Just seeing the still on this video I have a blinking red light in my head screaming: "reductio ad Hitlerum". And that's pretty much what this video is.
I get the logic here, autocratic fascism and autocratic communism are at the end of the day both dictatorships, and that isn't fun for anyone. That I can agree with. But "socialism" is a pretty broad heading, and doesn't necessitate autocracy, or even meritocracy. It's a big stretch to say social welfare is the same as autocracy.
You should also not have police, because that's just saying that they know better how to treat people than everyone else does. The problem with that argument is that it only takes a few bad people intent on harming others to do way more damage than all the other people looking after only themselves. The idea that all problems can be solved only by enhancing individualistic freedoms is absurd; collective responsibility must also play a part. People CAN come up with rules to work together under.
Finland, Sweden and Norway are always into the five countries with the highest quality of living in the world and they are basically modern and democratic socialist countries.
@uzapuca at a cost of 70+% of a person's income confiscated by a multitude of taxes. With such draconian policies they are hardly a utopia. In fact a quick check on the status of their economy shows they are not doing so well. Socialism is a complete and utter failure when implemented by the force of a government.
@MichaelJ9999 You mean the wealthy. Every one who trades is part of the free trade class. Which is fitting since everybody Works for their own interest by providing a service to a Specific few, willing to trade. Rich people just provide a service that's of high demand so has a greater value. If there were more Bill Gates and Rockefellers in the world the value would go down due to a larger supply and we'd all be much better off from their numerous contributions to society.
@MichaelJ9999 Have you considered an investment in a dictionary. Capitalist is not a class but an ideological belief. Just like many socialists, many capitalists proclaim their belief because they think it will help everybody, and just like many socialists, many capitalists proclaim their beliefs as it is in their own self interest.
The National Health Service makes me proud. And when I say proud, I mean really proud. It means that my country stands for something morally right. And governments come and go, politicians squabble, change and unchange, but the NHS remains a constant. It defines our nation, it unites the people - it's about the only thing we agree on! The NHS is a fantastic thing, born of socialism and representing our nation growing up.
@dmcc20012 True, but it's lucky that Thatcher didn't have her way on this one.
She was an awful Prime Minister - she alienated a generation and caused widespread unemployment.
People giver her credit for the Falklands, but a mere year before this, she had put forward plans to scrap Britain's aircraft carriers and reduce the Royal Navy to a costal defence fleet. As if we could take back islands 8000 miles away with that navy.
We're lucky the Argenties invaded earlier! No, Thatcher was!
Also Friedman, created the neoliberalism, and, so, the technocracy... so, is the same crap. So Friedman, with his open market is a form totalitarism: the money command.
Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions... 1500. Niccolo Machiavelli
The Welfare state has not destroyed my dignity, in fact it has enhanced it. I get 6 weeks paid leave from my employer which my union fought for,and I can get social security if all goes wrong and this gives me freedom from worry. And then in the UK there is the NHS which is also fabulous and frees me form this concern too. These things give me lots of freedom to concentrate on the things that are important to me - work, hobbies, family, and fun. So I'm glad I don't live in the USA, I feel lucky
@nivekvb I am so glad you do not live in the USA either. Which model produced the most prosperous nation the world has ever known, the autocratic turned socialist UK or the USA? Who was the first country to implement death panels? Your wonderful organization called "NICE" told hundreds of kidney cancer patients to simply go home and die, because that was the patriotic thing to do in order to save a few pounds.
@skydive009 The rich hadly pay any tax anymore and these drugs are expensive. They are available in Europe, though, where taxes tend to be higher. In the USA it is highly likely that some get out clause in the insurance contract will deny your full treatment.
@nivekvb I am aware the rich hardly pay any taxes and rather than than call for taxes on the rich, here in the US I aspire myself to earn as much wealth as possible-become rich if you will. I'd rather lower everyone's tax rate to that of the rich so that others might have the opportunity to keep their earned wealth too. Your charge about loopholes in the insurance contracts is simply unfounded and without merit.
@skydive009 I'll tell you the loopholes are very much real and happen all through out the economy, but here is something you can agree with. The loopholes are not created for every rich person. They are often created and tailored for specific groups and interests that lobby in government giving some groups advantage over others. I'm all for lowering taxes and reducing government, but I believe loopholes from government need to be eliminated giving no one a corrupt special advantage.
@nivekvb And that is good for you, but the money to fund a welfare state doesn't come out of nowhere and since government doesn't produce wealth, they have to take it from someone, someone who might otherwise not have wanted to save as much for his future.
@nivekvb Everything you wrote is absolutely correct, but there is a dark side. First off, you describe the experience of a middle-class person in a socialist state, but what about the Underclass? The multi-generational unemployed? They have replaced dignity with arrogance and a sense of entitlement. In your case the danger is not so obvious. It is easy to forget that the system you rely on is unsustainable financially in the long-term, as seen in the current fiscal crisis.
@EvilDandy We know now through the research into neuplasticity and epigenetics (your genes are programable) that the underclass become the way they are because of their environment. In a high quality socialist society these people will get a much higher standard of living and their children are more likely to turn out to be achievers. It is now acknowledged that early life experiences is more important than genes in the development of high IQ.
@westnblu Welfare produces good quality people with high moral value If a country invests in its people it gets a lot back. Despite welfare most people still want a much higher standard of living and this gives people a lot of motivation. If the state has provided a good quality education and good health care, these people have the means and ability to achieve much in life and help a country to become rich.
@nivekvb Despite your noble sentiments the same kind that justified a growing welfare state unfortunately the evidence dont back up your argument. Most ppl on long term welfare r usually more prone 2 drug abuse more prone 2 commit acts of crime and generally r isolated from rather than incorporated into society
@westnblu Which society/ies do you think is/are more damaged, the USA or those of EU/Australian/New Zealand etc?
Think about the United States - the crime, lack of infrastructure leading to overreliance on cars, overreliance on the military-industrial complex (essentially a form of Keynesian pump-priming), 40% of the population believing the Earth is 6000 years old, teacher unions, expensive colleges etc.
The EU has almost none of the above problems and is consisted mainly of welfare states.
@bkelleher91 Yes but the US is still the worlds strongest and most powerful democracy and despite wot u hear STILL by far the richest country in the world!! So u can continue believing the leftist media propaganda or u can get the facts from me! The choice is yours!!
@westnblu What makes you so qualified then? You can't even spell. I'm speaking from personal experience of having lived in the USA as well as various European countries. Massive rich/poor divide in USA, no capital spending outside the military and little investment in education - 3 problems libertarian philosophies can't solve and that Europe doesn't have. It's not the most powerful for much longer - Euro set to replace dollar as world's main reserve currency, emergence of India/China/Brazil etc
@bkelleher91 Euro set 2 replace dollar? U serious? Many in Europe want the Euro itself replaced!! Dont u c the news? U make some valid points but the US will always be the beacon of light 4 the downtrodden all over the world. The US has something more important than money it has freedom and democracy something many other countries u mention dont!
@westnblu Being in Europe I can tell you you're wrong, There are treaty changes and economic restructuring on the agenda but not abolition or "replacement". Several of the new member states want to join it - Romania as well as Croatia and Iceland once they get in. So yes, it is set to replace the dollar.
India is the world's largest democracy. Brazil is also a democracy. No defending China's human rights but they are a powerful economy nonetheless. To be in the EU you have to be a democracy.
This is propaganda ... anyone can fashion any kind of accusation whether positive or negative ... ON ANY GOVERNMENT THAT EVER EXISTED because they all have held many many many P O S I T I O N S throughout their entire history.This is simplistic and bias....... The truth about German Nazi is that it was FASCIST and RACIST , but the SAME is in ZIONIST Israel !
@Tri1umph they got rich first with strong capitalism, and have never been at wars, this helped people in making savings for long periods. But Welfare State its a long term suicide. Just look now at Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and even the USA. Intervencionism is not the way, freedom it is
So, let me see if I get this according to you social welfare states such as Norway Sweden and Denmark are in fact modern models of nazism. Well, not a surprising statement coming from a Chicago economics follower.
@vhugogonzalezj How do you arrive at Denmark, Sweden, and Norway being Nazi states, explain you're response. THose three countries have respect for human rights which Nazi states do not. They have free elections and multiple political parties, which Nazi states do not. They are not a police state, which Nazi states are. And are they more free? how are not just as free as the U.S?
@235RB ...the world runs on business and money. Kill business with labor unions and you kill the world economy.
3. "current system of corporate facism we have in the U.S"
What? You mean capitalism? In that case let me shed some light on this. The idea of people like you is that when they see their boss driving a porsche, you think "That is unfair, that should be mine." You should think, "Hey, I want a porsche, I need to work hard to get one."
4. What do you mean by "real wage income?" (see next)
What a freaking use of Red Herring. Honestly people pull your heads out of your ass. You jackasses just throw these inflammatory extremes out there for lack of a better argument.
The fact that you believe socialism is inherently authoritarian just shows how backward you are. Gandhi clearly was a leftist and not a fraction authoritarian like Reagan. Left and right are independent of authoritarianism. Modern GOP is actually closer to Hitler both on the fiscal and authoritarian scale. Red Herring?
@spastikman Thank you for saying! When it's a system looking out for the least among us it's a "Welfare State" but when it's rigging the tax code, trade, and deregulation, all while subsidizing the most profitable industries in history it's "Free Market Capitalism". Like you said most right-wingers live in a little bubble of extremes and never join the rest in reality of the gray area where most of real life is lived.
@Bleakfacts can you tell me what nation has EVER represented free market capitalism? It has never existed, especially not in America because our founding fathers intended for businesses to be held responsible to the people. This is what right extremists will never understand. It is just as unattainable as any other extreme like communism.
@spastikman Every nation that has had any inkling of prosperity has represented capitalism. Free trade simply means you're free to trade unhindered by violence and intimidation. Free trade is peace. The US has been known to be one of the most peaceful nation to live in. You don't think we can be extremely peaceful? or extremely prosperous? Nothing holds business more responsible to the people than capitalism, since no business can maintain itself without the constant support of it's customers.
@Bleakfacts Free trade is not peace. You are drawing a false-equivelency.
When the Brittish attacked China in order to sell them opium, they did so in the name of "free trade." This was ironic because they GREW their opium in india under a totalitarian corporate monopoly, the very oposite of "free trade."
