Walmart employs about 1.4 million people, and Microsoft about 93,000 world wide.....Microsoft tax return is approx $5 Billion.
So by "taking back" (re-nationalizing") Microsoft or Walmart then the Federal Government would have to pay the wages,health insurance for all these people.....
Where will they get the money from? Have these people not understood why the Soviet Union collapsed through economic mismanagement?
@dopplereffeckt675 "Have these people not understood the Soviet Union collapsed through economic mismanagement?"
As if the United States isn't about to collapse because of economic mismanagement & naked capitalist greed.
Fucking idiot.
Russia, FYI, is ruled now by a group of oligarchs enriching themselves on the backs of Russia's working class, oligarchs no less totalitarian than were the Stalinists.
Further, a majority of Russians want the old Soviet system back.
Hmmmm....and there is me thinking Federal interference (re-bank bailouts), Keynsian economic and distortion of the free market was the cause..
Still I guess that some 7 million people starving to death in the Ukraine, 20 million in China in the Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot and "Year Zero" are examples of socialism in action.
As for a "majority" wanting a return to Communism in Russia-I gather they rather like Putin and Nationalism.
@dopplereffeckt675 Every right-wing shitfleck on Earth endlessly regugitates the same talking points: Pol Pot, the Ukraine, China, which, in total, sums up the breadth of your knowledge with respect to socialist states and how life played out in them.
Pol Pot does not represent the entire range of socialist thought. He was brutal, mis-guided monster. So were Ronald Fucking Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.
Under China's communist rule, starvation ceased & its population increased.
Unlike you I have been to communist countries- Friends of mine lived in East Germany, where the Stazi lived two floors above. Other friends came from Romainia and Bulgaria.My girlfiend just happens to be Chinese....
Now if you don't like the West so much-I suggest you get off the capitalist built computer-run by fucking capitalists, and fuck off to North Korea.....I am sure Comrade Kim will let you in with loving arms.
Ahhhh yes. The old right-wing "Love it or leave it" refrain. You're just full of cliches aren't you bunny girl? In civil terms this is what is known as banishment. Supposedly the United States --beacon of feedom to the world -- does not banish its citizens for speaking up against its system. Or doesn't it?
And your friends are from Eastern Europe where the new capitalist economies are in the toilet? Your gf from China where wealth disparity is at an all time high? Oh my!
without the goverment there is no education no roads no prosperity no society no civilisation, thats why we ahve goverment, look at failed states they have no goverment, the bailout was vital what was stupid was getting into the problem in the fist place and what got us into it was neo liberal economics, marxism failed, freadmanism failed, kaynes sucseeded and is still sucseeding what do you think of kaynisasism as?
You are not old enough to remember the UK in the 1970's....................
Of course roads would be built, schools would be built etc-the private sector would provide them. The "failed states" that you refer to DO have Governments, most adopted the very socalist programmes that you espouse.
Still once these goons realize when starting to work for a living, and see their tax bill, then they will see that Socialism is very much alive and well in the US.....
@dopplereffeckt675 hello there is a very interesting debate to be had around what the hell you do if you become prime minister in 1979, becuase as marx and the ausutrian economists alike would have not been supprised that kainsianism eventually failed, (no correction in austrian terms, no crisis in marx's terms) but the fact is marxism was a total failer, uber free market economics was a total falier resluts in massive booms and busts in which the poor have to pay for the mistakes of the rich,
@dopplereffeckt675 the only system which 1 last any reasonable length of time without colapse is a kainsian socilal democratic model, this is the only model withinwhich a middle class grows, the other 2 distinkt systems result in the impoverishment of teh many and the enrichment of the few
when i see a sighn saying privite road it either has gates or if its communal if its shared its rouble and mud we have to accept there are some things privite sector dose best and some things public sector dose best
In USA there are over 600 billionaries and tens of thousands, if not hundred thousands of thousand millionaries. If they were to pay taxes as regular workers, that would really change the budged defecit. USA has more billionaries in the world, second comes China, third Russia.
