU want to do in the free market, what your also talking about is free market socialism, which also doesn't exist because its facism. But you know i can tell you liberal numbskulls are in favor of communism, socialism, and facism. But i'm in favor of capitalism and objectivism which saves jobs, money, and lives.
Barry62152 5 months ago
@Barry62152 Social-capitalism is a new idea that takes the best of socialism and capitalism. Anyways, people like you believe in that ideological capitalism that doesn't exist. In capitalism, the ones who govern are the rich that delude us that we have a choice. Free market are only for the rich, it's not for anyone. Socialism is not Fascism as Fascism is a corporate state. You're just a dreamer, and dreams are just for people who are asleep.
NobiscumDeus1 4 months ago
Both communism and socialism kills and exploits, capitalism saves lives. You're obviously FUBAR, Fucked Up Beyond All Reconition.
Barry62152 5 months ago
@Barry62152
No. Capitalism also exploits and kills. Just look at Africa. I prefer social capitalism myself.
TheThordir 5 months ago
@TheThordir Why do we look to Africa? To see what an absence of Capitalism does?
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
capitalism has saved more lives than socialism, socialism kills.
Barry62152 5 months ago
@Barry62152 Communism kills, Socialism saves lives. Capitalism exploits.
dave19941000 5 months ago
"Socialism is a new form of slavery". Why new? Maybe because capitalism was the other one? Random quotes from people who never experienced or studied socialism at it's fullest don't prove socialism wrong.
In capitalism, unless you are in the elite, you are a wage slave. You produce something but you get very little of it, as your production goes to the boss. In socialism, there's something called "To each according to his contribution". You might want to check it out.
GeneralKlaas 5 months ago
@GeneralKlaas Capitalism is not slavery as you can choose who you work for or you can set up your own business. Well Ludwig Von Mises wrote the greatest dismissal of Socialism, FA Hayek used to be a socialist in his youth and before Pinochet came to power Chile was a mostly Socialist country.
I believe the correct quotation is "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". You are so incorrect it's not even funny.
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover The second statement "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" comes after socialism with communism, the next stage, in which the state is abolished. Mises theory of socialism not working is based on the impossibility for socialism to allocate resources for it doesn't have enough subordinates. This theory is not acceptable with the calculation progresses made in the years and with the modern technologies it is perfectly possible to regulate the econom
GeneralKlaas 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover I call it slavery under form of "wage slavery". People are forced to work for somebody else if they can't start their own business. In this way the boss takes all the product the worker made and repays him with a little piece of the production. There is also a 10% unemployment in most of capitalist countries so it's not that simple to find the job you want. And I don't know about Hayek.
GeneralKlaas 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover Also google "To each according to his contribution" you will see I was correct
GeneralKlaas 5 months ago
@GeneralKlaas That was merely a stepping stone to be taken during the conversion from capitalism to socialism. Which even itself is illogical seen as that is the system used in capitalism and is a complete contradiction of what socialism aims for.
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover No it comes following the transition to socialism but before communism.
GeneralKlaas 5 months ago
Great video but putting Reagan in it kinda taints the whole thing.
He talked the talk but didnt walk the walk
chriswroads 5 months ago
Very good video,,, but you forgot the best one: "In socialism everybody will become equal, equally poor" -Ron Paul
bjarnet3 5 months ago
@MrUKIndependence
Too for you that a lot of the families are atheistic and humanistic then! According to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll 60% of the British population are atheists. Other polls put it as high as 62% or 63%. The 2001 Census puts it at about 30%, I can't wait for the 2011 census results.
Anon12356 5 months ago
@Anon12356
*too bad
Anon12356 5 months ago
@Anon12356
*actually I should say too bad for than liar Monockton, which is who you took that quote from.
Anon12356 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up, so true!
kimberHD45 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mao's purges and farm policies = 50 million dead
Stalin's Holomodor Genocide = 23 million dead
Pol Pot = 2 million dead
Yep, communism sure is great!
LizardHouse 5 months ago
great video, anybody know the music?
molimhvalaizvoli 5 months ago
@molimhvalaizvoli Two Steps From Hell- "Protectors of the Earth"
Goodatconnect4 5 months ago
LOL the guy holding the gun at the end should be Capitalist/ lobbiest. See what A corporate company becomes a *person by law. Corporate pays less taxes then the next jo blow, but keep on thinking america is free. YOu are bound to debt currency like the rest of the world. We are all slaves.
unpredictable420 6 months ago
@unpredictable420 corporatism is not capatilism and i don't think any libertarian believes america is capatilist or free.
