Workers of the US unite! Fight back and declime your rights as humanbeings! The fight for workers rights is the fight for human rights! Socialism for ever!
It is fine, but they still allow millions of evil shit skin fucks in form the 3rd world. This is insane and we have to kick them out or kill them in a civil war. Kill shit skins and save the planet.
funny thing is "national socialism" has led to violent anti-immigrant sentiments in Norway, Russia, and other European countries. it seems as though socialism has just as bad a rap as communism for many Americans, especially in the eyes of conservatives..
My late uncle was a left-wing Democrat counsellor & Union activist. At his funeral last year, many eulogies were made praising him as a great community leader & role model.
Looking at his diaries, I was horrified to find that in 1975-79 he regularly went to Cambodia to ‘assist’ the Khmer Rouge in their “heroic quest for a new society”. Sickeningly, this included sitting in on interrogation/torture sessions at the infamous Tuol Sleng detention camp.
@irishgodfatherchris I would ask you to define liberalism. as i currently understand it a progressive is some one who is economicaly to the left and liberal is someone who is for social liberty ( sense the poltical spectrum is two dimensional).I would agree democratic voters due tend to be liberal/progressives, but I'd argue leaders in the party like obama aren't in either the progressive, or liberal spectrum (political compass says he's economically right and socially restrictive)
@DrBandrew when I say Liberal in a world wide sense (In my country the Liberals are conservatives but thats another story) I mean the political centre, Obama from where I stand on a neutral stand point is a right-leaning Liberal and not a Progressive or even a Social Democrat
i love billy bragg. but couldnt you find a better song. it sounds like a soviet union propaganda bs song. and one of the problems is the constant barrage of media coverage promoting capitalism by profit making news corps. A democracy should not be run by corporations like our corprocracy is.
Most admit much is wrong with America- listen to AM radio, FoxNews, etc. (full of complaints)- but most people refuse to endorse significant change. If there is so much to be fixed in America then something fairly radical needs to be done to fix it. Major problems require major solutions.
@Bronzecop I assumed from your quote you were using a Marxist definition of socialism. As such, Japan and Norway are not socialist, and therefore are not required to be totalitarian for what I said to be true. My statement was made in the context of a Marxist definition of socialism, although I recognise there are many other ways socialism can be defined. Hopefully that clears things up =)
@VividlyContemporary I think you mean to say they're not communist because I view both nations as very democratic which I consider is in the center spectrum of the socialism scale since democracy is very collective. Well since you stated in which perspective on how you were using your comment, yes that did clear things up.
@Bronzecop Yes I can see your point. Although it is true that Norway (I don't know much about Japan) has some heavy state involvement in the economy in specific areas, I wouldn't say that the workers control the means of production (either directly or via a state) in a more general sense across the economy. I have always been reluctant to put social democracy (unlike democratic socialism) within the socialist category, although it is indeed collectivist to some extent....
@Bronzecop ...To elaborate the point I was making originally. I think that if the state is allowed to control the means of production on behalf of the workers then, although it may work in the short term, totalitarianism is a very likely outcome of the state having such power over the ability of any person to survive. If it is a more direct form of democratic socialism of some kind, I think that although it can be successful, it can only work either for a short time or in fairly small societies.
@VividlyContemporary Yeah I dislike the idea of one power having total control. makes it no different than a Plutocracy. You consider Japan & Norway small societies?
@Bronzecop No but I consider them social democracies with large state involvement. The kind of democratic socialism I had in mind was more like some of the communities there were in Spain during the civil war and around that time.
@Bronzecop Ah fair enough. Personally I would suggest a balance where certain areas that are directly in the public interest, such as healthcare and education, are socialised, but I don't support large scale government subsidy or intervention in the economy in general. I think a competitive system is generally the most effective in the long term, but I would want policies to encourage lots of workers cooperative to try and promote a more equal system without doing damage to competition either.
@Bronzecop who have? Norway and Japan? (I don't mean that in a rude way I am actually just unsure which they) I am not sure how much we can read into Norway's performance, I don't know how much is to do with the system or how much is to do with it having a lot of the economy being driven by natural resources or other factors more generally. It could well be an effective system as a cause I genuinely don't know either way.
@VividlyContemporary norway and japan have private enterprise, private property and individual economic rights. they are not socialist countries, but rather, heavily regulated capitalist states.
@chrispollock technically they're both. I know that sounds like a contradiction but here me out, in Norway they have free market enterprises but they also implement the basic notions of socialism.
In the sense of the term, the Labour Party isn't Democratic Socialist in the slightest. Firstly, like all governments claiming to be democratic, it's an Oligarchy. Secondly, it's Capitalist. Anywho, I digress.
@sweiland75 Nothing at all. Since, democratic socialism describes any movement, person, or party that wants to create a democracy with all the rights of the people. And, make a socialist economy. (not necessarily state-owned. Merely something the people as whole can control.) Social democracy is a reformist path to socialism that works via reform. Both ideologies are moderate socialist. The Labour Party has devolved into something that isn't even social democratic.
@DinodudeEpic More like third way politics. In fact, various social democrats are becoming third way. This is due to the growing neoliberalism, conservatism, and authoritarianism of Washington. (Started by Ronald Reagan.) I'm not saying that the US government is bad or undemocratic. But, it is slowing becoming undemocratic. It's more like a cultural thing that evolved out of the assumptions that the Soviet Union was socialist and that the fall of the USSR signals the death of socialism.
@DinodudeEpic *Note that I'm not saying that the American Government is actively telling social democratic parties to go Third Way. It's actually due to intra-party forces and some of newcomers (like Tony Blair.) being former corporate executives.
@Potts132 How is a one party system like Communism where class systems are abolished and the wealth is re-distrubuted Democratic Socialism? Get an education and go back to listening to Glen Beck.
@kristianOLS Silly silly, Communism is not supposed to be a one party state. It's supposed to be classless and stateless were all decisions are in the hands of the workers and should be handled democratically. Super literary it's democratic socialism. Weird that you told a leftist to listen to Glen Beck. So Democratic Socialism IS technically Communism with a State, because the people still control the means of production and rule themselves :3
Actually my comment was being facetious in reference to the battle you were waging with Bronzecop. That's all the social programs are is redistribution. The people at the top pay all the taxes and the people at the bottom get all the benefits. That's redistribution.
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
Democratic Socialism is Communism with a velvet glove instead of an iron gauntlet. Where Communism uses force from the beginning to get people to do what they want, Democratic Socialism strokes people into what they want and if a little friendly persuasion doesn't work, they step up their game a notch until they find the level of persuasion necessary for each individual. It's still tyranny, only with better manners.
@dragonkiller117 I hope to god you are kidding. what an idiot remark we show republic traits but we are a democracy.China is a communism and russia is a federal semi-presidential republic. You also must know nothing of democratic socialism. And to everyone that reads this look up democratic socialism and the countries that have it. Most of the people in those countries say they would much rather have a democratic socialism.