@yurtaevi Actually, the rich pay more than their fair share in the US, they pay far more than the other tax brackets. Our top 5% pay 65% of the Taxes, and the top 20% pay 87% of the taxes.
@aaasssfffdddiii "the rich pay more than their fair share in the US"
This is a goddamned fallacy. The rich pay far less in percentage income than in the past. Taxes on the wealthy were 91% during the Eisenhower admin. Furthermore, corporate taxes are routinely circumvented, which is where real wealth lies.
It's not a matter of who contributes most in personal tax, it's a matter of unevenly distributed wealth & the realization that, in a finite world, unlimited growth is an impossibility.
Food production grows with the population, as production goes up. Water recycles itself, as do other resources. God gaves us this world to use to its fullest. Things don't just dissapear. Our world has been functioning for 15 billion years without running out of stuff. That is because our resources replenish themselves. Things don't dissapear. Certain resources change into new resources when used, over time. Our world is finite, but its resources aren't...
@aaasssfffdddiii You're a dope, an idiot, & a cretin. Congratulations on your accomplishments in life.
Unlike what your moronic conservative bretheren enjoy claiming, lefitists do actually WORK. As such, I dont have time to untangle & set straight every moronic statement you've made here.
But I'll "refudiate" one for you: The poor did NOT get richer during the Reagan admin: Every credible economist cites the decrease in real wages for avg Americans since then. But corp profits soared.
@aaasssfffdddiii Ronald Reagan was union-bashing scum & the enemy of working people. He is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans. I'd piss on his fucking grave, but he is not worthy of my piss.
I loathe you fucks with all my heart: right-wingers are the scum of the Earth. Loathe is too weak a word. The sooner you are eradicated (and you WILL be eradicated) the sooner we can all live decent lives as working, creative, productive citizens of the world.
@bapyou You are an astouding person. You talk about the betterment of mankind, but you advocate "eradicating" an entire group of people. This is classic Marx. He said that the weak would "perish in the revolutionary holocaust". I guess this is what you are proposing for conservatives like me. I dislike marxists and socialists,but I believe in freedom. I would never advocate that we eradicate any people, regardless of your beliefs. I guess that is the difference between the two of us.
@aaasssfffdddiii "You talk about the betterment of mankind, but you advocate "eradicating" an entire group of people."
Numerous right-wingers -- right here on YouTube -- have written they "want to kill all communists/socialists/leftists." Go & chastise your brethren, not me. I don't like you; I never will. If you are right-wing, you are the scum of the Earth. Your words are worthless.
"I dislike marxists & socialists, but I believe in freedom."
@bapyou Ronald Reagan never advocated suppressing anyone. In fact, he strongly believed in freedom of speech. Yes, I am conservative. This is because I believe in freedom. I don't know what goes on in your marxist fantasies. But I would guess that it would involve eliminatig religion, political freedom, and economic freedom. I hope you listen yourself. You should heed the words of the Founding Fathers of America, they would disagree wit your views very much.
@aaasssfffdddiii "Ronald Reagan never advocated suppressing anyone."
Oh really?
Tell that to former Black Panther Angela Davis. As governor of California Reagan was directly involved (as he was not involved with any other similar case) for denying Davis work at UCLA. He falsified charges that Davis was "overtly critical" of fellow faculty. Why? Becasue Davis was a communist.
And Reagan funding Central America's right-wing governments resulted in suppression of thousands of leftists.
Reading your comment I can tell you this: You know nothing about Marx or communism except the talking points the American propaganda machine has been feeding the American population the past 90 years. America's ruling class keeps us in line because its fortunes & political control are at stake. We have no political freedom in the U.S. We vote our next oppressor each 4 years.
@bapyou Actually, the bottom 20% of America was making 6% more in 1989 than they were in 1981 (inflation adjusted). This is from the Census Bureau. It is a fact. The poor actually got richer under Reagan. He didn't suppress Angela Davis, he didn't hire her because she was a communist who hated America. Did he ever say he wanted to "eradicate" her?