666or999 5 months ago
@666or999 you have hit the nail on the head with this comment - there are no conservative capitalist countries in the world, USA was the last standing
molimhvalaizvoli 5 months ago
You know, I don't care what people said, specially that quote of Pinochet. The truth is that pure Capitalism with libertarian thought will not work. It's the same with pure socialism and pure communism, both are idealistic but not realistic. Pure capitalism with liberterianism creates some sort of corporate state with the freedom of doing whatever they want. A proof for this is the Industrialize revolution, where children even work like ten hours with almost no rest. It was a dictatorship.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Children work if their parents make them it has nothing to do with others. Pure capitalism means no goverment which is as Rothbard said anarchocapitalism. I want minimum goverment + free market. It was done once in America and it worked perfectly. The reason it collapsed is because socialists made it out to goverment and changed everything.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 Tell that to the children, women and men that suffered in that age. It was a reason it gave birth to socialism. If it would be so perfect, socialism and communism wouldn't have existed. Moreover, there are more argument than those you speak of. It can turn into a corporate state, and as well make people work hard in properties like the owners want. The owners will find a way to do as best as he can to make more money without paying a lot to the workers.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 The only argument that has some logic sense against anarchocapitalism is that people would most probably force others into the country they create (it would be dictatorship country). There is no other known to me logically correct argument against this system.
Linek98 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 And also it's good to know that capitalism does nothing bad to human natural rights (freedom, free will etc) while communism tries to destroy them completly and create some sort of super human race. Capitalism does nothing about "there will be murdereres". In capitalism they are executed and thats all. In communism it's like "we have to make human race better so there is no murderers". Capitalism accept peoples imperfection which makes it pretty much real system.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 It does, actually. It praises greed, and from greed many bad things happened, like Mafias and gangs. Communism is the control of those who want to impose their belief. Both will have the same end, and that is the destruction of the country. Wrong, both creates criminals, and both have given liberty to criminals. If you see the imperfections, why many capitalist praise the rich. Like I said, both are irrealistic and deluded.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 You don't understand. The thing is capitalism is economy system and doesn't care about crimes etc. This system is clear only as anarchocapitalism (no goverment means fully free market). Capitalism + libertarianism makes free market and it doesn't try to prevent any crimes. It just heavily punish criminals. Communism tries to prevent crimes which leads to slavery while capitalism leaves free will. Which means you can buy weapon and kill someone but your punishment is dead.
Linek98 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 If you leave no free will there is no good and bad people. Only and only then when you allow people to choose, moral rights can be created. If you try to prevent crimes slaving people (just like disallowing to bear knife) you are just acting like people were actually animals. This is what is happening today all over the world. people are treated like animals by socialistic/communistic goverments. Capitalism leaves free will which unlocks whole brain potential.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 Free will is a delusion. We have a will according to our experiences. According to the perception of that free will, we choose our path and desicion. Moral right comes through reasoning, and like I said, our experience. Are you saying that we should permirt buglary, murdering, and rape? Wow... What socialist and communist government? Capitalism doesn't do that! A socio-capitalism will.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 I said that you should not try to force people do something but you should punish them for hurting others. If you make children not do something by force it will never learn and even try to do it in the future. Corporate state cannot happen in free market for one strong reason. Concurency. If someone offers bad paid jobs concurency will automaticaly offer good paid jobs to earn more money. Corporate state you are talking about is happening now because of social goverment.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 If someone does something wrong, the person will pay. We will, of course, teach morality and ethics. You talk about socialism like everyone has a solder beside them. Nevertheless, the people must know what's best for the country, and what is not, unless you want a Mexico. Yeah, sure. There is one problem, when corporations become more stronger, they will do anything to maintain justice in silence. Not really. Social gov. will intervene, but in a capitalist, they will not.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 In Poland because of lack of concurency people are paid really low money and lack of concurency is because goverment makes companies pay money for almost everything and that makes new companies non profitable. In USA it refers to car companies etc. Because of lack of concurency goods made by companies are getting worst every day. They are not scared of bankruptcy because there is nobody to offer better staff then them.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 I never talked of high taxes, but moderate ones. USA, companies pay low taxes, and even some pay none. Now, you can talk about the law in papers, but in action no. Some big corporations are even paying 0 taxes because they have money in other banks, or even have connection in the government. They find the excuse for their globalized corporations, and this is another reason why the capitalist government fail. Like I said, corporations should be nationalized so they pay low-moderate ones.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Moral rights comes from experience you are right and thats why I said to don't force people do something but let them choose. If they know they can choose they will be more moral, thats really simple and completely true. Nobody can "make people work" they sign contract if they want it or not. That's free choice.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 It's true, it comes from experience. You haven't read Machiavelli, isn't? If you read it, you will see corporations actions, political actions, and even sociecity's action. They will deceive, and try to control the society no matter what. Even if they have to put some sort of chip, which I am against of. The law, however, needs to be taught.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Ofc people want power. This is our nature we have to deal with it. The thing is there is no known better solution then system which allows great amount of concurency which still ofc doesn't make it perfect solution. There is simply no perfect system but we have to choose the optimal one. Why USA isn't 100% slaves country yet? Because of countries like China which runs on pretty big economic freedom and thats why USA can't create complete slavery because China is the concurency.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 We have to deal with it in a way that will not screw the country. If we destroy Mafia and gangs, then we get rid of one big problem. This is one reason I am in favor of legalizing drugs.The other problem is more stronger, which is economical and political. True, there is no perfect system, but we can try to make a good and quite stable. This is why I am against globalization. If USA concentrate on it's own business, then it would have been better.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 And this is one of the reasons USA is trying to destroy western countries like Libia etc.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 By the way, sometimes jobs are not good. Whether their payments are low for their low education, or any external problems, like children with moral problem as their parents are the only ones that can help them in that area, they might turn into robbing. If the children see and learn from them, they will as well go robbing. It's a problematic cycle.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 The things is to let parents do what they think is best and not try to intervene in their family because the connection between you and the parents is same as master and slave because only slaves can't decide about their childrens.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 If that so, we still have criminality. That's still applied today, and gangs still on the raise, and as well drugs. Parents sometimes do not know how to be parents. That's why people before they are married, or have parents, should be taught to be parents. This was applied once in Iran, or somewhere else( I don't remember the country), and parenting improve incredibly. The education was taken of by muslim conservatives, and now they have problems with parenting.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Why do you want to force people to have no children unless you let them? This is tyrany.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 What the...? No! Help them to be parents!