"Free trade" is a talking point. It is propaganda. Vaccuous of real meaning.
@psusac Really? How is being able to trade unhindered by violence and intimidation not peace? Just because governments are often hypocrites and rarely stand for free trade or peace does not make free trade any less real.
I just said a very precise definition, but you say it has no meaning. Free trade simply means you're free to trade unhindered by violence and intimidation. For example, within physical restraints(supply), you're free to choose your job and buy what you want and so on.
@Bleakfacts You are parsing definitions. I am looking at the actual historical use of the term. Your definition of free trade has never actually existed in the civilized world. All goverments, everywhere, have found cause to use force to effect trade. In addition, wealth itself is a form of political power. Government of, by and for the rich is not free trade either.
For example, my ability to start my own business has been limited by the insurance companies in this country.
@psusac You mean you are redefining words to match the actions of lying politician. That's messed up. It has very much has existed where ever there is any amount of peace. Are you not free to acquire a skill to choose from range jobs even though they're restricted by an income tax, licensing and a corporate tax you are intimidated to comply with, but in other countries your options are much more severely limited by violence and intimidation. (see next post)
@psusac The people with the most money is the common people that's why business merchandise mostly focuses on regular people. How exactly is an insurance company limiting your ability to start your own business?
@Bleakfacts My daughter has Diabetes. This means that insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping me OUT of their company, so private health insurance almost equals a second mortgage for me (at least it did last time I checked). My daughter's chronic health condition means that I also can't afford to live w/o insurance, so I'm more or less tied to my employer by my insurance policy.
Sometimes I think this is the goal of this system - corporate servitude.
@psusac But the insurance company is not threatening violence or doing anything to you. However, the government forces you to buy expensive healthcare insurance with loads of regulation on the healthcare industry like you not allowed to buy outside your state. The insurances companies lobby greatly for the violence but they succeed because people are so fixated on getting even with the corporations they actually demand more violence from the government rather than just get rid the violence....
@psusac That actually helps insurance companies like with the Obamcare despite all the demonizing of insurance companies Obamacare is rather profitable for greedy insurance companies.
@psusac The reason your daughter can't get health insurance is because not only is health insurance tied to employers, which separates it from the free market and drives of cost, but also because Lawyers keep suing drug companies with frivolous lawsuits to drive up the costs of medications that your health insurance shouldn't even be paying for as it also belongs in the free market.
Insurance was meant to pay for emergencies, not viagra!
@MRKetter81 That's part of the problem. But the fact remains that it is the WEALTH of insurance companies that is corrupting the goverment in order to creat these laws that benefit them at the expense of the consumer.
Money is political authority by other means. The goverment is the guys with guns. The problem is that their power is going to the highest bidder.
@Alariaify Germany is now the wet nurse of Europe-getting sucked dry by nations it once invaded-Hitlers dream of a 1000 year Reich has become a 1000 year rape of the German people. VICTORY!!!
@Alariaify Not much. Unemployment there is pretty bad (20% in Spain). And once they file for bankruptcy (because everyone knows they will), their living standards will decline a lot.
@Bleakfacts The US is peaceful on the inside, sure... but industrial powers in the US are concentrated in a way that gives them more power than the state, and it leads to foreign wars. When oil supplies get low, the country could find stable alternative energy, but instead the industry pressures the state to go to war to secure foreign sources. When the industry has more power than the government, and has the power to change legislation, that's not true democracy.
@newusercommenter The government is the only organization that people believe should use violence against people that have not committed any crime. It's a the hole in wall that protects peace from waves of violence. No one could go to war without it's power to justify violence to people, so any organization that wants war or someone killed legally must rely on it and becomes an arm or unofficial agency of the government. Businesses must come to the government for power.
@Bleakfacts But the point is that no organization that wasn't elected should be an arm or agency of the government. I didn't elect any corporate CEOs, so they should have the will to influence policy. If they do, it's a threat to democracy, and a threat to freedom.
It doesn't take an expert in sociology or economics to see that the wills of businesses in a industrialist economy influences policy. The industry serves an economic purpose, but overrides that purpose when its power is concentrated.
@newusercommenter I agree with we should get rid of the EPA, FED IRS and other unelected gov. agencies. To get of rid businesses being us to laundry money we going have to restrict congresses spending powers. No more hundred billion spending bills to spend on who knows what.
Politicians don't need money from any business when they have access to the billions of tax dollars and by printing money the economy is their piggy bank. They just need a vessel to laundry it for them.
@Bleakfacts I never said anything about getting rid of the EPA. Some of those organizations serve vital functions (whether or not they serve them well is another debate). What I have a problem with is large industries (economic, not political), like big oil industries, influencing policy against the will of the voting public. You seem to think capitalism goes hand in hand with democracy. But one is an economic organization and one is political - freedom comes from democracy, not capitalism.
@newusercommenter It's not hard to argue that the EPA or some random gov funded business serves vital a function, but they are both agency appointed by the government for whatever the gov wants despite the org's supposed function. Elections do not negate the undemocratic basis of a gov, that is people are too stupid to spend there money wisely for their own good and must be intimidated. Freedom comes from people being at peace with each other and respecting ones decisions.
@newusercommenter it seems like the missing link is the electable president with morals, the guy who stands as the representative of the people instead of being a puppet of the ruling class and the corporations. if the system worked as it should then that is the person who should be made ultimately responsible for the enforcement of just and fair policies with the help of equally moral (although less experienced) congress-people. sadly i think that is where the problem lies.
@Bleakfacts sounds good right? well, not really. nowadays capitalism has created such a divide between the rich and the poor that the common person has no option but to buy into big business and contribute to the wealth of the ruling classes. the monopoly which these companies control what we buy and how we choose to spend through advertising, without us even thinking about this dilemma, means that the more powerful they become, the less chance there is of any competitive rivalry -
@Bleakfacts in the marketplace, thereby eliminating the idea of enterprising business.. here is an example. a local bus company started to offer fares at half the price of the large, national, private company which has been servicing this area for years and charging rip-off price. within a week the large company took note and charged less than the small company, even at a loss. eventually the small company simply couldnt affd to keep running the service and went bankrupt -
@rinseoutdrycleaner I've seen this stupid example so many times. They wouldn't be making a profit with such high prices in the first place. It would be easier to pay a neighbor to give you a ride then take a bus. And when they charge ridiculously low prices their would be too many people who want a ride from them, so there will be still plenty of business for the small company and if they buy more buses the sc can just suspend activity till the bc stops wasting it's money.
@Bleakfacts you cant simply suspend activity, costs like road tax, depot rental, insurance, employee wages, are ongoing. you are totally nieve, and seeing the world through rose tinted spectacles
@rinseoutdrycleaner It's called temporary business. You close business till it's profitable to reopen, so you don't have employee wages and road tax or depot rental etc, but people are not stupid and will see through the scheme.. The fact that it took notice of small company at all shows that the sc was more than effective in competing against the bc despite the sc's size.
@rinseoutdrycleaner Also the big company is wasting a lot money on this when it could be making a profit by simply lowering it's price and that it would go out of business really fast if it did the same to every small business. Not to mention their are many other big business's that would like to enter such a empty market. Somewhere in woo woo land there's only a poor small business and a sadistic big business that goes out it's way to suppress the small one.
@rinseoutdrycleaner or build loyal costumers by touting your consistent price and that you're local. People don't always buy cheapest thing and a reasonably price ride makes more sense then buying over priced Starbucks coffee. You say people have no option but this is a perfect example of the options people have and the democratic process of the market. Should you vote for the little company or the big company?
@Bleakfacts society has diluted to the point where the common person doesnt distinguish the difference between big and small companies, or even care for that matter. the established company can afford advertising campaigns and brand new buses, a 10 year old bus with an unknown name is no match in terms of the common materialistic minds of today... i havent even started on the 'charitable donations' these companies make into certain other organisations.
@rinseoutdrycleaner Of course people are too stupid to make their own decision so you and your buddies make everything better with intimidation and violence. I don't think the world is perfect or that it can be made perfect through violence. Competing with big business has been done many times by people with the skill and vision needed to make this world better. Get in a car take a ride through the city and u will see many small business's doing just fine without your naysay
@Bleakfacts and i think you are missing the point because now the only 'coffeeshops' we are left with are starbucks!! you cannot compete with a monopoly
@rinseoutdrycleaner Starbucks is not monopoly. There are many places that sell coffee but expensive coffee isn't in high demand ,so it's a miracle Starbucks convince enough people to think drinking expensive coffee is cool so that we have so many coffee shops everywhere.I could do without a coffeeshop, but that's democracy for you.
@Bleakfacts this is the way in which these corporations hold so much control, they now operate their usual service, again, at double the price that the enterprising company could offer them at, and the fares just seem to increase year on year. we the people, who are generally none the wiser, have no option but to support this company.
@Bleakfacts But how can peace prevail in a capitalistic society when competition breeds violence because socially stratified wealth has destroyed the working class ambitions and reduced the majority of people into serfs. Capitalism without morals, ideals, and humanity, will eventually turn into economic slavery; and the the poor will become morally degenerate and spiritually bankrupt. They will have no hope or means to support themselves.
@1polymath If advocating no violence creates more violence, what now? Peace is violent? Free trade is simply solving our daily social problems without violence. People compete to provide the best contribution to society and are rewarded accordingly. Faulty business's fail and jobs are lost so that better managed and oriented business(and jobs) can take their places. This way the economy is fine tuned to provide most goods and service that are in demand, so that everyone is better off.
@Bleakfacts It has nothing to do with faulty jobs or business. It has everything to do with greed and maximizing profitability. Ppl were not laid off because American's were lazy. Workers are tired of having to produce more for less all the while the oligarchs and plutocrats reap the reward of industry they purposely manipulated in their favor. And waged war against the ideals unionized labor labeling it Socialism.
@1polymath I was only describing how society has always worked. If people can't manage money without being overcome by greed and taking it all how do you suppose anything works? Ppl are laid off for any number of reasons all of which prevent a business from employing so many people with out going under and laying off all their employees. A net loss of jobs is usually caused by the government taking money with inflation and taxes.
@Bleakfacts Well The FED is not a government ran institution, it is a private profit seeking corporation. Jobs are taken overseas because once again greed and free market always demands that cheap labor be employed for maximum profitability. Less tax revenue means that the Gov. will always be in debt and public institutions will start to fail laying off teachers, police, city workers, etc. This even further depletes the tax base. Only a job and a living wage can manage an economy.