No, that would be you. Those "right wingers" were overthrowing oppressive communist regimes.
@bapyou I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Under Ronald Reagan, mean income for the bottom 20% of households increased by 12%, not 6% as I said in my last comment. This is adjusted for inflation. You can look at the census income numbers if you don't believe me. There is no such thing as an opressive right wing regime. The right stands for freedom and small government. It is the left that wants big government. Hitler, for example, was a leftist who hated capitalism.
@aaasssfffdddiii Sorry, I wasnt being ironic. You can look it up. He followed a keynesian economic model, just like FDR in America. He railed against capitalism. He advocated creating a government retirement system and many other things.
@aaasssfffdddiii where as starlin was on the left but was a facist you make me realise even more than ever that there is no point in pretending to be on the left or right its what you belive in and do that is important.
if you belive in demorcacy,internationalism,freedom,equality you can claim to be a leftist, but any repression(starlin) anitdemocracy(chaves) inequality(blair) nationalism(morales) you can't realy claim to be a true leftist
if you belive in inquality,servitude,nationalism,repression you can be a rightest but if you belive atall in equality (difficult but harold mcmillan), labour rights(disrali), internationalism( johnmajor), freedom(camaron) you are not totaly a rightest
@aaasssfffdddiii hello yes very good you make me laugh.you seam like a fun chap and are certainly making me think, because you are either just saying random stuff that makes no sense, which is great i love surealism, we are in a period of alice in wonderland economics at them moment, you are certainlty not just being ironiic now because there are a few things in your description of the (not many though) right that are the case or the right would like to think were the case
@aaasssfffdddiii lets leave ober left and right behind because as we have discusssed its pointless having hitler pinochet saarlin and moe in this discussion becaiuse right and left they are all evil
the left (eourpean social democrats, my belifes in english libatarian socialism, these traditions share the enlightenment values the usa was founded on )
freedom(to live free not to exploite), democracy(socialism is founded on democracy) , equality (or the persuit of such), tolerance(of religions and differances, which do others no harm, see js mill, from this individialism/choice),internationalism(we don't belive in killing or exploition ppl from different countries),
@rictorn America is a Republic, not a democracy. The founders warned against democracy. As Benjamin Franklin put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.". You see, Democracy puts the mob before the individual. Republicanism puts the individual first. Capitalism is founded on Republicanism, which was the value on which America was founded.
@aaasssfffdddiii well i have heard that before but did not know it was franklin who said it, thanks for enlightening me, yes thats a pity but i am not sure your reading is not just selfserving?(sorry if that sounds rude i do not mean to be) do you belive in the things you say your countries constitution means? becuase if it dose mean that it may just be wrong and if it only means what it says it may also be wrong and you could still be right. i certainly disagree with it if you are corect
@rictorn I do believe in our constitution is the supreme law of the land. Of course it is not perfect. As society changes, so do the laws. While this is true, we can never give up the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, as Jefferson said, are permanent. However, we have an amendment process to change the constitution. If we simply pervert the meaning of laws, we will forfeit our liberty to whatever politicians are in power.
@aaasssfffdddiii i think the eaorpean enlightenment informs us all in the developed world they inform w.eourpean socialism, but i don't see how the multinational companies who cuase wars and poverty to expliot nateral resorces in poor countries can claim to be informed by them? i am arguing for socialism in any country (where ppl vote for it of corse), we have to be careful of set texts as the fundementalist in christianity, judaism,islam show, a text can be twisted to promote hatred.
@rictorn Okay, I don't want to sound mean here. However, your comment on neo-liberal economics failing is just ridiculous. The empirical evidence all back up the idea that neoliberalism is very successful. It is keynesianism that has bever been successful. Neoliberal ideas have brought us so far in the past two centuries.