Benjamin Franklin, when asked "What have you given us?" replied "A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it." The United States was NEVER a Democracy. Senators were appointed by the states and the President was also elected by the states, not the people. The founders knew that giving too much power to the people would be as bad as giving too much to the federal government they were creating so they placed limits on what the people could demand of the government.
@gamewizard And LOL... I can´t belive I see this over and over.. if a state is a republic, it doesn´t mean it´s not a democracy! It doesn´t have to be, but one does not exclude the other. Republic is a form of government, and the term itself says nothing about it´s principals of rule or its policies. Let´s hope that all Americans understand the importance of democracy in their republic. Otherwise it will turn in to nazi germany
A Republic and a Democracy are not the same thing. A Democracy is when the people have direct and total control over everything. That eventually leads to anarchy because the people always end up voting for their own self interest over the good of the country as a whole. The Communists know this and are trying to bring us down by giving more power directly to the people. They are giving us enough rope to hang ourselves with.
@gamewizard Agreed, they are not the same thing. just as a glass bottle and coca cola is not the same thing but one does not rule out the other. representative democracy is not exclusive to republics and direct democracy has rarely been seen in history and yes, it is associated with anarchy and utopian marxism. still, republics can be democratic. democracy is not necesserily direct democracy. And when did volvo or saab move?? and where?
And you don't find that the least bit disturbing, that the government thinks this country is something that it isn't and never was meant to be? If the government and the people can't even agree on what the actual form of government is, that's a huge red flag (pun intended). The way the Democrats are running things, we aren't even a Democracy anymore. They all consider themselves princes and potentates over their own little sultanates.
Voting democratic socialist........ what over 200 countries have tried and failed. It makes no since to do it again... If I am a hard working high earnings person, and I am forced to give my money to someone not working as much I am going to stop working as hard. The worker receiving money, will work less, knowing he will get money. Then the money maker will work less, knowning all his money is going to someone not trying! and it goes on and on until no one has any money!!! It's that simple!!
@Fidlestyx tried and failed? germany, UK, norway, denmark, sweden, france, and many more would be failed states in your eyes? safety, stability and equality makes people happy and prosperous. And frankly I don´t know if social democrats should be called socialists by the definition it seem to have in the us.. these countries have very well functioning capitalistic free markets. what you describe simply doesn´t happen
@TheGrindsprint, Well if you havent noticed, when people are in need of major surgery from other countries, they almost ALWAYS come to America. Also, yes Europe has, London, France, Berlin, and so on....... Yes those are beautiful sities. But drive out of them and there are some really bad parts compared to America. When you compare bad parts of Europe to bad parts of America, America wins (Nice-ness) far. Also not to be rude or offened anyone, but America has a lot richer people.
@Fidlestyx I don´t know that that is true at all. From what countries would people go to America to get surgery and for what reasons? Also I don´t think it´s true that bad parts of europe would be worse than bad parts of America. It´s widely known that poverty in the US is a big problem. The kind of ghettos and projects you have over there are of an extreme that we don´t have in western europe. Your rich are richer, thats true. at the expense of a massive base of poor people.
A massive base of poor people who sit on their asses all day making poor babies because of all the government handouts available. The left purposely keeps these people poor and on government assistance then convinces them to vote for them to protect their handouts, well the time of the handouts is coming to an end. We can't afford the debt that finances it anymore. If these people had gotten an education and skills they would be better off than taking the handouts.
@gamewizard those companies were sold. interestingly enough, considering your comment, most of the production of those cars stayed in the country. GM has manufactured a cadillac here in the SAAB plant too. Why would any companies flee? Sweden ranks higher than the US in competetiveness. Our corporate tax is about two thirds of that of the US. That thatcher quote is cute, but what does it really mean? how is it true and/or relevant?
@2bpilot One day the people will rise up and they always do when a few controls or owns everything. read o history book or two and learn how history repeats itself ..
@2bpilot In the long run, ppl going to college would make more money to contribute to the economy, so it would work out, no? Plus, those ppl recieving grants would pay more graduated taxes in the future. You can think of it as an investment by the government. "Actual labor" may be preferred because it is done now as opposed to later (after college), but when seasonal or frictional unemployment kicks in, you have a bunch of ppl with not much skill looking for work.
But why should have to pay to someone else's kid to college? Shouldn't that kid's parents be the ones to pay? Any parent who is unwilling to pay for their own child's education and hands off their parental responsibility to society shouldn't be a parent in the first place.
@2bpilot Why is the stress always on business? First of all, the goal of business is to make a profit. Second of all, if there was more emphasis on education in this country, not everyone would have to be a business-person. If it weren't for the government giving me study grants, then I wouldn't be able to study what I like and go out into the world to make it a better place. I would probly be sitting behind desk hiring ppl to work for me and getting rich, but I don't want that.
And what is the goal of getting an education in the first place? It's so you can go out in the world and make more than you could have without one. If everyone is made equal, what's the point of going to college if you won't make any more than the guy who didn't go?
@2bpilot It would be great if it actually worked like that for everyone. People already in power don't really care about giving opportunities to ppl trying to work hard.
Oh? And that's why billionaires give so much of their money to charities and establish scholarship funds and the like for the underprivileged. Damn rich bastards.
@2bpilot The problem is the difference in perspectives. Democratic socialists look at the world in a more community-oriented way, meaning that if we all work together and share with each other, we'll all look after each other and no one will be left behind. The government system in America is a quasi-democratic system, which keeps the bad side of having a gov't but also keeps the bad side of Capitalism (which overshadows the good side of having a gov't).
It's a good idea, but it's a choice that people should be left to make on their own not one that they're forced to make at gunpoint. There are plenty of people who make charitable contributions of their own free will. Government arm twisting should never be allowed.
@2bpilot With those who areant responsible. Democratic Socialism has been around for a while now in Japan, Canada, Argentina, Central & Northern Europe. & there has been no problems like in Facism & Communism to this day.
@2bpilot I hope you see it as the same way with the 14% tax in the U.S with that claim, but it gives everyone a chance. Paying for those things out of pocket cost a lot more, a full-time semster at a university is around $5000-$10000 & someone working full-time at $18/hour can't afford to pay that in a month when fees are due. Also Social Democratic Politcians arean't corporate backed, so their gov't is not shady.
@2bpilot I'm going to use Denmark as an example where tax is 39% there, yes it may be high but even after taxes they still make more than someone here in the U.S. that makes $11/hour where tax is 14%.
@2bpilot Heres the basics: Big Business is not the gov't, there is no ran-sacking of land & civil rights like communism, further education pushed & it is free, min. wage is a etiquette wage ($18/hour), homes are affordable, healthcare is universal, you recieve a child support check from the gov't if you have a child, if you have a wife who is a working mother (of if you are a working mother) she has benefits to stay home with infant until its a child. Thats the basics
Why should I pay taxes to support you? You are responsible for yourself, I am responsible for myself. I don't owe you anything and you don't owe me anything. If you can't afford to pay your own way through life, that's not may fault or my problem.