@1polymath Not a government ran institution??? It was created by the government and is backed by US law and police. Even though you may believe corporation are somehow stealing from you. Their explicit purpose is to provide people with the best product possible, but the FED's explicit purpose and suppose duty as written in US law is to steal money through inflation. Profit just means positive cash flow, so when you go to work and make a profit does that make you greedy?
@1polymath Their should be no more violence then at soccer game, though savages or badly informed people will find an excuse for violence. The wealth you talk of is mostly the value of businesses which is owned by a few, because few people are educated in finance and free trade is far from being our countries policy. Though liquid wealth, the hard cash everyone craves, is dominated by the masses. Businesses only have value because people choose to cycle cash through them to buy something
Milton Friedman would be right of the public was educated and had insight into a transparent market. None of that is present which is why the ideal of complete individual liberty is as unrealistic as communism was - corruption and manipulation seems to be human nature and no socio-political model we know of can counter that. Hopefully something will turn up.
Milton Friedman would be right of the public was educated and had insight into a transparent market. None of that is present which is why the ideal of complete individual liberty is as unrealistic as communism was - corruption and manipulation seems to be human nature and no real system can counter that.
For those who don't like being manipulated: Bismarck resisted Hitler's reach for power but died shortly after Hitler became chancellor. He founded social security in 1880 - Nazi party originates in late 1920s. So to show a graph with a swastika and point to that as the origins is a gross manipulation.
@mufflejoy It absolutely is the origin. Just because Bismarck opposed Hitler means nothing. This is the inherent problem with giving your government more power, even if it is initially for good - all it takes is a Hitler and a little propaganda to ruin it. The same can be said in America. We're slowly letting the president have more and more power, while taking power from congress. We will likely devolve into something of the sort at some point. Don't believe me? Bush was just a taste.
The concept of the welfare state doesn't necessarily involve Socialism. Like said in the clip, Conservative Germany of a century ago was far from a Socialist society.
Another example is Sweden of today, a nation (together with Iceland and Switzerland) boasting a higher number of successful capitalist corporations than any other country on Earth - depite our nannystate tradition. Furthermore, two of the richest men on Earth are Swedes (according to Forbes).
you mean you r a jew, but use a maske of atheist, 90% of the jews like u deny their reality, like Lenin ad stalein, bush. so u r a jew, u said u don't want me to continue my studing because u want to cover ur religion the evil synagogue the synagogue of your father satan
Injdirectly, you've proven that a coop market can't survive without subisidies, that people don't want coops otherwise they'd be starting alot more coops voluntarily instead of private businesses, that if you weren't geographically isolated and you didn't have 3rd world people paying for your nice life, your welafe system would take a severe hit.
Plus I didn't investigate danish coops to find out if they're actual worker coops or one of those pseudo-coops, but I'm guessing some of them arent
Easy, easy! Subsidy of co-ops was only a thought, not a core tenet of my political ideology! I honestly haven't put much thought into the idea, it was just something to throw out there for consideration. I don't have a series of counter-arguments ready, and I don't know the viability of the idea. It was just a thought.
Anyway, I absolutely admitted that the social welfare initiatives would contract (unless tax codes were adjusted to compensate for lost revenue). So what?
You're the one defending Socialism, your nick is SocialistCatgirl, you spend your time here defending socialism on youtube and you don't even know how to get there. ROFL, it's your ideal.
My mainstay is Social Democracy and extension of a state-supported series of welfare initiatives. Democratization of the workplace can occur in a manner I'm much better versed in (trade unionism) or a manner I'm less versed in but willing to consider (subsidy of cooperatives). There are even more ways to do it, but my main method would be trade unionism.
Didn't you admit a short while ago that you've been baiting me throughout this conversation and others we've had, ultimately with the goal of verbally tripping me up?
Can I take anything you've said seriously anymore?
Communism came out of the catholic church. When they turned their back on the vatican, that is when they started claiming there is no God, to make a long story short. To make the communist pay for their insubordination, the vatican brought fore the Nazi Party. Yes, the vatican had more to do with WWI & WWII than they will ever admit to!
Three requirements the government should sign for my tax 1 shouldn't tamper with documents that benefit your circumstances. 2 hiding of info and causing criminal damage ie wars. 3 hiding illegal in your tenant ces for capital gain ie immigrants. We'll have to call you in british government for new agreement but for now you will not get paid and my tax will be going to the third world.
Fine, an undemocratic society is undemocratic whether it is communist, fachist, teochracy or plutochracy. But by that putting an equal-to sign between nazism and soviet communism is just as stupid as writing USA = Cuba because they are both republics. Cheap propaganda. Don't buy it.
You're right, but to back that claim, can you give me an example of a socialist society that became effectively egalitarian and resource-based and didn't end up in a tyranical regime.
In case you can't I want you to think really carefully about who's throwing cheap propaganda based on no historical evidence what-so-ever.
@seppsters Where in my post did I glorify socialism? I didn't even mention sosialism. What was my "propaganda" and what did I write that has "no historical evidence"? Please elaborate.
That is right,, and both Communism and Nazism (National Socialism) comes from the same fundamental branch called Collectivism... The opposition is Individualism (Liberalism / Libertarianism).
The only true difference between Communism and National Socialism is that, National Socialists discriminate people by rase / nationality,, and Communists discriminate people by class and believes.
Yep, Communism and Nazism are exactly the same except for who they blame for society's ills.
Never mind that Communists are Materialists who call for the deletion of the state and the establishment of common holding of the means of production while Nazis were Idealists who called for maximization of the state's power and its advancement while clinging to notions of Social Darwinism.
The CCCP, PRC, and North Korea wear the name of Communism, but not the body.
So you want to take a society where just about every human being (including you) spends most of his time thinking about himself and/or his family, and make all of those human beings start dedicating that time to the common good voluntarily.
Just curious, in your funny little mind does this actually work or do you just do this for a laugh ?
By "do this" do you mean correct people who mistakenly declare that Nazis were Communists by describing what Communism and Nazism actually are? Because I have to tell you, it's a lot more exasperating than amusing.
To satisfy your curiosity, no I do not believe that Communism would work. That is why I'm not a Communist, but rather a Social Democrat. Social Democracy is a time-tested mode of Socialist governance which has succeeded. Communism lives in the annals of theory.
What is your problem, man? I've been nothing but polite to you, and you've been nothing but a dick to me. Are you bored and looking for a fight or something?
Social Democracy falls under the category "Reform Socialism". As such it is explicitly designed to reform Capitalism to suit the aims of Socialists. If you examine the state of Denmark (and I recommend you do) you'll find that your 1% to 99% ratio is utter tripe. Tightly regulated welfare states are Capitalist? Bullshit.
No, Denmark isn't Socialism, You can create a system different from socialism and call it socialism as well, but it has very little similarities with marxist socialism. The main difference is: Private Ownership
I believe your version of socialism through democracy is unachievable
How do you plan on nationalizing private businesses? By Force? You lose democracy. Voluntarily? It won't happen. Buying them? You can make the math and see Denmark would go bankrupt
"How do you plan on nationalizing private businesses?"
Socialism is a lot less about nationalizing privately held businesses and a lot more about democratizing the workplace. While the state would be used to tightly regulate business operations, nationalization would not always be necessary. If the state really felt a need to exert some sort of influence to drive democratization of the workplace, one option would be to subsidize workers' cooperatives.
As I said, your best option would be to subsidize workers' cooperatives. These sorts of workplaces are inherently democratized, so you need to do absolutely nothing to them to make them Socialist. All you would need to do is support their continued existence.
Businesses that are not co-ops would then be at a disadvantage while co-ops would sprout like weeds. That would do the trick. The non-cooperatives would either leave, convert, or compete poorly. Artificial selection, amigo!
Right this will be my last reply because i don't have patience to write on the other page, sorry
You already lost this debate a long time ago, I've just been playing you trying to get you to defend my point of view, which was fun, I kind of got it when you admitted you'd have to severely reduce welfare to allow private/public businesses to survive the foreign worker wage increase
So you're planning on using taxes from private biz / workers to sub coops, does this sound fair ?
Secondly you plan on continuously subsidizing to make sure they overpower private/public businesses in the market. So, essentially, you're rewarding inferior businesses and taxing private businesses to death
Well that would be the start of economic colapse effectively, since the "power of selection" would go from the consumer to the state
And thirdly: "sprout like weeds ?" Thousands of private businesses sprouting everywhere yearly and where are those coops ?
Speakest thou of MrTrialLawyer? Sir Lawyer and I merely rendezvous on the matter of Spinzoism, the conferral between us be purely platonic I assure thee.
Where are those millions of coops taking over markets ? ROFL because I don't see that.
Or you mean continuously subsidize them until all private/public businesses are gone ? Because if you are you'll be effectively driving your country to a recession and the country will start moving towards communism by taking money away from private industry to pay coop wages.
There are a few things to take note of here, ROFL.
1. No one (as far as I'm aware) is doing what I proposed. So there's no basis for a comparison of systems, and it's no surprise you aren't seeing anything. I don't see Nazis overrunning Scandinavian politics, smartass!
2. Subsidy doesn't necessarily entail recession, nor does it necessarily kill unsubsidized businesses entirely. It can also make product cheaply available and readily abundant. Corn in the USA is your example.
And here you were asking me to be nice a couple of posts ago, rofl. You're 100% socialist allright.
1. You are correct noone has ever done that, so why exactly are you basing your beliefs on something noone ever did ? Could it be called a fanatsy ? Maybe ?
Nearly Nazi are growing alot, and you still don't have any emigration, just wait until you get some actual mass-migration.
Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. Got worked up. I'll ignore the "100% Socialist alright" thing because turnabout's fair play.
Anyway, you've really not beaten me in the debate regarding Social Democracy's viability and Scandinavia's relative success with the system. All you've shown is that the way it is funded, if adjusted to account for humanitarianism, would result in a contraction of benefits. Of course, just as quickly tax codes could be adjusted to account for lost money.
2. You're using the USA as an example ? Arguably still the most capitalist country in the world ? You can't pick little examples here and there to prove your fantasies, just look at the rest of the US.
A demonstration of functional subsidy policy invalidates your argument that it would lead to the proverbial market Armageddon and you want to examine unrelated markets to try to defend your views. Sorry, not buying it.