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NobiscumDeus1 And if they dont want your "help"?
Linek98 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Also you are talking about those childrens. Today many childrens don't work and are just destroying privte property of others, attacking people with knifes, etc. Ofc not everyone of them is doing it but there is large percentage of them doing so. This is because they have nothing else to do. They are bored. Because of parents cannot force them to work or hit them to show them they can't do some things they have no moral teacher anymore.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 So you promote children labor too? A child should be studying, not wroking! By the way, those children with knife belong to poor families that have almost no money! Their parents should teach them sport, or buy them videogames, or even to read or many other activities. Of course, if they have no money, how do you expect them to do anything I just mentioned.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 If their family has no money they can go to some job and earn money for themselves and family instead of robbing people.
Linek98 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 Don't tell me that childrens doesn't act like that. I know they do and I know that no work/punishment for them is the reason. Ofc there are "no moral parents" that will not teach their childrens morality but this is what I said human imperfection. The thing is to allow those parents who wants their children to be moral teach them this morality as they will. Ofc I'm not saying to let them hit childrens to death or something but that will always happen doesn't matter what.
Linek98 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 And we can't place video camera in every single house to "prevent parents from tortuing childrens" because it will make those "good parents" not able to make their childrens "good" as well. We have to accept that some people are retarded Hitlers and just kill such people with no looking back. Socialism created high criminality and destroyed morality in Poland and I'm pretty much sure in other countries too, even if I've never been there.
Linek98 6 months ago
@NobiscumDeus1 When I write capitalism I mean capitalism + libertarianism. Youtube disallows long messages so I wont use this long name.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 When I am refering to capitalism here, I am also refering the libertarian views.
NobiscumDeus1 6 months ago
whats the song?
molimhvalaizvoli 6 months ago
@dialoguequent
Money, markets, capital, etc - NONE of these is inevitable. They have no special claim to being THE "natural" mode of organizing socially useful labor or distribution of goods.
Fundamentally there is a cultural reappraisal to be had, that will likely be faciliitated by a change in material conditions - the realization that we CAN do this differently, in the service of our own values, our own interests, and not that of a minority that passes off its greed as "nature."
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
how the fuck was nazism socialism - just because they used the name?
conorucd 6 months ago
@conorucd They did keynesian projects similar to Roosevelt and nationalized things. They also always spoke of collective good.
SecondAgeOfReason 6 months ago
@SecondAgeOfReason that does not make them socialist - equating nazis to socialist is an old trick to discredit socialism with little basis in reality
conorucd 6 months ago
@conorucd reason(dot)com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt They use the EXACT same arguments. Their economic system is very similar. Statist socialism is top down national state planning in the economy and elsewhere. You can't add superficial qualifiers to keep the Nazis from being grouped. The common identifiers for fascism, however, involved a strong tie to the Catholic church, as well as a similar top down state approach marketed differently, so there is overlap.
SecondAgeOfReason 6 months ago
@SecondAgeOfReason overlap - as i said equating nazis to socialists is an old tactic. i have not once seen it in any scholarly history article seen them described as socialist except for their name
conorucd 6 months ago
@conorucd They are entirely similar statist systems with similar structures and goals. Some use religion, some use class divisions, and most all use crises to achieve their ends. You should actually read that article for some political similarities. Differentiating socialism and fascism becomes meaningless. The economic "third solution" crap is shared between all of them.
SecondAgeOfReason 6 months ago
@SecondAgeOfReason you are confusing socialism for just another "third solution" and basing it on the fact that socialism is badly implemented by states. differentiating socialism from fascism is not meaningless, it is obvious it is appearent and it would have gotten me a big fat F in any history essay had I or anyone wrote the crap you are writing down
conorucd 6 months ago
@conorucd I know how to ace a history essay and that does not make the shit true. You just write that FDR's spending programs or WWII spending helped America out of the great depression, etc. Many of the things you have to say are obviously false after any study of the topic. The "third solution" economic similarity is based on the exact policies of those mixed economies, not on socialism being badly implemented. The original fascists and state socialists used the same populist means for = ends.