95% of the world's wealth is controlled by only 5% of the population. And most of us know Big Business corporate America really controls Washington. Democratic Socialists do not want government to control every aspect of our lives. They also do not want corporations to be governing us either, as we are governed now. Co-ops & unions; democratically owned & run work places can take power out of Big Business' hands. Please research it. It's a fair & beautiful ideaology.
Thank you for posting this. Misconceptions (or outright lies) abound regarding Socialism and, specifically, Democratic Socialism. People need to know that countries that have instituted a fair amount of Socialist initiatives live longer and healthier lives than Americans. Like Sen. Sanders from Vermont has pressed, healthcare is a moral issue and a right, not a privelege for those that can afford it. And like you said, I believed in Dem. Socialism before I knew I did. Research it please, people.
Healthcare is not a right. There are no guarantees in life. You could step off the curb and get mowed down by a bus tomorrow. Why should your hospital bills be paid by the rest of us because you're too stupid to watch where you're going?
@gamewizard The idea that healthcare is not a right, but something you earn is widespread in the US, but it is not anything more than an idea. to hold it and promote it is emotionally retarded and psychotic. just like all psychopaths, you don´t realize your lack of compassion. Get well
I have plenty of compassion. Charities exist to serve the poor who can't afford medical care and there are people who donate generously to them, myself included. What I don't like is the idea that the government can force anyone to donate against their will by using taxation as the means to do so.
@gamewizard I have a question for you. Are children exempt from your little healthcare plan? I mean, if I have a child and can't afford her cancer treatments, should she just die?
Ever heard of St. Jude's? Or Shriners Hospitals? Or other charitable hospitals that make medical care available for low cost or for free? There's already places the truly destitute can go for medical care. The government doesn't need to forcibly take money away from anyone to provide for them.
@gamewizard Why should we pay Social Security to retirees? Why pay for children to go to public schools? Government can help people. And everyone deserves to be healthy. It's barbaric to think a person should suffer or go broke because they get sick. You should see Sicko. Other free countries have positive feelings for their more comprehensive and expansive healthcare.
You're right. We shouldn't have to. Any parent who is unwilling or unable to provide for their own child's education should not be allowed to have children. Why should the rest of us have to pay school tax every year and suffer forfeiture of our homes if we don't pay it? Why should we also pay to support people in their old age who haven't done enough to provide for their own needs? Too many people depend on government assistance and don't do enough for themselves.
Germany right now are kicking the US ass economically and it is because they have social democracy which is capitalism but with a touch of socialism, so in a sense SOCIALISM IS GOOD!!!
@DKfor08 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
@bobtassoni I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
@FletchforFreedom I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
@zombiemaster8825 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
@qutez421 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
@Leon2165 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production.
The means of production are the machinery, the factories etc.
Democratic socialism wants to get to a socialist mode of production through voting. This is the opposite of revolutionary socialism.
Social democracy is a form of capitalism, most of the countries today have a form of social democracy. It simply is capitalism with some wellfare programs.
And what exactly gives the workers the right to control the means of production? Did they invest the millions of dollars to build up a large, successful corporation that is providing them with their jobs? Where does the right to control the means of production come from if not from investment of capital? All socialists want to do is take away what successful people have worked years and sometimes generations to build.
Each person decides for themselves what they are entitled to by the amount of work they do or don't do. Do a lot and you are entitled to a lot. Do nothing, and you are entitled to nothing. In life, each man get's what he deserves.
You are making vague arguments, using words such as entitled and deserves. Also I disagree that people can have ultimate influence on their surroundings. YOU cannot decide how many hours you work, or where you work. Other people have claims on the means of production. As such they are in charge of paying you. This is, of course, no different than the medieval ages.
You absolutely can. If you want to work someplace, you apply for the job and be the person with the best qualifications. If you don't want to work someplace, you simply don't apply to work at that place. The choice is always yours to make. You also decide how many hours. If you aren't getting enough hours at one job, you can get a second one. Nobody has any claims on the means of production other than the owner/shareholders or any creditors the business may owe.
If you didn't get accepted for the job, then there was someone more deserving than you because of their better qualifications or experience. Like I said, each man gets what he deserves. You're just bitter because you probably lost out on a lot of jobs due to your lack of education or skills. Am I right?
It's not circular reasoning, it is the proof you asked for. If I have a Masters degree in a particular field and got straight A's in school and have experience in the field, and you have a Bachelors and a B average in school and no experience and we apply for the same job, who deserves it more, me or you?
Wrong. Businesses hire the most qualified person available for a particular job. Even you Communists do that. You don't put someone with a medical degree to work on a farm, do you? Or allow someone trained to work on an assembly line to practice dentistry, right? You put the most qualified person in the job.
The business discharges any debt it owes to the workers when they receive their pay at the end of the week. They are owed nothing more than the terms they agreed to before they took the job. If they didn't like the terms of the job, they shouldn't have accepted.
You are using the 'Broken Window Fallacy'. You assume that without the capitalist claiming the means of production making it capital, the means of production would not exist.
Sometimes people are desperate because they are really poor. They cannot wait for 5 years looking for good jobs, they need one at that moment. This is very common.
You are dismissing the real world for your calculations. You must be an Austrian.
If you're referring to Austrian School econics, I absolutely am. The Keynesians always get it wrong every time and leave a swath of destruction in their wake every time any government embraces their theories on the movement of capital and free markets.
Lol Keynesians. Although I do like Keynes his phrase: "In the long term, we're all dead."
It has a certain ring to it. Let's also not dismiss it as purely fun to listen to. Keynes had a point when he said that riding the waves of the market would result in crisis and perhaps revolution. Keynes didn't have the answer to this problem though.
Hey, I could use a better job right now. Does that mean I should walk into someone else's place of business that they paid for and built up, kill them, and take over?
Well, democratic socialism doesn't have to mean communism but with democracy. It could just be free healthcare and education, and support for the weakest. Let's face it, the economic fight is over. Moderated free trade is by far most efficient. The real fight is one of values, where we have to take up the banner of freedom against those that would destroy it. It doesn't matter if they call it political correctness or the Patriot act. Progressive values versus conservatism is all that is left.
@pulsatingremedy But aren't they really both the same? The means may be different but the ends are the same... Socialism has a record of failiure so blatant only a person willing to lie for their ideals would advocate it (this doesnt neccesarilly dismiss marxist philosophy thow ..)
@pulsatingremedy Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin because the former supports big business whereas the latter supports big government- both attack nations and destroy the nation's traditions such as private property, community, tradition, law and order and folk.