Actually, it kind of does I can give you loads of examples where subsidies policies had very negative effects in the US, but I don't need to, just keep watching Milton Friedman videos and you'll find a couple.
Tell you what, seppsters ol' buddy. Let's just let it go. I'll emigrate to Denmark, have a good old time with my fellow Danes, and we'll do things our way. You can stick around in Portugal, do what you do, and we can call it a life for both of us. Now how does that sound? No more bickering, no more fuss. Just two happy people doing what they do.
And as for you being here defending communism, it might be an indication of selective tolerance. Communism resulted in the death of at least 100 million people (possibly up to 500 million), and yet you feel the important need to come and protect it
Communism didn't stay in the 'annals of theory' it was very much transfered to practical reality, and it was the most horrible and murderous reality ever witnessed by man
You succeeded at being nicer, and I appreciate the effort. It contributes volumes to the discussion's productivity.
Now, the truth is that Communism is not a single political ideology. It (like Socialism) refers to a number of socioeconomic systems. There are elements which are common to all Communist ideologies (pursuit of classless societies, opposition to nationalism, dissolution of private property, etc.) but from there are very real distinctions between the schools.
Let me run through a few to give you an idea of what I mean. Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism are authoritarian variants of Communism responsible for the deaths you cited. Nationalism is espoused by Maoism and Stalinism (bringing their status as legitimate schools of Communism into scrutiny). The main thread between these schools is that they employ a "vanguard party" which controls the government and elections.
Most other schools of Communism reject such concepts entirely.
Many Communists pursue their goals through violent revolution (Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc.), though several also believe that the revolution that Marx spoke of need not be violent. Such Communists instead seek to carry out a cultural revolution, seeking to change the way that entrepreneurs and workers view themselves and the world around them. Christian Communism falls into this second vein, for example.
I was really just distinguishing Communism from Nazism, by the way.
Market fundamentalists are the Communists of the 21st century, they both consider all failed attempts to implement their respective ideologies as not being communist/capitalist because it didn't fulfill a certain criteria or didn't do everything by the letter
Truth be told, market fundamentalism will, at the end of this century or maybe even in a few decades, be thrown on the junkyard of history as just another failed ideology associated with political instability, social unrest and turmoil
well communism, facism, and socialism were created by the same political ideology called liberalism, then it resulted in the death of 6 million jews, caused by the Nazi socialists, then the deaths of 100 million people across the world as a result of communism.
The statements made in this video are not entirely true, though I agree with most of them. The aristocracy of Germany was being progressively weakened under the democratic elements of the government. Otto Von Bismark, a shrewd democratic politician, led this movement to the advantage of his career. The German aristocracy allowed this to happen out of fear of ending up like the aristocracy during the French Revolution.
As long as it's drilled into our minds that the good of "The People" is more important than the Good of ourselves, we'll have red tape & big government. Don't take my word, or anyone else's for that matter. Use your own intelligence.
total bs,.. modern world thinking ,.. no good ask a pharoh ,.. modern thnk they slaves ,.. not slaves,.. love pharoh only work small bit live good life, all have food , all have homes,.. nobody rich ,.. but everybdy secure free your mind of the bonds of todays world
@MrMentalflossed I'm guessing English isn't your first language, because this post doesn't make much sense. Pharaoh?!? Is this a reference to ancient Egypt? Are you seriously implying that, despite it being ruled by an autocratic dictator, that everything was hunky-dory for all, or even most, Egyptians? If so, then, dude, you have no clue what life was like in the ancient world. (Besides that, do you really have to go as far back as ancient Egypt to find a "good" example of centralized govt?)
@dcyates the days of the egyptians are missunderstood,.. the end days of the empire there was slavery ,.. the workers that built the true egyptian structure were free ment hat worked a portion of their time of free will for their comunity and were well taken care of whiel they did,.. historical fact. at the fall times , it reverted to bse vibrational human greed and then slavery ensued. yup i'm saying it, thay had paradise on earth and blew it.
This is actually a VERY good video that explains the whole point behind the authoritarians' agenda. Left or right doesn't play any role here. National Socialism or Communism - it's all exactly the same s**t only different way to introduce it to the public.
The point is that they all are authoritarians that want to get into positions of power using "useful idiots" to achieve their goal. Only democracy and capitalism go well if the people are willing to stop being spoiled.
@AlexNOSAM If you remove the democracy then you don't have to worry about people spoiling themselves. I don't advocate for an authoritarian form of governance, but instead polycentric governance. Why restrict government from being subject to competitive forces like everything else is? Order is emergent, as you should know from studying markets. Likewise, law and regulation is emergent. Top down planning for any industry/service is never justified.
Was it really necessary to call the German Empire a "right-wing dictatorship"?
There's a big fucking difference between a constitutional monarchy and a dictatorship.
If it had been a dictatorship, the Social Democratic Party wouldn't even have existed, let alone get elected into parliament.
I get your point and I'm not too fond of welfare myself, but this just feels like you're saying "Hurrdurr Germans did it, so it's totally evil and nazi".
@mknomad5 Please open a history book before you make a fool of yourself online. China was one of the poorest countries in the world until about twenty years even the USSR was doing better. That's because twenty years ago they started reforms of freeing the market and privatization and they still go in that trend even today. so in fact it is capitalism that brought them that prosperity
In the times of pure communism many Chinese even had to resort to canibalism because of food shortages...
@mknomad5 Works better? Many people there work in conditions of slavery - the vast majority in fact. Plus don't forget it's a totalitarian regime - there are concentration camps for political prisoners and everything. The only people who really enjoy it are the narrow top politicians.
sosiolism should not be compared to communism or the nazi. The socialdemocratic countries are far apart from the the so called communist countries( for the record there is no real communist countries, their mostly run by a dictator who operates behinde the ide of communism but with totaly differen't motives) but they are also far away from the extreme right winged capitalistic america. Socialists is pretty close to the center whilst Amreica is right wing extreme.
@kvistulv socialism is a start down the road to communism or nazism , when the money runs out how do you take care of these people who are under the control of the state , the ussr ran out of cash , hell america if doing the left agenda and we are broke too
@readyxxi No, unfortunately, socialism NEVER leads to communism, or at least, it never has yet in the history of the planet. And communism will never be accomplished until we have a one world government and economy, because as it is now, socialist states must compete with capitalist states. Truth is, capitalism is the more profitable of the two, but at the expense of standard of living of 95% of all humans, and at the expense of our entire ecosystem, and our species.
thanks for providing subtitles
Fearwolf 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHANGE THE CONVERSATION !
Support Dr. 'Sir' RON PAUL 2012
Welfarism: Give Jack a fish and he wont go hungry today
Freedom: Teach Jack to fish, he will never go hungry!
*RON PAUL vs WRONG POLL* AMERICA vs MEDIA
FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT SPREAD RON'S 'WHAT IF' AND 'IMAGINE' SPEECH ON IPAD,IPOD
Check Nigel Farage vids taking EU govt. to task
Please vote on vids and comments, Your opinion matters!
Write on bills : IN RON WE TRUST ! END THE FED OR FEED THE END
Click like for ♥ RON PAUL ♥
ashwadhwani 3 weeks ago
Just seeing the still on this video I have a blinking red light in my head screaming: "reductio ad Hitlerum". And that's pretty much what this video is.
I get the logic here, autocratic fascism and autocratic communism are at the end of the day both dictatorships, and that isn't fun for anyone. That I can agree with. But "socialism" is a pretty broad heading, and doesn't necessitate autocracy, or even meritocracy. It's a big stretch to say social welfare is the same as autocracy.
newusercommenter 1 month ago
You should also not have police, because that's just saying that they know better how to treat people than everyone else does. The problem with that argument is that it only takes a few bad people intent on harming others to do way more damage than all the other people looking after only themselves. The idea that all problems can be solved only by enhancing individualistic freedoms is absurd; collective responsibility must also play a part. People CAN come up with rules to work together under.
annoloki 1 month ago
Finland, Sweden and Norway are always into the five countries with the highest quality of living in the world and they are basically modern and democratic socialist countries.
uzapuca 1 month ago
@uzapuca at a cost of 70+% of a person's income confiscated by a multitude of taxes. With such draconian policies they are hardly a utopia. In fact a quick check on the status of their economy shows they are not doing so well. Socialism is a complete and utter failure when implemented by the force of a government.
skydive009 4 weeks ago
Does the capitalist class not promote its own interest in the name of the 'general welfare'?
MichaelJ9999 1 month ago
@MichaelJ9999 You mean the wealthy. Every one who trades is part of the free trade class. Which is fitting since everybody Works for their own interest by providing a service to a Specific few, willing to trade. Rich people just provide a service that's of high demand so has a greater value. If there were more Bill Gates and Rockefellers in the world the value would go down due to a larger supply and we'd all be much better off from their numerous contributions to society.
Bleakfacts 3 weeks ago
@MichaelJ9999 Have you considered an investment in a dictionary. Capitalist is not a class but an ideological belief. Just like many socialists, many capitalists proclaim their belief because they think it will help everybody, and just like many socialists, many capitalists proclaim their beliefs as it is in their own self interest.
RealRacer69 1 week ago
Well, I'll say my piece:
The National Health Service makes me proud. And when I say proud, I mean really proud. It means that my country stands for something morally right. And governments come and go, politicians squabble, change and unchange, but the NHS remains a constant. It defines our nation, it unites the people - it's about the only thing we agree on! The NHS is a fantastic thing, born of socialism and representing our nation growing up.
Thank God for Attlee and Bevan!
Long live the NHS!
BasilFawlty4444 1 month ago
@BasilFawlty4444 If Thatcher had her way she would have shut down the NHS if it was not "profitable" and turned health into a private enterprise.
dmcc20012 1 month ago
@dmcc20012 True, but it's lucky that Thatcher didn't have her way on this one.
She was an awful Prime Minister - she alienated a generation and caused widespread unemployment.
People giver her credit for the Falklands, but a mere year before this, she had put forward plans to scrap Britain's aircraft carriers and reduce the Royal Navy to a costal defence fleet. As if we could take back islands 8000 miles away with that navy.
We're lucky the Argenties invaded earlier! No, Thatcher was!