SecondAgeOfReason 6 months ago
@SecondAgeOfReason i wasn't talking about american education, in other countries we like to be fair, balanced and use facts. bye.
conorucd 6 months ago
@conorucd Not only did you see nothing of the facts in the article but proposed nothing of your own other than an appeal to popularity and/or vague appeal to authority. One must seek to accurately describe movements rather than relate superficial elements. Modern state socialism is itself different but the socialist and fascist movements after WWI shared more than most realize as they were nearly identical.
SecondAgeOfReason 6 months ago
Reagan speaks about communism and then somehow one ends up with the EU and the Euro.
I wonder if the maker, when intending to wash his car ends up doing the dishes, cause those two are not quite the same either, you see.
Modern European "socialism" is ordinary capitalism with higher taxes and more gov. regulation that in e.g. the US that doesn't even have "socialism" and turned out to become an utterly totally bankrupt failure anyway.
So in the end capitalism shoots capitalism. LOL
Efteling4Ever 6 months ago
This is about the poorest saddest vid I have seen. Just something among all the crap in there.
Example: "one should treat rich people well so they make more money" by a .... dictator.
FUUUUUCK. Really, one should slave one's butt of so a rich guy can become richer, esp. a dictator? LOOOOL
Efteling4Ever 6 months ago
@Efteling4Ever They should not have quoted him particularly because he was a tyrant but the free market reforms in Chile helped the economy and led to the reforms ending the dictatorship. China may be a similar story although they are working in much smaller steps toward freedom. I honestly have no idea why they would chose him though, lol, unless they are trolling
SecondAgeOfReason 6 months ago
@dialoguequent Anyway what are you trying to tell me about natural selection because my english is propbably just not enough to understand your thoughts. How do you even imagine living WITHOUT any goods?
Linek98 6 months ago
@dialoguequent You don't read what i write do you? I wrote "Or wait, animals actually has property". You just don't want to read and find something that doesn't exist in what I wrote. You are a communist and communism is not possible in any way. You all think that people without goverment would create a voluntary goverment that is simply NOT possible doesn't matter how you try to do it.
Linek98 6 months ago
@dialoguequent No, then we will be animals, not humans anymore. Or wait, animals actually has property. Lion got his land that he protects. Anyway if we have no property who will get food for you? Where will you live? Come on thats just communist talk..
Linek98 6 months ago
@dialoguequent No property is not possible. How do you think there could be no private property at all? Do you think it's even possible to just make it go? Then I can come to your house that is no longer your but belongs to everybody and I will take your laptop with me because it's as mine as yours. No property is not possible just like communism. No property is no humanity.
Linek98 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics is published in October by W.W.Norton. See website: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 7 months ago
PROPERTY *IS* SOCIAL
Standards for the acquisition/retention of property ARE a matter of inter-subjective consensus.
The "private property" of the mercantile (capitalist) revolutionaries was inherited from the "divine right" of feudal kings and their nobles.
This was an improvement insofar as it (in principle) rendered to all what had previously only applied to the few.
But it still kept alive a DAMNED LIE - that "property" was not subject to consensus, but had a magical relation to owners.
OuTofJoY 7 months ago
@OuTofJoY Funny mercantilism is not free market capitalism, it's protectionism!
wtfjaftw 7 months ago
@wtfjaftw The capitalist class (now the ruling class) did not "poof" out of thin air. The capitalist estates arose out of mercantilism under the feudal order.
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
@OuTofJoY LMAO! Capitalist class? Socialists make up words everyday! LIAR! Capitalism is the means of a free market to exchange goods and services without government intervention. Capitalism is as old as civilization itself, or civilization would of never started. Because humans cannot undertake command and control economy without it falling apart in a few years. It's true the ruling class uses capitalism, and were stuck with socialism, but I think that just proves my point of what socialism is
wtfjaftw 6 months ago
@OuTofJoY When I buy a laptop. There is an agreement against me and the seller. I make him owner of my cash and he makes me owner of his laptop. Now my property is that laptop and his property is cash i paid with. Now we both possess something. If you say there is NO private property then you say that laptop is not 100% mine but still belongs in 50% (less/more) to the seller. This makes public property. If there is property there is also private property. Get over it.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98
Societies can arrange themselves along the lines of title. Clearly they do - though, this is almost NEVER done with the conscious recognition that it is the inter-subjective consensus which forms the basis of any customs which arise in this regard - instead such regressive systems show their barbarity by articulating the matter in terms of so called "natural rights."
This is the leftovers of theology. It's a ruling class hoax.
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
@Linek98
Once a society gets beyond the fiction of "property rooted in natural rights", the ability for conscious social negotiation of the topic is opened up, and useful questions can be asked. Like - for instance - what interest does a community have in protecting and respecting the accumulation of an individual that exceeds his abilityto maintain or use such things? What is our stake in supporting nepotism? And why not those who work also be the same as those who manage said labor?
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
@OuTofJoY So as you say you should have no property so your computer is pretty much as mine as it's your so I can go to your home and take it away, right? How do you even imagine behind those empty words of yours world without any goods? Communism does not exist and if it does then only for a very little while which probably will never happen anyway. It's simply against "the rules". You as others communists are trying to say that humans should act like gods which we clearly are not.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98 You fail to understand the difference between private property and personal property.