@pulsatingremedy Because capitalism can oppose the state regulating it such as taxation and property. Class barely exists these days under capitalism, all you have is income that makes the difference nothing else. Anarchism opposes government and is wrapped up in rampant individualism and would argue that taxation is theft of one's property. Capitalism cares about nothing but profit which is what anarchism values a lot because government can tax profit as well.
capitalism puts profit first before everything and like socialism capitalism supports big things to undermine nations such as immigration. Capitalism is deeply against the state because the state regulates capitalism which it finds to be "impractical" because then it accuses the state for stealing its profits through taxation which is spent on social programs. The state has been in existence since point zero to build civilisation and no class does not exist at all, it is just income that counts
Capitalism is only for the State if the State does not regulate any of it. Capitalism created the state in the sense of taxation and distribution of wealth. The State taxes capitalism for social programs and capitalism may go against that because it is viewed as taking away profit. No, class is no longer relevant, class is only based on income and education and people's incomes change so the term is just pointless. Anarchism- no government; Socialism- big government; Capitalism- big business
@pulsatingremedy This is so contradictory because capitalism like laissez-faire capitalism feels that the State does not need to intervene at all within the market in order to make as much accumulation as it can. Why is it that capitalists call themselves Libertarians? Because they hate the state. The State is the same as the capitalists when it becomes socialist because the two destroy private property and have great control over everyone else's life- socialism just means state capitalism.
@pulsatingremedy Capitalists and socialists call themselves libertarians because the two of them are stupid and because they despise the structure of society and all they believe is that there is nothing but individuals.
2:42 Thats good news. Now i know there are more soscialists in this world then anything else. :)
Farvai0 6 days ago
maybe USSR was facist communism.
i.e. commmunism with a iron fist.
PacificCircle1 2 months ago
I like the no racism part!
vorrifmn 3 months ago
Workers of the US unite! Fight back and declime your rights as humanbeings! The fight for workers rights is the fight for human rights! Socialism for ever!
coboshat 3 months ago
gag me! damned pinkos
Galahad12454 3 months ago
@Galahad12454 Justice and equality is the real reason to support socialism. But that it so infuriates small minds like this is a side benefit.
PrisonerNumber9653 3 months ago
screw this, anarchy ftw<3
Style4422 4 months ago
It is fine, but they still allow millions of evil shit skin fucks in form the 3rd world. This is insane and we have to kick them out or kill them in a civil war. Kill shit skins and save the planet.
MrAppleseed88 5 months ago
There is a huge difference between socialism, social democrasy and right winged capitalism with welfare aspects (obama)
gulbirk 5 months ago
funny thing is "national socialism" has led to violent anti-immigrant sentiments in Norway, Russia, and other European countries. it seems as though socialism has just as bad a rap as communism for many Americans, especially in the eyes of conservatives..
justoodope 8 months ago
My late uncle was a left-wing Democrat counsellor & Union activist. At his funeral last year, many eulogies were made praising him as a great community leader & role model.
Looking at his diaries, I was horrified to find that in 1975-79 he regularly went to Cambodia to ‘assist’ the Khmer Rouge in their “heroic quest for a new society”. Sickeningly, this included sitting in on interrogation/torture sessions at the infamous Tuol Sleng detention camp.
I’m never voting Democrat again!
SuperTruth77 9 months ago 2
@SuperTruth77 FAIL! the democrats are not socialists they are as capitalistic as the republican party.
DrBandrew 6 months ago
@DrBandrew most of them are Liberals however there are are handful of Democrats who you could genuinely call left-wing
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris I would ask you to define liberalism. as i currently understand it a progressive is some one who is economicaly to the left and liberal is someone who is for social liberty ( sense the poltical spectrum is two dimensional).I would agree democratic voters due tend to be liberal/progressives, but I'd argue leaders in the party like obama aren't in either the progressive, or liberal spectrum (political compass says he's economically right and socially restrictive)
DrBandrew 6 months ago
@DrBandrew when I say Liberal in a world wide sense (In my country the Liberals are conservatives but thats another story) I mean the political centre, Obama from where I stand on a neutral stand point is a right-leaning Liberal and not a Progressive or even a Social Democrat
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris so we're in agreement.
DrBandrew 6 months ago
There is so much crap spouted about socialism For elucidation on the subject, google 'A Point of View' by Andy Cox,and 'SPGB'
andycox11 10 months ago
i love billy bragg. but couldnt you find a better song. it sounds like a soviet union propaganda bs song. and one of the problems is the constant barrage of media coverage promoting capitalism by profit making news corps. A democracy should not be run by corporations like our corprocracy is.
GJ3200 11 months ago
Most admit much is wrong with America- listen to AM radio, FoxNews, etc. (full of complaints)- but most people refuse to endorse significant change. If there is so much to be fixed in America then something fairly radical needs to be done to fix it. Major problems require major solutions.
HecticBRage 11 months ago
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx
MrIhatesafetymode 11 months ago
@MrIhatesafetymode
Socialism is the road to totalitarianism.
Reality
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary Well then...Does Japan & Norway have a totalitarian form of government?
Bronzecop 9 months ago
@Bronzecop I assumed from your quote you were using a Marxist definition of socialism. As such, Japan and Norway are not socialist, and therefore are not required to be totalitarian for what I said to be true. My statement was made in the context of a Marxist definition of socialism, although I recognise there are many other ways socialism can be defined. Hopefully that clears things up =)
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary I think you mean to say they're not communist because I view both nations as very democratic which I consider is in the center spectrum of the socialism scale since democracy is very collective. Well since you stated in which perspective on how you were using your comment, yes that did clear things up.
Bronzecop 9 months ago
@Bronzecop Yes I can see your point. Although it is true that Norway (I don't know much about Japan) has some heavy state involvement in the economy in specific areas, I wouldn't say that the workers control the means of production (either directly or via a state) in a more general sense across the economy. I have always been reluctant to put social democracy (unlike democratic socialism) within the socialist category, although it is indeed collectivist to some extent....
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@Bronzecop ...To elaborate the point I was making originally. I think that if the state is allowed to control the means of production on behalf of the workers then, although it may work in the short term, totalitarianism is a very likely outcome of the state having such power over the ability of any person to survive. If it is a more direct form of democratic socialism of some kind, I think that although it can be successful, it can only work either for a short time or in fairly small societies.
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary Yeah I dislike the idea of one power having total control. makes it no different than a Plutocracy. You consider Japan & Norway small societies?
Bronzecop 9 months ago
@Bronzecop No but I consider them social democracies with large state involvement. The kind of democratic socialism I had in mind was more like some of the communities there were in Spain during the civil war and around that time.
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary Oh, when I think of small I think of places like the U.A.E. or Denmark.