BasilFawlty4444 1 month ago
Also Friedman, created the neoliberalism, and, so, the technocracy... so, is the same crap. So Friedman, with his open market is a form totalitarism: the money command.
hombremarlboro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL did the guy in the top comments box just say america is 'peaceful'?
lolololol
godkingRoss 2 months ago
Comment removed
godkingRoss 2 months ago
Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions... 1500. Niccolo Machiavelli
LuiBui 2 months ago
Comment removed
JDArmstrong42 2 months ago
The Welfare state has not destroyed my dignity, in fact it has enhanced it. I get 6 weeks paid leave from my employer which my union fought for,and I can get social security if all goes wrong and this gives me freedom from worry. And then in the UK there is the NHS which is also fabulous and frees me form this concern too. These things give me lots of freedom to concentrate on the things that are important to me - work, hobbies, family, and fun. So I'm glad I don't live in the USA, I feel lucky
nivekvb 2 months ago
@nivekvb I am so glad you do not live in the USA either. Which model produced the most prosperous nation the world has ever known, the autocratic turned socialist UK or the USA? Who was the first country to implement death panels? Your wonderful organization called "NICE" told hundreds of kidney cancer patients to simply go home and die, because that was the patriotic thing to do in order to save a few pounds.
skydive009 2 months ago
@skydive009 The rich hadly pay any tax anymore and these drugs are expensive. They are available in Europe, though, where taxes tend to be higher. In the USA it is highly likely that some get out clause in the insurance contract will deny your full treatment.
nivekvb 4 weeks ago
@nivekvb I am aware the rich hardly pay any taxes and rather than than call for taxes on the rich, here in the US I aspire myself to earn as much wealth as possible-become rich if you will. I'd rather lower everyone's tax rate to that of the rich so that others might have the opportunity to keep their earned wealth too. Your charge about loopholes in the insurance contracts is simply unfounded and without merit.
skydive009 4 weeks ago
@skydive009 I'll tell you the loopholes are very much real and happen all through out the economy, but here is something you can agree with. The loopholes are not created for every rich person. They are often created and tailored for specific groups and interests that lobby in government giving some groups advantage over others. I'm all for lowering taxes and reducing government, but I believe loopholes from government need to be eliminated giving no one a corrupt special advantage.
ShamanMcLamie 2 weeks ago
@nivekvb And that is good for you, but the money to fund a welfare state doesn't come out of nowhere and since government doesn't produce wealth, they have to take it from someone, someone who might otherwise not have wanted to save as much for his future.
semperFi4ever100 1 month ago
@nivekvb Sounds awesome
bodinian 1 month ago
@nivekvb Everything you wrote is absolutely correct, but there is a dark side. First off, you describe the experience of a middle-class person in a socialist state, but what about the Underclass? The multi-generational unemployed? They have replaced dignity with arrogance and a sense of entitlement. In your case the danger is not so obvious. It is easy to forget that the system you rely on is unsustainable financially in the long-term, as seen in the current fiscal crisis.
EvilDandy 4 weeks ago
@EvilDandy We know now through the research into neuplasticity and epigenetics (your genes are programable) that the underclass become the way they are because of their environment. In a high quality socialist society these people will get a much higher standard of living and their children are more likely to turn out to be achievers. It is now acknowledged that early life experiences is more important than genes in the development of high IQ.
nivekvb 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
nivekvb 2 months ago
Thanks for posting - this is important for people to know.
djw11111 2 months ago
Welfare destroys human drive and ultimately human dignity. This will lead 2 the destruction of western civilisation .
westnblu 2 months ago 11
@westnblu Welfare produces good quality people with high moral value If a country invests in its people it gets a lot back. Despite welfare most people still want a much higher standard of living and this gives people a lot of motivation. If the state has provided a good quality education and good health care, these people have the means and ability to achieve much in life and help a country to become rich.
nivekvb 4 weeks ago
@nivekvb Despite your noble sentiments the same kind that justified a growing welfare state unfortunately the evidence dont back up your argument. Most ppl on long term welfare r usually more prone 2 drug abuse more prone 2 commit acts of crime and generally r isolated from rather than incorporated into society
westnblu 4 weeks ago
@westnblu Which society/ies do you think is/are more damaged, the USA or those of EU/Australian/New Zealand etc?
Think about the United States - the crime, lack of infrastructure leading to overreliance on cars, overreliance on the military-industrial complex (essentially a form of Keynesian pump-priming), 40% of the population believing the Earth is 6000 years old, teacher unions, expensive colleges etc.
The EU has almost none of the above problems and is consisted mainly of welfare states.
bkelleher91 2 weeks ago
@bkelleher91 Yes but the US is still the worlds strongest and most powerful democracy and despite wot u hear STILL by far the richest country in the world!! So u can continue believing the leftist media propaganda or u can get the facts from me! The choice is yours!!
westnblu 2 weeks ago
@westnblu What makes you so qualified then? You can't even spell. I'm speaking from personal experience of having lived in the USA as well as various European countries. Massive rich/poor divide in USA, no capital spending outside the military and little investment in education - 3 problems libertarian philosophies can't solve and that Europe doesn't have. It's not the most powerful for much longer - Euro set to replace dollar as world's main reserve currency, emergence of India/China/Brazil etc
bkelleher91 2 weeks ago
@bkelleher91 Euro set 2 replace dollar? U serious? Many in Europe want the Euro itself replaced!! Dont u c the news? U make some valid points but the US will always be the beacon of light 4 the downtrodden all over the world. The US has something more important than money it has freedom and democracy something many other countries u mention dont!
westnblu 2 weeks ago
@westnblu Being in Europe I can tell you you're wrong, There are treaty changes and economic restructuring on the agenda but not abolition or "replacement". Several of the new member states want to join it - Romania as well as Croatia and Iceland once they get in. So yes, it is set to replace the dollar.
India is the world's largest democracy. Brazil is also a democracy. No defending China's human rights but they are a powerful economy nonetheless. To be in the EU you have to be a democracy.
bkelleher91 2 weeks ago
@westnblu Damn right.
OnlyAPawn1970 6 days ago
Brilliant.
pismo10 2 months ago
This is propaganda ... anyone can fashion any kind of accusation whether positive or negative ... ON ANY GOVERNMENT THAT EVER EXISTED because they all have held many many many P O S I T I O N S throughout their entire history.This is simplistic and bias....... The truth about German Nazi is that it was FASCIST and RACIST , but the SAME is in ZIONIST Israel !
JOHNNYKGAGNON28 3 months ago
WHAT ABOUT SWEDEN NORWAY and FINLAND! They are democracies with strong socialist services and they dont have dictators.
Tri1umph 3 months ago
@Tri1umph are those people more free?
sniped101 3 months ago
@Tri1umph they got rich first with strong capitalism, and have never been at wars, this helped people in making savings for long periods. But Welfare State its a long term suicide. Just look now at Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and even the USA. Intervencionism is not the way, freedom it is
argenta86 2 months ago
So, let me see if I get this according to you social welfare states such as Norway Sweden and Denmark are in fact modern models of nazism. Well, not a surprising statement coming from a Chicago economics follower.
vhugogonzalezj 3 months ago
@vhugogonzalezj How do you arrive at Denmark, Sweden, and Norway being Nazi states, explain you're response. THose three countries have respect for human rights which Nazi states do not. They have free elections and multiple political parties, which Nazi states do not. They are not a police state, which Nazi states are. And are they more free? how are not just as free as the U.S?
Tri1umph 3 months ago
Heil Hitler, Heil Gaddafi, Heil Ahmadinejad, Heil Chavez!
SCHEDTER 3 months ago
@235RB ...the world runs on business and money. Kill business with labor unions and you kill the world economy.
3. "current system of corporate facism we have in the U.S"
What? You mean capitalism? In that case let me shed some light on this. The idea of people like you is that when they see their boss driving a porsche, you think "That is unfair, that should be mine." You should think, "Hey, I want a porsche, I need to work hard to get one."
4. What do you mean by "real wage income?" (see next)
jpthehp 3 months ago
What a freaking use of Red Herring. Honestly people pull your heads out of your ass. You jackasses just throw these inflammatory extremes out there for lack of a better argument.
The fact that you believe socialism is inherently authoritarian just shows how backward you are. Gandhi clearly was a leftist and not a fraction authoritarian like Reagan. Left and right are independent of authoritarianism. Modern GOP is actually closer to Hitler both on the fiscal and authoritarian scale. Red Herring?
spastikman 3 months ago
@spastikman Thank you for saying! When it's a system looking out for the least among us it's a "Welfare State" but when it's rigging the tax code, trade, and deregulation, all while subsidizing the most profitable industries in history it's "Free Market Capitalism". Like you said most right-wingers live in a little bubble of extremes and never join the rest in reality of the gray area where most of real life is lived.
1bIgFaTsOnOfAbItCh 3 months ago
Complaining about free trade(capitalism) is complaining about freedom and the democratic nature of a peaceful society.
Bleakfacts 3 months ago 10
@Bleakfacts can you tell me what nation has EVER represented free market capitalism? It has never existed, especially not in America because our founding fathers intended for businesses to be held responsible to the people. This is what right extremists will never understand. It is just as unattainable as any other extreme like communism.
spastikman 3 months ago
@spastikman Every nation that has had any inkling of prosperity has represented capitalism. Free trade simply means you're free to trade unhindered by violence and intimidation. Free trade is peace. The US has been known to be one of the most peaceful nation to live in. You don't think we can be extremely peaceful? or extremely prosperous? Nothing holds business more responsible to the people than capitalism, since no business can maintain itself without the constant support of it's customers.
Bleakfacts 3 months ago 16
@Bleakfacts Free trade is not peace. You are drawing a false-equivelency.
When the Brittish attacked China in order to sell them opium, they did so in the name of "free trade." This was ironic because they GREW their opium in india under a totalitarian corporate monopoly, the very oposite of "free trade."
"Free trade" is a talking point. It is propaganda. Vaccuous of real meaning.
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac Really? How is being able to trade unhindered by violence and intimidation not peace? Just because governments are often hypocrites and rarely stand for free trade or peace does not make free trade any less real.
I just said a very precise definition, but you say it has no meaning. Free trade simply means you're free to trade unhindered by violence and intimidation. For example, within physical restraints(supply), you're free to choose your job and buy what you want and so on.