In a communist state you can own personal property. However, the means of production, that which generates the food, power and resources, must be owned jointly by the people.
weaselfierce 6 months ago
@weaselfierce "Personal property" <- that's nothing more like private property but cutted down to something that can't be explained because my laptop can generate powerfull applications which are goods as well as is wood or stone. Also if I create some engine that generates power for my family so we have light etc (just by my own with my "personal goods"...) does it belong to me or to others already? Did my "personal goods" change to "public goods" because I made them one thing?
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98
Nevermind that there is no intrinsic need for market allocation, mediation with currency, etc.
Or that the real, basic fact of use/possession could just as well be the standard for respect of a commodity's placement in a given person's hands, rather than "title" (nevermind perpetual title.)
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
AYN RAND IS A SOCIOPATHIC BUFFOON
The notion that LIBERTY is an exemption from SOCIAL REALITY is as childish a conceit as feeling one is not free so long as there is gravity.
Society no more constrains us than the laws of nature - for we have NO EXISTENCE outside of EITHER!
Such a desire is the conceit of SUPERSTITION, and its FALSE mind/body dualism.
Liberty then, as a real thing, is SOCIAL as much as man is nature.
OuTofJoY 7 months ago
CAPITALISM IS USURY
Fair trade would be an exchange of equal value, rendering "profit" impossible.
"Profit" is the result of unmerited advantage and/or the impoverishment/ignorance of another (whereby he would consent to being ripped off to survive.)
Any way you slice it, it is PARASITISM.
OuTofJoY 7 months ago
@OuTofJoY You are wrong. Everyone evaluate things differently. Bread might be worth 1 back of salt for me and 2 backs for others. When you trade, both sides make profit. If I want my room painted and I think it's worth to spend 20 gold coins on then I will spend it. Both, me and the painter will make profit. I got something that is worth more (in my eyes) then 20 gold coins and the painter will paint my room and get something that is worth more (in his eyes) then the work he just did.
Linek98 6 months ago
@Linek98
Don't confuse various methods of measuring use-value (and means of disciplining labor - one of which being "the market") with "value" itself.
"Value" is - for purposes of exchange - defined by social usefulness (use value.) Not all effort is "useful labor." Socially useful labor is the source of value in a commodity. Don't confuse the imprecision of the mechanism of evaluation for the source of the addition of value (labor) being appraised WITH an exchange value/price.
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
@OuTofJoY There is no "value itself". You are again completely wrong. You are using word "social" like there was no individual man but only groups of people. Value of goods is as big as much is man willing to give away for them. For example people are willing to pay for water more in africa then in europe. There is no "various methods..." there is only one method. If I can get 2 backs of salt for 1 bread then bread is worth 2 backs of salt and if salt is worth 1 gold coin then bread is worth 2.
Linek98 6 months ago
> Socialism doesn't tax the poor.
It does. From income tax, through VAT, to taxes put on producers, who have to price higher just to make profit. The poor lose most here, because the wealthy can afford anything regardless. Take Poland. Official income tax has two steps: 18% and 32%, but when we include all the taxing, money lost to the state is about 83% of income. That's a lot more for the poor than the rich, dude.
samyazza23 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@samyazza23
>>It does. From income tax, through VAT, to taxes put on producers, who have to price higher just to make profit.
So your complaint isn't with socialism, it's with a government's tax system. Those change from country to country. Over here, if you make less than 24000 Zloty annually you are not taxed on your income. VAT and similar are per-state controlled.
>>money lost to the state is about 83% of income
You need serious government reforms then.
kDest 7 months ago
@samyazza23
If you still have market driven/disciplined production, money, wage labor/private ownership of means of production, and taxes, you don't have "socialism" - you have welfare-state capitalism. The proliferation of state-programs under capitalism is nothing other than life-support for said system, not "socialism."
OuTofJoY 6 months ago
what a bunch of retarded fascist Bull shit. You are anti revolutionaries You see your power slipping away and you are preemptively forming a counter revolution.
N0g0dzN0masterz 8 months ago
Pinochet really doesn't belong there...and his point isn't consistent with free market ideology. You don't have to treat rich people well. You have to treat them fairly. They can keep what they earn, no more and no less.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
If you don't like paying Taxes I suggest you don't ask the US Army/National Guard not to protect you from foreign invaders.
Don't use Roads to get to Work, don't use Medicare if you get Sick.
Throw your Internet out the Window, it was a Military Project, paid by Tax Dollars.
Don't throw your trash out expecting it to be picked up.
Allow Companies to pollute the Air you breathe; Do I need to go on about how much Taxes pay for your standard of living?
2DRonaldo 8 months ago
@2DRonaldo Your points are silly for diverse reasons so I'll be brief. 1) libertarians accept taxes to support the armed forces for defense. 2) roads would exist whether the government builds them or not. The fact that a thief buys me somethign with my money does not require me to thank him or assume that I wouldn't have what he bought if he didn't take my money. 3) the internet sucked until the free market grabbed it. 4) see 2. 5) see 1.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@2DRonaldo World is not a perfect place. Socialists who want to build a perfect world will build a prison , because a prison is the only place where you will get your "equality" and "order".