@aaasssfffdddiii it failed & was proped up by govement/borrowing, the money when streight form society where it could have built schools hospitals to the richest ppl on earth, if we had not done this the atm's would have shut down banks like dominos & so on, you should read meltdown end of the age of greed by paul mason, he wrote it on the basis that as a bbc employee he's swarn to be impartial, could not say anything he could not at least argue was impiricaly true, he says its a failed model
@rictorn Socialism, to me, is a very dangerous ideaology. Of course, I don't like the fact that it leads to a much weaker economy. However, It really bothers me that it would lead to a loss of freedom. In a socialist society, everyone is dependant on the collective, or society. In a capitalist society, people are dependant on themselves. Therefore, everyone in a socialist society is simply part of the collective. While a capitalist society involves individuals.
@aaasssfffdddiii lets sepporate socialism & soviate style communism, even in the 30's when many english socialists were impressed by soviet communism(many were not) because of the progress made since the repressive tsarist regime, many went on official trips to russia shown the best bits new factories/houses, some were taken in but most came back having seen somthing opposed to the freedoms they belived in, they would spend the rest of there lives campaigning for socialism & against communism
@rictorn You cannot ignore the utter failure of every socialist experiment. They all featured terrible economies and repression of individual freedom. In America, we have high levels of individual freedom, as do all capitalist economies. I know socialist intellecuals may have rejected the Soviet Union. However, every socialist nation is the same. Widespread poverty and oppression are universal.
@aaasssfffdddiii thats just not true i thought we had agreed there is a differance between soviet and sweedish systems? i realy don't see there is a argument here, there are high levels of freedom in the oecd countries, but the poor are more free in those which are more of a socialist mixed economy,
@rictorn Sure, Sweden is not the same as the Soviet system. However, Sweden is much less prosperous than America. Look at nearly every economy indicator. You will see that America has a better economy and a higher standard of living than Sweden.
@aaasssfffdddiii you have to look at 1 wealth distribution if you look at ordinary people they are better off in sweden, if you look at poor ppl they are much better off in sweden, if you look at social stats, low crime, health care educational achivement much better off in sweeden, gdp is only a useful measure if everyone has = wealth and they don't, its not built on a bed of debt, their economy is much much stronger now than our neo liberal messes, i export many boats to sweden
@aaasssfffdddiii anyone who belives in freedom and sustainable ecpnomic growth should be a l;ibatarian socialist, if they do not then they can be a conservative, a facist or a soviet communist these are the ppl who in practicce opose individual freedom as your brilliant example of the burka showed
@rictorn Look, I don't want to be rude about this. However, Keynesian economics has never worked nearly as well as classical liberalism. Prior to 1890, America had a laissez Faire system. We had rapid growth and an explosion of innovation. In the 1930s, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.
@aaasssfffdddiii hi again nice chatting, you can grow fast when you are developing but you reach a point where you slow down then capitalists feel the need to invent ways to make money more quickly, this is where you have to either regulate of watch the whole thing get out of control, and crash at that point you get mass unemployment and even satrvation in the4 richest country in the world, kaynes ideas slow growth & prevent disaster and mass suffering, i'll take kaynes over freidman or marx
@rictorn Well, Keyne's idea have never worked in practice. Look at Japan in the 1990s. After decades of rapid growth, Keynesianism was tried. It created horribly stagnant growth in a decade where every other country was growing quickly.
@aaasssfffdddiii i realise you may hold these belifes but i said i agree its good america would not support the burka ban but it was sarcosies bill, sarcosies ban, a rightest ban on a minorety they don't agree with, japan had a bust which came from a freidmaninspired bubble (kaynes would have advocated it damaning it down) japan only started to grow when they tried a stimulus 1995 0.9% growth (freidmainte low miney supply policies 1990 to 1995, 1996 stimulus and 3.6% gtrowth
@aaasssfffdddiii ireland you know there bust ? fast growth & massive bust some very rich people & many suffering thats what freidmanism dose, freidman & marx are so similar very clever economists, brilliant communicators, exceptional popularists, brilliant (marxis) very good (friedman) analasis of the problems, both totaly & fundementaly proven wrong in practice, those 2 extremists either side dragging us into the mire kaynes is the one keeping contol of the world economy, sustaining growth
@rictorn My goodness, you know very little about economics. You said friedman had proven wrong in practice. That might be the most ill-informed statement I have ever heard. Friedmans ideaology has been extremely successful. It is keynesianism that has failed EVERY time it has been tried.