Bleakfacts 3 months ago
@Bleakfacts You are parsing definitions. I am looking at the actual historical use of the term. Your definition of free trade has never actually existed in the civilized world. All goverments, everywhere, have found cause to use force to effect trade. In addition, wealth itself is a form of political power. Government of, by and for the rich is not free trade either.
For example, my ability to start my own business has been limited by the insurance companies in this country.
psusac 3 months ago
Comment removed
Bleakfacts 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psusac You mean you are redefining words to match the actions of lying politician. That's messed up. It has very much has existed where ever there is any amount of peace. Are you not free to acquire a skill to choose from range jobs even though they're restricted by an income tax, licensing and a corporate tax you are intimidated to comply with, but in other countries your options are much more severely limited by violence and intimidation. (see next post)
Bleakfacts 3 months ago
@psusac The people with the most money is the common people that's why business merchandise mostly focuses on regular people. How exactly is an insurance company limiting your ability to start your own business?
Bleakfacts 3 months ago
@Bleakfacts My daughter has Diabetes. This means that insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping me OUT of their company, so private health insurance almost equals a second mortgage for me (at least it did last time I checked). My daughter's chronic health condition means that I also can't afford to live w/o insurance, so I'm more or less tied to my employer by my insurance policy.
Sometimes I think this is the goal of this system - corporate servitude.
psusac 3 months ago
@psusac But the insurance company is not threatening violence or doing anything to you. However, the government forces you to buy expensive healthcare insurance with loads of regulation on the healthcare industry like you not allowed to buy outside your state. The insurances companies lobby greatly for the violence but they succeed because people are so fixated on getting even with the corporations they actually demand more violence from the government rather than just get rid the violence....
Bleakfacts 3 months ago
@psusac That actually helps insurance companies like with the Obamcare despite all the demonizing of insurance companies Obamacare is rather profitable for greedy insurance companies.
Bleakfacts 3 months ago
@psusac The reason your daughter can't get health insurance is because not only is health insurance tied to employers, which separates it from the free market and drives of cost, but also because Lawyers keep suing drug companies with frivolous lawsuits to drive up the costs of medications that your health insurance shouldn't even be paying for as it also belongs in the free market.
Insurance was meant to pay for emergencies, not viagra!
MRKetter81 2 months ago
@MRKetter81 That's part of the problem. But the fact remains that it is the WEALTH of insurance companies that is corrupting the goverment in order to creat these laws that benefit them at the expense of the consumer.
Money is political authority by other means. The goverment is the guys with guns. The problem is that their power is going to the highest bidder.
psusac 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts American shit. Life quality in europe is much better than in the U. that's a fact. By the way: Capitalism is peaceful?
The United States and China (a country with a radical capitalist economy system today) are the greatest threat to world peace since Nazi Germany
Alariaify 2 months ago
@Alariaify Germany is now the wet nurse of Europe-getting sucked dry by nations it once invaded-Hitlers dream of a 1000 year Reich has become a 1000 year rape of the German people. VICTORY!!!
timeallows 2 months ago
@Alariaify Not much. Unemployment there is pretty bad (20% in Spain). And once they file for bankruptcy (because everyone knows they will), their living standards will decline a lot.
kriskats19 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts The US is peaceful on the inside, sure... but industrial powers in the US are concentrated in a way that gives them more power than the state, and it leads to foreign wars. When oil supplies get low, the country could find stable alternative energy, but instead the industry pressures the state to go to war to secure foreign sources. When the industry has more power than the government, and has the power to change legislation, that's not true democracy.
newusercommenter 1 month ago
@newusercommenter The government is the only organization that people believe should use violence against people that have not committed any crime. It's a the hole in wall that protects peace from waves of violence. No one could go to war without it's power to justify violence to people, so any organization that wants war or someone killed legally must rely on it and becomes an arm or unofficial agency of the government. Businesses must come to the government for power.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts But the point is that no organization that wasn't elected should be an arm or agency of the government. I didn't elect any corporate CEOs, so they should have the will to influence policy. If they do, it's a threat to democracy, and a threat to freedom.
It doesn't take an expert in sociology or economics to see that the wills of businesses in a industrialist economy influences policy. The industry serves an economic purpose, but overrides that purpose when its power is concentrated.
newusercommenter 1 month ago
@newusercommenter I agree with we should get rid of the EPA, FED IRS and other unelected gov. agencies. To get of rid businesses being us to laundry money we going have to restrict congresses spending powers. No more hundred billion spending bills to spend on who knows what.
Politicians don't need money from any business when they have access to the billions of tax dollars and by printing money the economy is their piggy bank. They just need a vessel to laundry it for them.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts I never said anything about getting rid of the EPA. Some of those organizations serve vital functions (whether or not they serve them well is another debate). What I have a problem with is large industries (economic, not political), like big oil industries, influencing policy against the will of the voting public. You seem to think capitalism goes hand in hand with democracy. But one is an economic organization and one is political - freedom comes from democracy, not capitalism.
newusercommenter 1 month ago
@newusercommenter It's not hard to argue that the EPA or some random gov funded business serves vital a function, but they are both agency appointed by the government for whatever the gov wants despite the org's supposed function. Elections do not negate the undemocratic basis of a gov, that is people are too stupid to spend there money wisely for their own good and must be intimidated. Freedom comes from people being at peace with each other and respecting ones decisions.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@newusercommenter it seems like the missing link is the electable president with morals, the guy who stands as the representative of the people instead of being a puppet of the ruling class and the corporations. if the system worked as it should then that is the person who should be made ultimately responsible for the enforcement of just and fair policies with the help of equally moral (although less experienced) congress-people. sadly i think that is where the problem lies.
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts sounds good right? well, not really. nowadays capitalism has created such a divide between the rich and the poor that the common person has no option but to buy into big business and contribute to the wealth of the ruling classes. the monopoly which these companies control what we buy and how we choose to spend through advertising, without us even thinking about this dilemma, means that the more powerful they become, the less chance there is of any competitive rivalry -
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts in the marketplace, thereby eliminating the idea of enterprising business.. here is an example. a local bus company started to offer fares at half the price of the large, national, private company which has been servicing this area for years and charging rip-off price. within a week the large company took note and charged less than the small company, even at a loss. eventually the small company simply couldnt affd to keep running the service and went bankrupt -
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@rinseoutdrycleaner I've seen this stupid example so many times. They wouldn't be making a profit with such high prices in the first place. It would be easier to pay a neighbor to give you a ride then take a bus. And when they charge ridiculously low prices their would be too many people who want a ride from them, so there will be still plenty of business for the small company and if they buy more buses the sc can just suspend activity till the bc stops wasting it's money.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
Comment removed
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts you cant simply suspend activity, costs like road tax, depot rental, insurance, employee wages, are ongoing. you are totally nieve, and seeing the world through rose tinted spectacles
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@rinseoutdrycleaner It's called temporary business. You close business till it's profitable to reopen, so you don't have employee wages and road tax or depot rental etc, but people are not stupid and will see through the scheme.. The fact that it took notice of small company at all shows that the sc was more than effective in competing against the bc despite the sc's size.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@rinseoutdrycleaner Also the big company is wasting a lot money on this when it could be making a profit by simply lowering it's price and that it would go out of business really fast if it did the same to every small business. Not to mention their are many other big business's that would like to enter such a empty market. Somewhere in woo woo land there's only a poor small business and a sadistic big business that goes out it's way to suppress the small one.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@rinseoutdrycleaner or build loyal costumers by touting your consistent price and that you're local. People don't always buy cheapest thing and a reasonably price ride makes more sense then buying over priced Starbucks coffee. You say people have no option but this is a perfect example of the options people have and the democratic process of the market. Should you vote for the little company or the big company?
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts society has diluted to the point where the common person doesnt distinguish the difference between big and small companies, or even care for that matter. the established company can afford advertising campaigns and brand new buses, a 10 year old bus with an unknown name is no match in terms of the common materialistic minds of today... i havent even started on the 'charitable donations' these companies make into certain other organisations.
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@rinseoutdrycleaner Of course people are too stupid to make their own decision so you and your buddies make everything better with intimidation and violence. I don't think the world is perfect or that it can be made perfect through violence. Competing with big business has been done many times by people with the skill and vision needed to make this world better. Get in a car take a ride through the city and u will see many small business's doing just fine without your naysay
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts and i think you are missing the point because now the only 'coffeeshops' we are left with are starbucks!! you cannot compete with a monopoly
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@rinseoutdrycleaner Starbucks is not monopoly. There are many places that sell coffee but expensive coffee isn't in high demand ,so it's a miracle Starbucks convince enough people to think drinking expensive coffee is cool so that we have so many coffee shops everywhere.I could do without a coffeeshop, but that's democracy for you.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts this is the way in which these corporations hold so much control, they now operate their usual service, again, at double the price that the enterprising company could offer them at, and the fares just seem to increase year on year. we the people, who are generally none the wiser, have no option but to support this company.
rinseoutdrycleaner 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts . lol - indoctrination has worked on you hasn't it?
mykebulvai 2 months ago
@mykebulvai Ad hominem. Tell me what's wrong with what I said.
Bleakfacts 2 months ago
@Bleakfacts But how can peace prevail in a capitalistic society when competition breeds violence because socially stratified wealth has destroyed the working class ambitions and reduced the majority of people into serfs. Capitalism without morals, ideals, and humanity, will eventually turn into economic slavery; and the the poor will become morally degenerate and spiritually bankrupt. They will have no hope or means to support themselves.
1polymath 1 month ago
@1polymath If advocating no violence creates more violence, what now? Peace is violent? Free trade is simply solving our daily social problems without violence. People compete to provide the best contribution to society and are rewarded accordingly. Faulty business's fail and jobs are lost so that better managed and oriented business(and jobs) can take their places. This way the economy is fine tuned to provide most goods and service that are in demand, so that everyone is better off.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts It has nothing to do with faulty jobs or business. It has everything to do with greed and maximizing profitability. Ppl were not laid off because American's were lazy. Workers are tired of having to produce more for less all the while the oligarchs and plutocrats reap the reward of industry they purposely manipulated in their favor. And waged war against the ideals unionized labor labeling it Socialism.
1polymath 1 month ago
@1polymath I was only describing how society has always worked. If people can't manage money without being overcome by greed and taking it all how do you suppose anything works? Ppl are laid off for any number of reasons all of which prevent a business from employing so many people with out going under and laying off all their employees. A net loss of jobs is usually caused by the government taking money with inflation and taxes.