Bronzecop 9 months ago
@Bronzecop Ah fair enough. Personally I would suggest a balance where certain areas that are directly in the public interest, such as healthcare and education, are socialised, but I don't support large scale government subsidy or intervention in the economy in general. I think a competitive system is generally the most effective in the long term, but I would want policies to encourage lots of workers cooperative to try and promote a more equal system without doing damage to competition either.
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary From what I've seen from collectivism, they have ensured that so far.
Bronzecop 9 months ago
@Bronzecop who have? Norway and Japan? (I don't mean that in a rude way I am actually just unsure which they) I am not sure how much we can read into Norway's performance, I don't know how much is to do with the system or how much is to do with it having a lot of the economy being driven by natural resources or other factors more generally. It could well be an effective system as a cause I genuinely don't know either way.
VividlyContemporary 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary Thats true, only way we can really find out for ourselves is to get a green card to those nations for a couple of years.
Bronzecop 9 months ago
@VividlyContemporary norway and japan have private enterprise, private property and individual economic rights. they are not socialist countries, but rather, heavily regulated capitalist states.
chrispollock 9 months ago
@chrispollock technically they're both. I know that sounds like a contradiction but here me out, in Norway they have free market enterprises but they also implement the basic notions of socialism.
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Importing illegals to grind down wages of working people proves evil capitalism can not survive without slave labor.
TheThedot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Importing illegals to grind down wages of working people proves evil capitalism can not survive without slave labor.
TheThedot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Importing illegals to grind down wages of working people proves evil capitalism can not survive without slave labor.
TheThedot 1 year ago
In the sense of the term, the Labour Party isn't Democratic Socialist in the slightest. Firstly, like all governments claiming to be democratic, it's an Oligarchy. Secondly, it's Capitalist. Anywho, I digress.
Etular 1 year ago
@ChaosDynamics Or we could defame capitalism instead, as it already is starting to have a negative connotation.
michaelchristopherj 1 year ago
What is the difference between democratic socialism and socialist democracy?
sweiland75 1 year ago
@sweiland75 Nothing at all. Since, democratic socialism describes any movement, person, or party that wants to create a democracy with all the rights of the people. And, make a socialist economy. (not necessarily state-owned. Merely something the people as whole can control.) Social democracy is a reformist path to socialism that works via reform. Both ideologies are moderate socialist. The Labour Party has devolved into something that isn't even social democratic.
DinodudeEpic 1 year ago
@DinodudeEpic More like third way politics. In fact, various social democrats are becoming third way. This is due to the growing neoliberalism, conservatism, and authoritarianism of Washington. (Started by Ronald Reagan.) I'm not saying that the US government is bad or undemocratic. But, it is slowing becoming undemocratic. It's more like a cultural thing that evolved out of the assumptions that the Soviet Union was socialist and that the fall of the USSR signals the death of socialism.
DinodudeEpic 1 year ago
@DinodudeEpic *Note that I'm not saying that the American Government is actively telling social democratic parties to go Third Way. It's actually due to intra-party forces and some of newcomers (like Tony Blair.) being former corporate executives.
DinodudeEpic 1 year ago
Eh, modern Democratic Socialism is centre-left.
Sevenkilts 1 year ago
scribd.com/doc/44776891/Steps-to-Creating-a-Brighter-Future
phvalue323 1 year ago
im a democratic socialist...but im also communist..
socialismforever 1 year ago
@socialismforever just like the bolsheviks/mensheviks!
dancthegr 1 year ago
@socialismforever Democratic Socialism is Just Communism with a state and to the make of the video, use the original Internationale its better (:
Potts132 1 year ago
@Potts132 How is a one party system like Communism where class systems are abolished and the wealth is re-distrubuted Democratic Socialism? Get an education and go back to listening to Glen Beck.
kristianOLS 1 year ago
@kristianOLS Silly silly, Communism is not supposed to be a one party state. It's supposed to be classless and stateless were all decisions are in the hands of the workers and should be handled democratically. Super literary it's democratic socialism. Weird that you told a leftist to listen to Glen Beck. So Democratic Socialism IS technically Communism with a State, because the people still control the means of production and rule themselves :3
Potts132 1 year ago 2
@2bpilot
Actually my comment was being facetious in reference to the battle you were waging with Bronzecop. That's all the social programs are is redistribution. The people at the top pay all the taxes and the people at the bottom get all the benefits. That's redistribution.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@2bpilot
Redistribution of wealth at it's finest.
gamewizard 1 year ago
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
-Margaret Thatcher
gamewizard 1 year ago
Democratic Socialism is Communism with a velvet glove instead of an iron gauntlet. Where Communism uses force from the beginning to get people to do what they want, Democratic Socialism strokes people into what they want and if a little friendly persuasion doesn't work, they step up their game a notch until they find the level of persuasion necessary for each individual. It's still tyranny, only with better manners.
gamewizard 1 year ago
We are not a democrat country!!!! We are a REPUBLIC.... If you want SOCIALISM move to CHINA or RUSSIA.
dragonkiller117 1 year ago
@dragonkiller117 I hope to god you are kidding. what an idiot remark we show republic traits but we are a democracy.China is a communism and russia is a federal semi-presidential republic. You also must know nothing of democratic socialism. And to everyone that reads this look up democratic socialism and the countries that have it. Most of the people in those countries say they would much rather have a democratic socialism.
timmyjunior1 1 year ago
@timmyjunior1
Benjamin Franklin, when asked "What have you given us?" replied "A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it." The United States was NEVER a Democracy. Senators were appointed by the states and the President was also elected by the states, not the people. The founders knew that giving too much power to the people would be as bad as giving too much to the federal government they were creating so they placed limits on what the people could demand of the government.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard And LOL... I can´t belive I see this over and over.. if a state is a republic, it doesn´t mean it´s not a democracy! It doesn´t have to be, but one does not exclude the other. Republic is a form of government, and the term itself says nothing about it´s principals of rule or its policies. Let´s hope that all Americans understand the importance of democracy in their republic. Otherwise it will turn in to nazi germany
TheGrindsprint 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint
A Republic and a Democracy are not the same thing. A Democracy is when the people have direct and total control over everything. That eventually leads to anarchy because the people always end up voting for their own self interest over the good of the country as a whole. The Communists know this and are trying to bring us down by giving more power directly to the people. They are giving us enough rope to hang ourselves with.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard Agreed, they are not the same thing. just as a glass bottle and coca cola is not the same thing but one does not rule out the other. representative democracy is not exclusive to republics and direct democracy has rarely been seen in history and yes, it is associated with anarchy and utopian marxism. still, republics can be democratic. democracy is not necesserily direct democracy. And when did volvo or saab move?? and where?