Zaragoza2006 8 months ago
@Zaragoza2006
LOL, your views benefit the Minority, you lot should learn by now that the destiny of Humanity is governed by the MANY and not the Greedy few, you need US more than we need YOU.
I doubt you know anything about Socialism other than what your Rand Paul's, John Birchers etc. are feeding you at the Troth.
I don't want a 100% Socialist World, but where there is Greed, Corruption and a lack of Social Justice, you will give Birth to Socialist views, it's inevitable.
2DRonaldo 7 months ago
@2DRonaldo Wrong on so many levels. Basic math suggests that the only thing you achieve with socialism is making the poor poorer and the rich a lot poorer. Also you shift the wealth from people who have earned it, to politicians, who have no skill whatsoever and are unworthy of fortune.
Also, humanity is in decline since it's governed by the many. This MANY is as smart as it's dumbest member divided by the square root of it's quantity. The few - right or wrong, the many - always stupid.
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>the only thing you achieve with socialism is making the poor poorer and the rich a lot poorer
We live in a scaricity-based society. Socialism more evenly distributes wealth, which results in a society that benefits everyone but a fraction of a percent. However, in capitalism, that fraction of a percent has a really loud voice and lots of power, hence the "dispute."
Europeans tend to live much more comfortably than we do. It's all thanks to that "evil" socialism.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest
I am a European, friend. And I see the evils of socialism. Like the state closing sugar factories one day only to see sugar prices skyrocket the next. Because no one person or group of persons can handle the needs of millions. Only the millions - one by one - can.
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>I am a European, friend
You aren't very well informed despite living in the middle of a bunch of the top states in the world for quality of life.
>>And I see the evils of socialism
Socialism varies in practice from country to country, just like government.
>>Because no one person or group of persons can handle the needs of millions
So why would you put that kind of power into the hands of a few CEOs? You think THEY know or even care what is good for you?
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest
> ...bunch of the top states in the world for quality of life.
Indeed, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia are known for epic quality of life.
> Socialism varies in practice from country to country
Brussels decides on the total collapse of Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Moscow decided to starve Ukraine. All the same.
>...a few CEOs?
You need to brush up on your knowledge of elementary terms. Monopoly, which you were clumsily meaning to refer to, is not a capitalist thing, it's socialist.
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>Indeed, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia are known for epic quality of life
In healthcare, for example, France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Malta are high on the list.
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands made the top ten list for places to live.
>>Monopoly, which you were clumsily meaning to refer to
No. I meant CEOs. Heads of companies which own vast franchises or service empires. They decide what's good for you. Also, monopolies naturally form under capitalism.
kDest 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest
> In healthcare, for example, France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Malta are high on the list.
All half-bankrupt. We'll see how good their healthcare is when they're starving to death.
>Denmark (...) made the top ten list for places to live.
And have negative economic growth. Soldiers who are comfortable in the barracks don't win wars.
> They decide what's good for you.
That's it. Monopolies. Glad you got to that yourself. Now go learn why they can't exist in capitalism.
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>All half-bankrupt
Yeah, it seems when you rely on a capitalist economy which creates bubbles, and there is international trade, when a bubble pops it drags the world with it.
>>That's it. Monopolies.
No, CEOs. They routinely decide for you.
>>they can't exist in capitalism
So Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil are just fantasy. The great trick of your ideology is to change the qualifiers of words. When a capitalist economy creates a monopoly, suddenly it isn't capitalist.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest You:.. France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Malta..
Me: All half-bankrupt.
Who are you trying to fool?
> No, CEOs. They routinely decide for you.
If they decide for you only if you've one choice. That's socialist. Capitalism is multiple choices. If you don't, you've just found market for a different, perhaps superior, product. Go for it!
>So Carnegie Steel
Lol. Won with local competition only to lose with larger competition. Monopoly?
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>Who are you trying to fool?
You're already fooled, so really I'm trying to unfool you.
>>Capitalism is multiple choices.
All owned by the same CEOs, who bought out their competition; or your choices are meaningless, like with insurance, no matter who you choose, none of them cover you.
>>If you don't
You're broke because your banks, jobs and potential competitors made you too poor to compete with them.
>>Monopoly
Those were textbook monopolies. Formed in a free market.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest
> like with insurance (...) none of them cover you
Create a company that does, tell everyone and see those fall due to inferior service. Serve the nation and become rich in the process. Do not fail to do so. If you do, you won't afford research and will fall to betters.
> banks
Why'd you give'em your money then? Check their integrity first, otherwise it's your fault.
> jobs
Quit and find another then! What? (You can't, due to worthless public education?)
> competitors
your own failure.
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>Create a company that does, tell everyone and see those fall due to inferior service.
You don't understand insurance or capitalism. Capitalism works based on profitability. Insurance is most profitable when it covers the least number of people. Ergo, the most successful businesses are those which cover the fewest people, but manage to trick the most into signing on.