@rictorn The 1929 crash was caused by the Fed. It was then prolonged by the New Deal. Look at the 1873 crash and 1893 crash, when the government did not intervene. We grew back faster.
@aaasssfffdddiii no prosperity at the moment, just a bailout we print money and borrow money and most of it gp's stright to the richest people in the world, not because goverments give it to them but because thats how the economy is set up, its that bad we collectively print it they get it through market mechenisms do they need it? no, are they greedy and happy to take it anyway, yes
i would get rid of wealfare through full employment how would you do it? capitalism necuisitates welfairism
@rictorn The Burqa Ban was an idea of the left, supported by some on the European Right. However, America, which is more right wing than Europe, does not have any major party supporting a Burqa Ban. Even though we are, supposedly, more Islamophobic. It was radical feminists who wanted to keep Islamic women from practicing their religion freely.
@aaasssfffdddiii by the 40's and 50's there were hardly any socialists who thought soviet communism was good, by the 60'sthe amount of socialists defending the soviet union was more or less 0, this did not stop us being radical socialists but the radical socialists in my experiance in eourpean politics are much more libaterian than the rightist conservatives, mainstream democratic socialists/libatarian socialists in w.eourpe have not put repressive policies into action.
@rictorn How could socialist be more libertarian than conservatives? Socialist's advocate state ownership of everything. Yet libertarianism advocates a smaller state. Private property is a necessity for liberty. John Adams said "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or li berty cannot exist."
@aaasssfffdddiii you have to look at practice, the left wants to guard libertyu the right seams to be hapy to curbe freedomas of ppl who arre different to themselves,at times thuture used the police as a branch of the state, not to ensure the fredom of the individual as we on the left beilve they should be, but to carry out th ewill of the will of the state as in police states of the left and right
@aaasssfffdddiii its so easy to find libatarian socialists in the english socialism its the mainstream of the movement, george orwell was a libatarian socialist, he wrote down and out in paris and london & the road to wigan peer in the 30's campaigning against the way capitalism treets poor people, animal farm & 1984 in the 40's campaigning against represive regimes on the far left & right, animal farm was a direct attack on soviet communism & he was like me a radical ans libatarian socialist.
@rictorn As I said, libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. A socialist society requires a central bureacracy to redistribute the goods and services. This bureacracy would inevitably have power over the entire population, causing a loss of freedom.
@aaasssfffdddiii no not at all, not in theory or practice, the libetarian socialist model is the mainsream of socialism, have you watched the world at war? its the difinitive and the best series of documentaries on world war 2, it is quiote brilliant and no leftist or rightist bias at all, you should down load it, it was made in the 60's so you get hitlers sectuary. generals soliders civilians a on all sides concentration camp suvivers and guids all taliking on it
@aaasssfffdddiii anyway on that micheal foot pops up later the most left wing leader of the labour party for 50 years, he crops up in about 1942 defending press freedom, comparing the goverment with gorbals, micheal foot is one of the great libetarian socilaists, funny, interesting, compasionate and pasionate, hes bbc obitary ended 'micheal foot, brilliant, kind, socialist, libatarian,'
@aaasssfffdddiii you seam to have a geographicaly based veiw of socialism, i have never known as warm an apriciation of any old politician on there death, from right across the political speectrum ppl here knew micheal was somone both libatarians and socialists could learn from, but he like me tthought they are enextricably linked
@rictorn This idea that capitalism collapsed is simply not true. One crash does not mean an entire system collapsed. It certainly did not. Over the last 30 years, America has grown far faster than europe. Even if you include the crash. I assume you live in England. Look over the sea to Ireland. They lowered their corporate tax rate from 50% to 12.5% and they got the most rapd growth in the second half of the 1990s.