TheGrindsprint 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint
When they moved most of their production to Belgium because Swedish taxes were killing them.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard This is a disputed topic but we are considered by our government a democracy.
timmyjunior1 1 year ago
@timmyjunior1
And you don't find that the least bit disturbing, that the government thinks this country is something that it isn't and never was meant to be? If the government and the people can't even agree on what the actual form of government is, that's a huge red flag (pun intended). The way the Democrats are running things, we aren't even a Democracy anymore. They all consider themselves princes and potentates over their own little sultanates.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@timmyjunior1
China hasn't been Communist for a long time. They are a state run Capitalism.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@timmyjunior1 You're so right, people don't seem to understand what democratic socialism is.
ecliptic10 1 year ago
Voting democratic socialist........ what over 200 countries have tried and failed. It makes no since to do it again... If I am a hard working high earnings person, and I am forced to give my money to someone not working as much I am going to stop working as hard. The worker receiving money, will work less, knowing he will get money. Then the money maker will work less, knowning all his money is going to someone not trying! and it goes on and on until no one has any money!!! It's that simple!!
Fidlestyx 1 year ago
@Fidlestyx tried and failed? germany, UK, norway, denmark, sweden, france, and many more would be failed states in your eyes? safety, stability and equality makes people happy and prosperous. And frankly I don´t know if social democrats should be called socialists by the definition it seem to have in the us.. these countries have very well functioning capitalistic free markets. what you describe simply doesn´t happen
TheGrindsprint 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint, Well if you havent noticed, when people are in need of major surgery from other countries, they almost ALWAYS come to America. Also, yes Europe has, London, France, Berlin, and so on....... Yes those are beautiful sities. But drive out of them and there are some really bad parts compared to America. When you compare bad parts of Europe to bad parts of America, America wins (Nice-ness) far. Also not to be rude or offened anyone, but America has a lot richer people.
Fidlestyx 1 year ago
@Fidlestyx I don´t know that that is true at all. From what countries would people go to America to get surgery and for what reasons? Also I don´t think it´s true that bad parts of europe would be worse than bad parts of America. It´s widely known that poverty in the US is a big problem. The kind of ghettos and projects you have over there are of an extreme that we don´t have in western europe. Your rich are richer, thats true. at the expense of a massive base of poor people.
TheGrindsprint 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint
A massive base of poor people who sit on their asses all day making poor babies because of all the government handouts available. The left purposely keeps these people poor and on government assistance then convinces them to vote for them to protect their handouts, well the time of the handouts is coming to an end. We can't afford the debt that finances it anymore. If these people had gotten an education and skills they would be better off than taking the handouts.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint
So that's why Saab and Volvo fled Sweden as quickly as they could, because they were so prosperous there, right?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard those companies were sold. interestingly enough, considering your comment, most of the production of those cars stayed in the country. GM has manufactured a cadillac here in the SAAB plant too. Why would any companies flee? Sweden ranks higher than the US in competetiveness. Our corporate tax is about two thirds of that of the US. That thatcher quote is cute, but what does it really mean? how is it true and/or relevant?
TheGrindsprint 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint
They moved out of Sweden long before they were bought out.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@2bpilot One day the people will rise up and they always do when a few controls or owns everything. read o history book or two and learn how history repeats itself ..
Then maby you will start thinking differently..
5iF3R 1 year ago
@2bpilot In the long run, ppl going to college would make more money to contribute to the economy, so it would work out, no? Plus, those ppl recieving grants would pay more graduated taxes in the future. You can think of it as an investment by the government. "Actual labor" may be preferred because it is done now as opposed to later (after college), but when seasonal or frictional unemployment kicks in, you have a bunch of ppl with not much skill looking for work.
ecliptic10 1 year ago
@ecliptic10
But why should have to pay to someone else's kid to college? Shouldn't that kid's parents be the ones to pay? Any parent who is unwilling to pay for their own child's education and hands off their parental responsibility to society shouldn't be a parent in the first place.
gamewizard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you should all be shot for treason you sick bastards
trueamerica75 1 year ago
@2bpilot Why is the stress always on business? First of all, the goal of business is to make a profit. Second of all, if there was more emphasis on education in this country, not everyone would have to be a business-person. If it weren't for the government giving me study grants, then I wouldn't be able to study what I like and go out into the world to make it a better place. I would probly be sitting behind desk hiring ppl to work for me and getting rich, but I don't want that.
ecliptic10 1 year ago
@ecliptic10
And what is the goal of getting an education in the first place? It's so you can go out in the world and make more than you could have without one. If everyone is made equal, what's the point of going to college if you won't make any more than the guy who didn't go?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@2bpilot It would be great if it actually worked like that for everyone. People already in power don't really care about giving opportunities to ppl trying to work hard.
ecliptic10 1 year ago
@ecliptic10
Oh? And that's why billionaires give so much of their money to charities and establish scholarship funds and the like for the underprivileged. Damn rich bastards.
gamewizard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most of Africa lives in extreme poverty these days, and Africa is also capitalistic.
fatben5 1 year ago
@2bpilot The problem is the difference in perspectives. Democratic socialists look at the world in a more community-oriented way, meaning that if we all work together and share with each other, we'll all look after each other and no one will be left behind. The government system in America is a quasi-democratic system, which keeps the bad side of having a gov't but also keeps the bad side of Capitalism (which overshadows the good side of having a gov't).
ecliptic10 1 year ago
@ecliptic10
It's a good idea, but it's a choice that people should be left to make on their own not one that they're forced to make at gunpoint. There are plenty of people who make charitable contributions of their own free will. Government arm twisting should never be allowed.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@2bpilot With those who areant responsible. Democratic Socialism has been around for a while now in Japan, Canada, Argentina, Central & Northern Europe. & there has been no problems like in Facism & Communism to this day.
Bronzecop 1 year ago
PROFIT OVER PEOPLE ! what will happen to our private yachts and private.
mouse9111 1 year ago
@2bpilot I hope you see it as the same way with the 14% tax in the U.S with that claim, but it gives everyone a chance. Paying for those things out of pocket cost a lot more, a full-time semster at a university is around $5000-$10000 & someone working full-time at $18/hour can't afford to pay that in a month when fees are due. Also Social Democratic Politcians arean't corporate backed, so their gov't is not shady.
Bronzecop 1 year ago
@2bpilot I'm going to use Denmark as an example where tax is 39% there, yes it may be high but even after taxes they still make more than someone here in the U.S. that makes $11/hour where tax is 14%.
Bronzecop 1 year ago
@2bpilot Heres the basics: Big Business is not the gov't, there is no ran-sacking of land & civil rights like communism, further education pushed & it is free, min. wage is a etiquette wage ($18/hour), homes are affordable, healthcare is universal, you recieve a child support check from the gov't if you have a child, if you have a wife who is a working mother (of if you are a working mother) she has benefits to stay home with infant until its a child. Thats the basics
Bronzecop 1 year ago
@Bronzecop
You still haven't answered the question. Where is the money coming from to pay for all of this?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard I thought I did when I used Denmark as an example (my mistake), but taxes are the funds for it.