>>Why'd you give'em your money then
No other choices. Capitalism. CEOs/Bankers. Competition bought out.
kDest 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>your own failure
It's called economy of scale. Look it up.
>>Wrong again in the very basic definition
The ones who grant the service, the businessmen, are paid with a percentage of the cost. Therefore they charge as much as possible.
>>more than people are willing to pay
Unless you've cornered the market and they MUST pay you to survive. Like with oil.
>>That's why it never gets better & fails overtime
The top healthcare providers in the world are government-owned.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest >top healthcare providers are government-owned.
Top at what? Profit? You said it's nonprofit. QoS? Is that why every1 in Europe goes to private MD offices/clinics or even fly to US when requiring more than aspirin or prying the appendix with a crowbar? Here's how it works: people die in queues to cancer specialists or cope with agonizing toothache for months. When they reach the dentist, painkillers and fillings aren't refunded & they pay AGAIN. So they go to private doctors, who thrive!
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>Top at what?
Quality of coverage and care. Measured in terms of average lifespan, infant mortality, patients per doctor, etc. The top healthcare providers use universal (socialist) healthcare.
>>private MD offices/clinics or even fly to US when requiring more than aspirin or prying the appendix with a crowbar?
...
>>people die in queues to cancer specialists
Actually, they don't. That's propaganda that insurance profits pay for. It's cheaper to instill fear than provide service.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest
I'm not continuing this.You fail to address arguments, instead sloppily trying to exploit single words. You're going red herring all over me while exhibiting poor knowledge of economics. Not just it's finer processes, but the very definitions (COST OF PRODUCTION & PROFIT). You're throwing around slogans like "CEOs gave me no choice" - in fact selfcontradictory and divulging your uncritical, irresponsible state of mind. Return when you're more a knowledgable interlocutor than zealous troll
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>I'm not continuing this
That's your option.
>>instead sloppily trying to exploit single words
No, I am a native English speaker.
>>Return when you're more a knowledgable interlocutor than zealous troll
If you're just butthurt, you could excuse yourself with grace, you know. No need to manufacture conspiracy and excuses for your inability to argue a successful case. Your "facts" are plainly and demonstrably wrong.
kDest 7 months ago
> The great trick of your ideology is to change the qualifiers of words
It took you all day to come up with lousy smear? How about Democrats degenerating the meaning of "freedom"? Finally - it's not ideology. It's math.
samyazza23 7 months ago
@samyazza23
'Basic Maths' Doubt very much you've done any sums into this? More like an opening line to sound smart.
The Peasants who couldn't read under the Czars, increased 10 fold under Lennon.. But of course, sadly, Stalin ruined all that.
Those dumb People you talk about are doing a good job so far in the Arab Springs.
Many die because of the Few like yourself, you're not saying anything to me that no Dictator hasn't said in order to keep their wealth and privilige. suck it up.
2DRonaldo 6 months ago
In short, it'll always be Mob Rule, the Many ALWAYS make the difference when they get sick of People like you hoarding their wealth and abusing their power.
It only takes one Spark to set off an Arab Spring, America, the way it's going is on it's way to having it's own Arab Spring, the many will not be silenced by the Plutocratic few.
2DRonaldo 6 months ago
@Zaragoza2006
I guarantee most of your life is in the hands of a Socialist Programme/Service paid for by the Federal Government.
It's Taxation/Socialism that gives you Schools to teach Children that an Education is better than Poverty/Crime.. I don't think you even comprehend how much Socialist Programs have bettered your life without you even knowing.
Most Anarcho-Capitalists are Hypocrites that feed off the very Socialist System they oppose.
2DRonaldo 7 months ago
@2DRonaldo Some taxes have to be payed and nobody is denying that, Such examples are military and police force.
As for schools or medical aid , all this can be done via a private schools system , still cheaper than being ripped off by the government. I have a private medical insurance , it doesnt cost me much , there is no "free" healthcare , you pay a lot more for it via taxes.
Zaragoza2006 7 months ago
@Zaragoza2006
>>As for schools or medical aid
No, they couldn't and cannot. Do you know why child labor was such a big problem in the United States? People could NOT afford school, it was a luxury. When schools were made public, they became affordable, and mandatory attendance wiped out child labor's source.
Private healthcare maximizes profits by finding the optimal way to deny you coverage; public healthcare is not for profit and thus is universally available, plus it divides the costs more.
kDest 7 months ago
@kDest
Why should "everyone" go to school, since most Americans prove that was a loss of money? And claiming that mandatory schooling eliminated child labour is illogical.
Private healthcare means business grows & you can help more people. Non-profit means your resources degenerate. Also, elementary economics suggest prices go 300% up with public healthcare. Soon, state can;t afford good healthcare. Everyone just goes to private doctors, while still paying the state (true in all of Europe atm)
samyazza23 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@samyazza23
>>Why should "everyone" go to school
Thank you. You just admitted you'd like to take us 150 years back.