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@Bleakfacts Well The FED is not a government ran institution, it is a private profit seeking corporation. Jobs are taken overseas because once again greed and free market always demands that cheap labor be employed for maximum profitability. Less tax revenue means that the Gov. will always be in debt and public institutions will start to fail laying off teachers, police, city workers, etc. This even further depletes the tax base. Only a job and a living wage can manage an economy.
1polymath 1 month ago
@1polymath Not a government ran institution??? It was created by the government and is backed by US law and police. Even though you may believe corporation are somehow stealing from you. Their explicit purpose is to provide people with the best product possible, but the FED's explicit purpose and suppose duty as written in US law is to steal money through inflation. Profit just means positive cash flow, so when you go to work and make a profit does that make you greedy?
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
@1polymath Their should be no more violence then at soccer game, though savages or badly informed people will find an excuse for violence. The wealth you talk of is mostly the value of businesses which is owned by a few, because few people are educated in finance and free trade is far from being our countries policy. Though liquid wealth, the hard cash everyone craves, is dominated by the masses. Businesses only have value because people choose to cycle cash through them to buy something
Bleakfacts 1 month ago
Milton Friedman would be right of the public was educated and had insight into a transparent market. None of that is present which is why the ideal of complete individual liberty is as unrealistic as communism was - corruption and manipulation seems to be human nature and no socio-political model we know of can counter that. Hopefully something will turn up.
mufflejoy 4 months ago
Milton Friedman would be right of the public was educated and had insight into a transparent market. None of that is present which is why the ideal of complete individual liberty is as unrealistic as communism was - corruption and manipulation seems to be human nature and no real system can counter that.
mufflejoy 4 months ago
For those who don't like being manipulated: Bismarck resisted Hitler's reach for power but died shortly after Hitler became chancellor. He founded social security in 1880 - Nazi party originates in late 1920s. So to show a graph with a swastika and point to that as the origins is a gross manipulation.
mufflejoy 4 months ago
@mufflejoy It absolutely is the origin. Just because Bismarck opposed Hitler means nothing. This is the inherent problem with giving your government more power, even if it is initially for good - all it takes is a Hitler and a little propaganda to ruin it. The same can be said in America. We're slowly letting the president have more and more power, while taking power from congress. We will likely devolve into something of the sort at some point. Don't believe me? Bush was just a taste.
munkyusm 4 months ago
The concept of the welfare state doesn't necessarily involve Socialism. Like said in the clip, Conservative Germany of a century ago was far from a Socialist society.
Another example is Sweden of today, a nation (together with Iceland and Switzerland) boasting a higher number of successful capitalist corporations than any other country on Earth - depite our nannystate tradition. Furthermore, two of the richest men on Earth are Swedes (according to Forbes).
scholion 4 months ago
you mean you r a jew, but use a maske of atheist, 90% of the jews like u deny their reality, like Lenin ad stalein, bush. so u r a jew, u said u don't want me to continue my studing because u want to cover ur religion the evil synagogue the synagogue of your father satan
withoutamask77 4 months ago
Save Gaddhafi! He's innocent!
xxpeniskingxx 4 months ago
FACT: WELFARE is a symptom of Free market.
mba2ceo 4 months ago
Libertarian socialism = free to do whatever you want just as long as you don't spend money in any part of the process. How much freedom is that?
Thatmakessense356 5 months ago
@Thatmakessense356 Isn't "Libertarian socialism" an oxymoron?
dave19941000 5 months ago
@dave19941000 That's the point. Yep.
Thatmakessense356 5 months ago
Injdirectly, you've proven that a coop market can't survive without subisidies, that people don't want coops otherwise they'd be starting alot more coops voluntarily instead of private businesses, that if you weren't geographically isolated and you didn't have 3rd world people paying for your nice life, your welafe system would take a severe hit.
Plus I didn't investigate danish coops to find out if they're actual worker coops or one of those pseudo-coops, but I'm guessing some of them arent
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Easy, easy! Subsidy of co-ops was only a thought, not a core tenet of my political ideology! I honestly haven't put much thought into the idea, it was just something to throw out there for consideration. I don't have a series of counter-arguments ready, and I don't know the viability of the idea. It was just a thought.
Anyway, I absolutely admitted that the social welfare initiatives would contract (unless tax codes were adjusted to compensate for lost revenue). So what?
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
You're the one defending Socialism, your nick is SocialistCatgirl, you spend your time here defending socialism on youtube and you don't even know how to get there. ROFL, it's your ideal.
Extraordinary.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
My mainstay is Social Democracy and extension of a state-supported series of welfare initiatives. Democratization of the workplace can occur in a manner I'm much better versed in (trade unionism) or a manner I'm less versed in but willing to consider (subsidy of cooperatives). There are even more ways to do it, but my main method would be trade unionism.
So I'm far from "not knowing how to get there".
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Oh, SocialistCatgirl, lol...
Democratization of the workplace, through unions...
You have a Romeo defending your honour in your channel, I think you should go and reward him.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Hm? Whither this Romeo? What art thou speaking of?
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@seppsters
Didn't you admit a short while ago that you've been baiting me throughout this conversation and others we've had, ultimately with the goal of verbally tripping me up?
Can I take anything you've said seriously anymore?
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
Communism came out of the catholic church. When they turned their back on the vatican, that is when they started claiming there is no God, to make a long story short. To make the communist pay for their insubordination, the vatican brought fore the Nazi Party. Yes, the vatican had more to do with WWI & WWII than they will ever admit to!
streetrace442 5 months ago
Three requirements the government should sign for my tax 1 shouldn't tamper with documents that benefit your circumstances. 2 hiding of info and causing criminal damage ie wars. 3 hiding illegal in your tenant ces for capital gain ie immigrants. We'll have to call you in british government for new agreement but for now you will not get paid and my tax will be going to the third world.
MrNeversaynever 5 months ago
Fine, an undemocratic society is undemocratic whether it is communist, fachist, teochracy or plutochracy. But by that putting an equal-to sign between nazism and soviet communism is just as stupid as writing USA = Cuba because they are both republics. Cheap propaganda. Don't buy it.
AngeCord 5 months ago
@AngeCord
You're right, but to back that claim, can you give me an example of a socialist society that became effectively egalitarian and resource-based and didn't end up in a tyranical regime.
In case you can't I want you to think really carefully about who's throwing cheap propaganda based on no historical evidence what-so-ever.
seppsters 5 months ago 11
@seppsters Where in my post did I glorify socialism? I didn't even mention sosialism. What was my "propaganda" and what did I write that has "no historical evidence"? Please elaborate.
AngeCord 5 months ago
@AngeCord
Nevermind, it was a mistake, I guess...
seppsters 5 months ago
That is right,, and both Communism and Nazism (National Socialism) comes from the same fundamental branch called Collectivism... The opposition is Individualism (Liberalism / Libertarianism).
The only true difference between Communism and National Socialism is that, National Socialists discriminate people by rase / nationality,, and Communists discriminate people by class and believes.
Everything else is exactly the same.
bjarnet3 5 months ago
@bjarnet3
Yep, Communism and Nazism are exactly the same except for who they blame for society's ills.
Never mind that Communists are Materialists who call for the deletion of the state and the establishment of common holding of the means of production while Nazis were Idealists who called for maximization of the state's power and its advancement while clinging to notions of Social Darwinism.
The CCCP, PRC, and North Korea wear the name of Communism, but not the body.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
So you want to take a society where just about every human being (including you) spends most of his time thinking about himself and/or his family, and make all of those human beings start dedicating that time to the common good voluntarily.
Just curious, in your funny little mind does this actually work or do you just do this for a laugh ?
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
By "do this" do you mean correct people who mistakenly declare that Nazis were Communists by describing what Communism and Nazism actually are? Because I have to tell you, it's a lot more exasperating than amusing.
To satisfy your curiosity, no I do not believe that Communism would work. That is why I'm not a Communist, but rather a Social Democrat. Social Democracy is a time-tested mode of Socialist governance which has succeeded. Communism lives in the annals of theory.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
WTF ? Why would you call yourself a socialist if you're a soc dem ?
Soc Dem has about 1% of socialism and 99% capitalism. Do you even know what socialism is ?
I suggest you read a couple of books by Marx and also a couple of books on basic economics before you make any more comments.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
What is your problem, man? I've been nothing but polite to you, and you've been nothing but a dick to me. Are you bored and looking for a fight or something?
Social Democracy falls under the category "Reform Socialism". As such it is explicitly designed to reform Capitalism to suit the aims of Socialists. If you examine the state of Denmark (and I recommend you do) you'll find that your 1% to 99% ratio is utter tripe. Tightly regulated welfare states are Capitalist? Bullshit.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
No, Denmark isn't Socialism, You can create a system different from socialism and call it socialism as well, but it has very little similarities with marxist socialism. The main difference is: Private Ownership
I believe your version of socialism through democracy is unachievable
How do you plan on nationalizing private businesses? By Force? You lose democracy. Voluntarily? It won't happen. Buying them? You can make the math and see Denmark would go bankrupt
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
You ask me:
"How do you plan on nationalizing private businesses?"
Socialism is a lot less about nationalizing privately held businesses and a lot more about democratizing the workplace. While the state would be used to tightly regulate business operations, nationalization would not always be necessary. If the state really felt a need to exert some sort of influence to drive democratization of the workplace, one option would be to subsidize workers' cooperatives.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
I assumed your type of socialism was to have everyone working for the state, like public businesses in DK.
So, again, how do you plan on converting those private businesses into real socialist businesses ?
The huge majority of public and private businesses aren't socialist atm afaik.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
As I said, your best option would be to subsidize workers' cooperatives. These sorts of workplaces are inherently democratized, so you need to do absolutely nothing to them to make them Socialist. All you would need to do is support their continued existence.
Businesses that are not co-ops would then be at a disadvantage while co-ops would sprout like weeds. That would do the trick. The non-cooperatives would either leave, convert, or compete poorly. Artificial selection, amigo!