Bronzecop 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bronzecop
Why should I pay taxes to support you? You are responsible for yourself, I am responsible for myself. I don't owe you anything and you don't owe me anything. If you can't afford to pay your own way through life, that's not may fault or my problem.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@2bpilot Thats a lie XD ROTF, please tell me you dont have any idea how Social Democracies work.
Bronzecop 1 year ago
95% of the world's wealth is controlled by only 5% of the population. And most of us know Big Business corporate America really controls Washington. Democratic Socialists do not want government to control every aspect of our lives. They also do not want corporations to be governing us either, as we are governed now. Co-ops & unions; democratically owned & run work places can take power out of Big Business' hands. Please research it. It's a fair & beautiful ideaology.
HecticBRage 1 year ago 5
@HecticBRage
Here here .... excellent point hectic! couldn't say it any clearer!!!
jahellaspartan 1 year ago
@jahellaspartan YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE THEN?
YOU HAVE'NT GIVEN IN ?HAVE YOU?
HAVE YOU SEEN SENSE ?
adamturner123 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this. Misconceptions (or outright lies) abound regarding Socialism and, specifically, Democratic Socialism. People need to know that countries that have instituted a fair amount of Socialist initiatives live longer and healthier lives than Americans. Like Sen. Sanders from Vermont has pressed, healthcare is a moral issue and a right, not a privelege for those that can afford it. And like you said, I believed in Dem. Socialism before I knew I did. Research it please, people.
HecticBRage 1 year ago
@HecticBRage
Healthcare is not a right. There are no guarantees in life. You could step off the curb and get mowed down by a bus tomorrow. Why should your hospital bills be paid by the rest of us because you're too stupid to watch where you're going?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard You truly are an American idiot. It's the people like you in my country that make me so embarrased.
RainbowSkittleGirl 1 year ago
@RainbowSkittleGirl
If you don't like America, go live in Europe, or Cuba or Venezuela. After a few months you'll be begging to be let back in.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard The idea that healthcare is not a right, but something you earn is widespread in the US, but it is not anything more than an idea. to hold it and promote it is emotionally retarded and psychotic. just like all psychopaths, you don´t realize your lack of compassion. Get well
TheGrindsprint 1 year ago
@TheGrindsprint
I have plenty of compassion. Charities exist to serve the poor who can't afford medical care and there are people who donate generously to them, myself included. What I don't like is the idea that the government can force anyone to donate against their will by using taxation as the means to do so.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard I have a question for you. Are children exempt from your little healthcare plan? I mean, if I have a child and can't afford her cancer treatments, should she just die?
RainbowSkittleGirl 1 year ago
@RainbowSkittleGirl
Ever heard of St. Jude's? Or Shriners Hospitals? Or other charitable hospitals that make medical care available for low cost or for free? There's already places the truly destitute can go for medical care. The government doesn't need to forcibly take money away from anyone to provide for them.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard Why should we pay Social Security to retirees? Why pay for children to go to public schools? Government can help people. And everyone deserves to be healthy. It's barbaric to think a person should suffer or go broke because they get sick. You should see Sicko. Other free countries have positive feelings for their more comprehensive and expansive healthcare.
HecticBRage 1 year ago
@HecticBRage
You're right. We shouldn't have to. Any parent who is unwilling or unable to provide for their own child's education should not be allowed to have children. Why should the rest of us have to pay school tax every year and suffer forfeiture of our homes if we don't pay it? Why should we also pay to support people in their old age who haven't done enough to provide for their own needs? Too many people depend on government assistance and don't do enough for themselves.
gamewizard 1 year ago
Germany right now are kicking the US ass economically and it is because they have social democracy which is capitalism but with a touch of socialism, so in a sense SOCIALISM IS GOOD!!!
txmdcava 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DKfor08 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobtassoni I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FletchforFreedom I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zombiemaster8825 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qutez421 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Leon2165 I'm a student in university,my father is a lawyer ,my parents drive bentleys,we are reasonably affluent ,my father has been working for 38 years,why would we give up our wealth,our home and our life work to suit some bunch of bottom feeders who don't have the work ethic to get out of bed !!
adamturner123 1 year ago
People Over Profit‼
SAOS451316 1 year ago 17
@sweiland75
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production.
The means of production are the machinery, the factories etc.
Democratic socialism wants to get to a socialist mode of production through voting. This is the opposite of revolutionary socialism.
Social democracy is a form of capitalism, most of the countries today have a form of social democracy. It simply is capitalism with some wellfare programs.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
And what exactly gives the workers the right to control the means of production? Did they invest the millions of dollars to build up a large, successful corporation that is providing them with their jobs? Where does the right to control the means of production come from if not from investment of capital? All socialists want to do is take away what successful people have worked years and sometimes generations to build.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
Workers produce all of the goods for society.
The right to control the means of production comes from your will to control the means of production.
You are basically a monarchist. All of your arguments were the arguments used by kings. We supply the serfs with work and land. They should obey us.
Go read some books.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
And workers are paid for their labor. That is all they are entitled to, nothing more.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
So you decide what people are entitled to? Well hello there comrade Stalin.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
Each person decides for themselves what they are entitled to by the amount of work they do or don't do. Do a lot and you are entitled to a lot. Do nothing, and you are entitled to nothing. In life, each man get's what he deserves.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
"In life, each man get's what he deserves."
Proof this hypothesis.
You are making vague arguments, using words such as entitled and deserves. Also I disagree that people can have ultimate influence on their surroundings. YOU cannot decide how many hours you work, or where you work. Other people have claims on the means of production. As such they are in charge of paying you. This is, of course, no different than the medieval ages.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
You absolutely can. If you want to work someplace, you apply for the job and be the person with the best qualifications. If you don't want to work someplace, you simply don't apply to work at that place. The choice is always yours to make. You also decide how many hours. If you aren't getting enough hours at one job, you can get a second one. Nobody has any claims on the means of production other than the owner/shareholders or any creditors the business may owe.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
How about if you don't get accepted? You still have not proved your hypothesis.
Yes with other people I meant capitalists.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
If you didn't get accepted for the job, then there was someone more deserving than you because of their better qualifications or experience. Like I said, each man gets what he deserves. You're just bitter because you probably lost out on a lot of jobs due to your lack of education or skills. Am I right?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
"each man gets what he deserves"
It is still a hypothesis. You are using the 'Circular reasoning Fallacy'.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
It's not circular reasoning, it is the proof you asked for. If I have a Masters degree in a particular field and got straight A's in school and have experience in the field, and you have a Bachelors and a B average in school and no experience and we apply for the same job, who deserves it more, me or you?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
You are using 'deserves' as if the universe is in balance when person X gets paid a certain amount of money.
What you are describing is: each man gets as much as the capitalist thinks he deserves.