>>claiming that mandatory schooling eliminated child labour is illogical
If you read history, and studied child labor, you'd understand why it worked. It turns out that when schools are too expensive and wages are low, children make great disposable workers. When schools are public, they are less expensive, and mandatory attendance reduces child exploitation.
kDest 7 months ago
@samyazza23
>>you can help more people
Which is moot when it is public healthcare, and thus available to EVERYONE.
>>elementary economics suggest prices go 300% up with public healthcare
No, insurance company propaganda does. You see, part of your private healthcare costs go to spin media which is designed to cause fear of public healthcare.
>>Everyone just goes to private doctors
The best healthcare systems in the world are socialized. We're number 19 in the world. France is number 1.
kDest 7 months ago
Norway will be Carbon Neutral by 2030.. They will not be wasting much Oil which leads to a MANY Buisness Oppertuinities that are keeping the people of that Country happy.
American Tycoons have done EVERYTHING possible to stop renewable energy from being brought into America that would create THOUSANDS of Jobs.
The Rich are Parasitical control freaks that hinder progress.. If you hate the Government so much? then throw your Internet in the trash your taxes paid for that through the Military.
2DRonaldo 8 months ago
@2DRonaldo Are these the same Tycoons that are bragging about their green energy policies and lobbying congress for subsidies for their green energy projects that can't make money in an open market?
The idea that the rich are parasites is completely contradicted by even a wink at any evidence. Who pays taxes? The rich. Who creates jobs? The rich. Who works more hours, rich or poor? Rich. Who works more years of their lives rich or poor? Rich.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
darwinkilledgod 8 months ago
@2DRonaldo "American Tycoons have done EVERYTHING possible to stop renewable energy"
No wonder they dont want "green" energy , unlike complete idiots ruling europe . That :green" energy has to be heavily subsidized from TAXPAYERS money because of high cost and its inefficiency.
If "green" energy made ANY SENSE then private sector would have been producing it a long time ago.
Zaragoza2006 8 months ago
Ahhh capitalism... thriving off the labors of asian slave children.... creating a wealthy few who have the power to pay off congress to make more money from themselves, less for others and create a rise in social immobility "hey, give us subsidies! not enough money? take it from the programs that help feed and educate the poor!"
I thought that was happening... but then i watched a video with quotes and spooky music and it changed my opinion!
judofighter10 8 months ago 3
@judofighter10 Ahhh you're absolutely right! Much better poor asians not have jobs at all! I mean, how dare they actually get paid for work rather than be starved and beaten to death in the field under the dictates of socialist superstars like Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Kim Jong Il! Poor asians to Judofighter10, "You took our jobs!"
tmoallen 8 months ago
@tmoallen considering that the biggest reason for asians not creating their own jobs is the greed of corporations persuading other countries leaders to pass laws to help give them an outlet for cheap labor... your argument holds no water. Its the same thing that is happening domestically with corporate lobbyists.
and it seems like you, Mr."free market" would love if the asians created their own jobs.
judofighter10 8 months ago
@judofighter10 Hmmm, let's see. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore. Yes, I do love it when they create thier own jobs. It's makes the world and thier lives much, much better. The truth is, those jobs have brought them far more wealth than they ever had before, a country doesn't develope overnight. All wealthy capitalist societies started low and built up. It's how life works. You can't wave a socialist wand and create wealth, it must be built from the ground up in any place.
tmoallen 8 months ago
@tmoallen
>>You can't wave a socialist wand and create wealth, it must be built from the ground up in any place.
The problem is that capitalist societies in the early stage fight to keep the working class poor and exploitable. We see this in modern nations where sweatshops exist. Predatory companies set up shop there and barely pay the workers anything, while taking in vast profits from the fruits of their labor.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest I see, so capitalism is bad because it pays them, just not enough for your tastes, but socialism is good because it starves and beats them to death in the fields. Good thinking.
tmoallen 8 months ago
@tmoallen
>>I see, so capitalism is bad because it pays them, just not enough for your tastes
Capitalism is bad because it deprives generations of people from realizing their dreams. It turns entire populations into cheap labor to be put under the heel of a wealthy ruling class. It is the opposite of egalitarianism.
>>but socialism is good because it starves and beats them to death in the fields.
Totalitarianism again? You really have no clue. In socialist Europe people are actually happy.
kDest 8 months ago
@tmoallen
>>Much better poor asians not have jobs at all!
That's a false dichotomy. They could have well-paying jobs but the capitalists in their nation actively work against that.
>>socialist superstars
Those were totalitarian dictators. However, nice apologetics. Keep defending the capitalist faith through the spreading of slippery slopes and fear. Now tell us how our capitalist masters are all-loving, and gave us utopia until the serpent of SOCIALISM corrupted that Eden and banished us.
kDest 8 months ago
@kDest is apparently unaware that they are/were all socialist dictators! Which is quite amazing considering neither they nor the world have ever claimed or considered them to be anything else!
But you're right, look at the hell holes capitalism has produced in asia: Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea. The poverty stretches as far as the eye can see in those countries where capitalists have been actively working against well-paying jobs for decades.
tmoallen 8 months ago