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
Right this will be my last reply because i don't have patience to write on the other page, sorry
You already lost this debate a long time ago, I've just been playing you trying to get you to defend my point of view, which was fun, I kind of got it when you admitted you'd have to severely reduce welfare to allow private/public businesses to survive the foreign worker wage increase
So you're planning on using taxes from private biz / workers to sub coops, does this sound fair ?
seppsters 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Secondly you plan on continuously subsidizing to make sure they overpower private/public businesses in the market. So, essentially, you're rewarding inferior businesses and taxing private businesses to death
Well that would be the start of economic colapse effectively, since the "power of selection" would go from the consumer to the state
And thirdly: "sprout like weeds ?" Thousands of private businesses sprouting everywhere yearly and where are those coops ?
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Speakest thou of MrTrialLawyer? Sir Lawyer and I merely rendezvous on the matter of Spinzoism, the conferral between us be purely platonic I assure thee.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Where are those millions of coops taking over markets ? ROFL because I don't see that.
Or you mean continuously subsidize them until all private/public businesses are gone ? Because if you are you'll be effectively driving your country to a recession and the country will start moving towards communism by taking money away from private industry to pay coop wages.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
There are a few things to take note of here, ROFL.
1. No one (as far as I'm aware) is doing what I proposed. So there's no basis for a comparison of systems, and it's no surprise you aren't seeing anything. I don't see Nazis overrunning Scandinavian politics, smartass!
2. Subsidy doesn't necessarily entail recession, nor does it necessarily kill unsubsidized businesses entirely. It can also make product cheaply available and readily abundant. Corn in the USA is your example.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
"smartass"
And here you were asking me to be nice a couple of posts ago, rofl. You're 100% socialist allright.
1. You are correct noone has ever done that, so why exactly are you basing your beliefs on something noone ever did ? Could it be called a fanatsy ? Maybe ?
Nearly Nazi are growing alot, and you still don't have any emigration, just wait until you get some actual mass-migration.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that. Got worked up. I'll ignore the "100% Socialist alright" thing because turnabout's fair play.
Anyway, you've really not beaten me in the debate regarding Social Democracy's viability and Scandinavia's relative success with the system. All you've shown is that the way it is funded, if adjusted to account for humanitarianism, would result in a contraction of benefits. Of course, just as quickly tax codes could be adjusted to account for lost money.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
2. You're using the USA as an example ? Arguably still the most capitalist country in the world ? You can't pick little examples here and there to prove your fantasies, just look at the rest of the US.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
A demonstration of functional subsidy policy invalidates your argument that it would lead to the proverbial market Armageddon and you want to examine unrelated markets to try to defend your views. Sorry, not buying it.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
Actually, it kind of does I can give you loads of examples where subsidies policies had very negative effects in the US, but I don't need to, just keep watching Milton Friedman videos and you'll find a couple.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
Tell you what, seppsters ol' buddy. Let's just let it go. I'll emigrate to Denmark, have a good old time with my fellow Danes, and we'll do things our way. You can stick around in Portugal, do what you do, and we can call it a life for both of us. Now how does that sound? No more bickering, no more fuss. Just two happy people doing what they do.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
And as for you being here defending communism, it might be an indication of selective tolerance. Communism resulted in the death of at least 100 million people (possibly up to 500 million), and yet you feel the important need to come and protect it
Communism didn't stay in the 'annals of theory' it was very much transfered to practical reality, and it was the most horrible and murderous reality ever witnessed by man
I tried my best in being nicer in these replies.
seppsters 5 months ago
@seppsters
You succeeded at being nicer, and I appreciate the effort. It contributes volumes to the discussion's productivity.
Now, the truth is that Communism is not a single political ideology. It (like Socialism) refers to a number of socioeconomic systems. There are elements which are common to all Communist ideologies (pursuit of classless societies, opposition to nationalism, dissolution of private property, etc.) but from there are very real distinctions between the schools.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@seppsters
Let me run through a few to give you an idea of what I mean. Maoism, Leninism, and Stalinism are authoritarian variants of Communism responsible for the deaths you cited. Nationalism is espoused by Maoism and Stalinism (bringing their status as legitimate schools of Communism into scrutiny). The main thread between these schools is that they employ a "vanguard party" which controls the government and elections.
Most other schools of Communism reject such concepts entirely.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@seppsters
Many Communists pursue their goals through violent revolution (Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc.), though several also believe that the revolution that Marx spoke of need not be violent. Such Communists instead seek to carry out a cultural revolution, seeking to change the way that entrepreneurs and workers view themselves and the world around them. Christian Communism falls into this second vein, for example.
I was really just distinguishing Communism from Nazism, by the way.
SocialistCatgirl 5 months ago
@SocialistCatgirl
A reminder.
seppsters 5 months ago
Yes, obviously who ever made this video knows exactly what they're talking about, because they equated Otto von Bismark with the Nazis.
Both are German, right? Different forms of government, completely different policies? Details.
HisokanoOkami 5 months ago
Market fundamentalists are the Communists of the 21st century, they both consider all failed attempts to implement their respective ideologies as not being communist/capitalist because it didn't fulfill a certain criteria or didn't do everything by the letter
Truth be told, market fundamentalism will, at the end of this century or maybe even in a few decades, be thrown on the junkyard of history as just another failed ideology associated with political instability, social unrest and turmoil
atosafi1 5 months ago
well communism, facism, and socialism were created by the same political ideology called liberalism, then it resulted in the death of 6 million jews, caused by the Nazi socialists, then the deaths of 100 million people across the world as a result of communism.
Barry62152 5 months ago
The statements made in this video are not entirely true, though I agree with most of them. The aristocracy of Germany was being progressively weakened under the democratic elements of the government. Otto Von Bismark, a shrewd democratic politician, led this movement to the advantage of his career. The German aristocracy allowed this to happen out of fear of ending up like the aristocracy during the French Revolution.
bxjam85 6 months ago
As long as it's drilled into our minds that the good of "The People" is more important than the Good of ourselves, we'll have red tape & big government. Don't take my word, or anyone else's for that matter. Use your own intelligence.
TumisHumis 6 months ago
total bs,.. modern world thinking ,.. no good ask a pharoh ,.. modern thnk they slaves ,.. not slaves,.. love pharoh only work small bit live good life, all have food , all have homes,.. nobody rich ,.. but everybdy secure free your mind of the bonds of todays world
MrMentalflossed 6 months ago
@MrMentalflossed what the f are you talking about
RedDeadAintDead 6 months ago
@MrMentalflossed I'm guessing English isn't your first language, because this post doesn't make much sense. Pharaoh?!? Is this a reference to ancient Egypt? Are you seriously implying that, despite it being ruled by an autocratic dictator, that everything was hunky-dory for all, or even most, Egyptians? If so, then, dude, you have no clue what life was like in the ancient world. (Besides that, do you really have to go as far back as ancient Egypt to find a "good" example of centralized govt?)
dcyates 6 months ago
@dcyates the days of the egyptians are missunderstood,.. the end days of the empire there was slavery ,.. the workers that built the true egyptian structure were free ment hat worked a portion of their time of free will for their comunity and were well taken care of whiel they did,.. historical fact. at the fall times , it reverted to bse vibrational human greed and then slavery ensued. yup i'm saying it, thay had paradise on earth and blew it.
MrMentalflossed 6 months ago
This is actually a VERY good video that explains the whole point behind the authoritarians' agenda. Left or right doesn't play any role here. National Socialism or Communism - it's all exactly the same s**t only different way to introduce it to the public.
The point is that they all are authoritarians that want to get into positions of power using "useful idiots" to achieve their goal. Only democracy and capitalism go well if the people are willing to stop being spoiled.
AlexNOSAM 7 months ago
@AlexNOSAM If you remove the democracy then you don't have to worry about people spoiling themselves. I don't advocate for an authoritarian form of governance, but instead polycentric governance. Why restrict government from being subject to competitive forces like everything else is? Order is emergent, as you should know from studying markets. Likewise, law and regulation is emergent. Top down planning for any industry/service is never justified.
cincofone 7 months ago
Goddammit.
Was it really necessary to call the German Empire a "right-wing dictatorship"?
There's a big fucking difference between a constitutional monarchy and a dictatorship.
If it had been a dictatorship, the Social Democratic Party wouldn't even have existed, let alone get elected into parliament.
I get your point and I'm not too fond of welfare myself, but this just feels like you're saying "Hurrdurr Germans did it, so it's totally evil and nazi".
Goldpferd 7 months ago
An authoritarian is an authoritarian. Different flavors, same substance.
CarlosMarti123 8 months ago 24
@CarlosMarti123 Exactly, Coca Cola and Pepsi
TheProgressistViewer 6 months ago
However, somehow, China is an exception, having managed to thrive in a heavily socialist state, despite capitalist competition.
mknomad5 8 months ago
@mknomad5 Please open a history book before you make a fool of yourself online. China was one of the poorest countries in the world until about twenty years even the USSR was doing better. That's because twenty years ago they started reforms of freeing the market and privatization and they still go in that trend even today. so in fact it is capitalism that brought them that prosperity
In the times of pure communism many Chinese even had to resort to canibalism because of food shortages...
AlexNOSAM 8 months ago
@AlexNOSAM And yet there's is still a much more heavily regulated system and works very well compared to ours, so what's US excuse?
mknomad5 8 months ago
@mknomad5 Works better? Many people there work in conditions of slavery - the vast majority in fact. Plus don't forget it's a totalitarian regime - there are concentration camps for political prisoners and everything. The only people who really enjoy it are the narrow top politicians.
AlexNOSAM 8 months ago
Fact: Milton Friedman supports rule by birth !!!
mba2ceo 8 months ago
sosiolism should not be compared to communism or the nazi. The socialdemocratic countries are far apart from the the so called communist countries( for the record there is no real communist countries, their mostly run by a dictator who operates behinde the ide of communism but with totaly differen't motives) but they are also far away from the extreme right winged capitalistic america. Socialists is pretty close to the center whilst Amreica is right wing extreme.
kvistulv 8 months ago
@kvistulv socialism is a start down the road to communism or nazism , when the money runs out how do you take care of these people who are under the control of the state , the ussr ran out of cash , hell america if doing the left agenda and we are broke too
readyxxi 8 months ago
@readyxxi No, unfortunately, socialism NEVER leads to communism, or at least, it never has yet in the history of the planet. And communism will never be accomplished until we have a one world government and economy, because as it is now, socialist states must compete with capitalist states. Truth is, capitalism is the more profitable of the two, but at the expense of standard of living of 95% of all humans, and at the expense of our entire ecosystem, and our species.
mknomad5 8 months ago