The capitalist chooses who deserves the job. The capitalist determines the salary of the job, etc etc.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@gamewizard
A better way for expressing what you want to say would be: each man gets what the capitalist thinks he deserves.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
Wrong. Businesses hire the most qualified person available for a particular job. Even you Communists do that. You don't put someone with a medical degree to work on a farm, do you? Or allow someone trained to work on an assembly line to practice dentistry, right? You put the most qualified person in the job.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
Don't call me a Communist please.
I agree with you on the content. You are just labeling your argument wrong.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@gamewizard
No you're not right at all actually.
I have a very high education. I come from a labor aristocratic family.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
The business discharges any debt it owes to the workers when they receive their pay at the end of the week. They are owed nothing more than the terms they agreed to before they took the job. If they didn't like the terms of the job, they shouldn't have accepted.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
You are using the 'Broken Window Fallacy'. You assume that without the capitalist claiming the means of production making it capital, the means of production would not exist.
Sometimes people are desperate because they are really poor. They cannot wait for 5 years looking for good jobs, they need one at that moment. This is very common.
You are dismissing the real world for your calculations. You must be an Austrian.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
If you're referring to Austrian School econics, I absolutely am. The Keynesians always get it wrong every time and leave a swath of destruction in their wake every time any government embraces their theories on the movement of capital and free markets.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
Lol Keynesians. Although I do like Keynes his phrase: "In the long term, we're all dead."
It has a certain ring to it. Let's also not dismiss it as purely fun to listen to. Keynes had a point when he said that riding the waves of the market would result in crisis and perhaps revolution. Keynes didn't have the answer to this problem though.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
Hey, I could use a better job right now. Does that mean I should walk into someone else's place of business that they paid for and built up, kill them, and take over?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
Capitalists don't build their own businesses. They hire labor to build buildings and to do operate the means of production.
Again, you are dismissing reality for your calculations.
Also I never said that you should just kill people if you want to work somewhere. You are strawmanning me.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
Really? Isn't killing the bourgeiosie and seizing the means of production by the proletariat the basis of Communism?
gamewizard 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
I also find it extremely ironic that a Communist calls me Stalin.
gamewizard 1 year ago
@gamewizard
I don't.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Well, democratic socialism doesn't have to mean communism but with democracy. It could just be free healthcare and education, and support for the weakest. Let's face it, the economic fight is over. Moderated free trade is by far most efficient. The real fight is one of values, where we have to take up the banner of freedom against those that would destroy it. It doesn't matter if they call it political correctness or the Patriot act. Progressive values versus conservatism is all that is left.
RasmusThorupKoudal 1 year ago
Makes no sense to perpetuate BAD genitics, keep your socailism to your self.
Douchebag
uniblab1000 1 year ago
How can you have democractic socialism? Somethings either democractic or it's not.
pragmatismnotidealis 1 year ago
@pragmatismnotidealis
It means reformist socialism. Which is the opposite of revolutionary socialism.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy But aren't they really both the same? The means may be different but the ends are the same... Socialism has a record of failiure so blatant only a person willing to lie for their ideals would advocate it (this doesnt neccesarilly dismiss marxist philosophy thow ..)
pragmatismnotidealis 1 year ago
@pragmatismnotidealis
The final stage is the same.
But democratic socialism means reformist socialism, when someone says: I am a democratic socialist, he usually means: I am not a revolutionary.
So you have democratic socialism and revolutionary socialism. One excludes the other.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Socialism and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Forward Nationalism!
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
In socialism there is no money, so I doubt that they are part of the same coin.
Nationalism is often reactionary, so it is capitalist.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same coin because the former supports big business whereas the latter supports big government- both attack nations and destroy the nation's traditions such as private property, community, tradition, law and order and folk.
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
Anarchism is a form of socialism.
So anarchism supports big government?
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Anarchism is a form of capitalism
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
How is capitalism even close to anarchism.
Capitalism needs 2 classes, the owning class and the working class.
So capitalism is hierarchy.
Anarchism is against hierarchy.
Capitalism and anarchism exclude eachother.
The existence of the state can be traced back to the creation of private proerty and hierarchy. So primitive capitalism created the state.
Also, the first person who called himself an anarchist was anti-capitalist.
I suggest you look up the word anarchism.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Because capitalism can oppose the state regulating it such as taxation and property. Class barely exists these days under capitalism, all you have is income that makes the difference nothing else. Anarchism opposes government and is wrapped up in rampant individualism and would argue that taxation is theft of one's property. Capitalism cares about nothing but profit which is what anarchism values a lot because government can tax profit as well.
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
Anarchism is not only against the state, but also against all forms of authoritarianism.
Capitalism is authoritarian in nature. This is why all of the anarchists in history have been opposed to capitalism. Look up the Spanish anarchists.
Capitalism is not against the state. The state was created by primitive capitalists.
Classes do exist, yes even today.
Again I suggest you look up what anarchism is.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
capitalism puts profit first before everything and like socialism capitalism supports big things to undermine nations such as immigration. Capitalism is deeply against the state because the state regulates capitalism which it finds to be "impractical" because then it accuses the state for stealing its profits through taxation which is spent on social programs. The state has been in existence since point zero to build civilisation and no class does not exist at all, it is just income that counts
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
Capitalism is 100% for the state. Primitive capitalism created the state.
If you think capitalism is against the state, then you have probably never touched a book.
Classes do exist.
I suggest you look up what capitalism is, what anarchism is, and what socialism is before you continue talking to me.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
Capitalism is only for the State if the State does not regulate any of it. Capitalism created the state in the sense of taxation and distribution of wealth. The State taxes capitalism for social programs and capitalism may go against that because it is viewed as taking away profit. No, class is no longer relevant, class is only based on income and education and people's incomes change so the term is just pointless. Anarchism- no government; Socialism- big government; Capitalism- big business
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
This is going to be my last reply to you, unless you say something that makes sense.
Capitalism NEEDS the state, it REQUIRES the state. Taxation is a PART of capitalism, because it is NECESSARY for the state.
The state and the capitalists are PART of the SAME SYSTEM named CAPITALISM.
Every anarchist is a socialist. Socialism means that the MEANS OF PRODUCTION are owned by the WORKERS.
Socialism DOES NOT NEED a state to function, capitalism DOES.
Classes are a reality.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy This is so contradictory because capitalism like laissez-faire capitalism feels that the State does not need to intervene at all within the market in order to make as much accumulation as it can. Why is it that capitalists call themselves Libertarians? Because they hate the state. The State is the same as the capitalists when it becomes socialist because the two destroy private property and have great control over everyone else's life- socialism just means state capitalism.
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@NatDemUK
Capitalists call themselves libertarians because they are stupid. Capitalism is not a libertarian thought.
The term libertarian was made by an anarcho-communist.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy Capitalists and socialists call themselves libertarians because the two of them are stupid and because they despise the structure of society and all they believe is that there is nothing but individuals.
NatDemUK 1 year ago