@aaasssfffdddiii it was not at total collaps of capitalism but it could have been, it was a total collaps of freidmanite capitalism because if it had not been bailed out it was on the way out, boom and bust get rich quick for some and long term suffering for others, ireland like anyone can life of debt, but not for ever, laybnes was wrong in the long term we are not all dead in the long term we are all in debt.
@aaasssfffdddiii i think america has so much going for it, we agreed (i think) like w.eourpean democracies are founded on the ideas & ideals of the enlightenment, but its no more free than w.eouirpe which have alternated between socialist and conservative goverments, eg jay walking? the eourpean veiw is i am a adult i can cross a fliping road, but we could all go to another country find a law against somthing we do everyday, i think we have very similar levels of freedom which subtly differ.
@rictorn Well, that is true. The Western European nations take freedom much less serious than we do. France has a Burqa Ban on Muslims. Obviously, that violates freedom of religion. That is taken more serious in America.
@aaasssfffdddiii yes i agree the berca ban was terrible, sacossie is of the right, a righjtist, a conservative, the left the socialist party opposed it, i am glad we can make common cause on these issues
@aaasssfffdddiii the eorpean socialist model is a mixed socialist/capitalist model privite ownership except where privite ownership is not working in a sector that is vital for ppl to live like water, we belive in a kaynesian economic model which it has been proven is much much stronger than the boom and bust chicago school economic madness
@aaasssfffdddiii do you realy think that? capitalism leads envertably to welfarism because it exasobates the differances between rich and poor, creates an underpaid iunderclass and unemployment who rely on welfare because they have been let down by capitalism, the only way to end welfarism is through socialism through full employment and a living wage
@aaasssfffdddiii the right conformism( lack tolerance for those who are unlike 'us' deny individualism, frm kalvinism), exploitation(of the poor anyone else who u can ), amorrality(many ppl on the right are moral in everyday lifebut the system encorages imorality against those who are different or exploitable see multinationals in poor countries, repression(of the powerless), freedom (to exploite), religious intolerance, conserrvatism(no belife in progress or improovment), nationalism/patriatism
@rictorn The fact is that the enlightenment was based on individual rights. The modern left is the exact opposite of what our founders believed. They believed in limited government, history, free markets, and liberty. Freedom is a negative concept. The only thing required for ones freedom is inaction by others. This is because our rights come from God, not government. In a free market system, every transaction is voluntary. Therefore, exploitation is imposiible in a free market system.
@aaasssfffdddiii its great we both agree that enlightonment values are the basis of what we belive, and i know its a cliche but the labour party in the uk owes more to methordism than to marx, as much a party of judio-christian values of fair play as of socilaism, and i was brought up a christian but have many jewish relatives and of corse side with the oppressed muslims in the west bank and gaza, so we are certainly both admirers of all religions and the gunuine religious.
@rictorn The right stands for traditional values. In America, those values are of liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness. That is why the right stands for those things. They stand for the life rights of the unborn. They stand for freedom from an oppressive state. They stand for a government that does not get in the way of the pursuit of happiness. They also understand the idea that our rights come from God, not government. The understand the importance of Jesus Christ in our nation.
@aaasssfffdddiii i don't think the right can satnd for liberty it stands for ineuqality, the exploitation of those in other countries and a has no regard for the liberty of the poor, i too agree murdering unborn kids is bad, its like war where you pretend because somone is unlike you its ok to kill them terrible (its not a left right issue here) i don't think they can look at how the right can opress minorities, they stand for a goverment which dose not want to aliviate misary
@aaasssfffdddiii we both belive that human rights are inate, their priar to & indipendant of governement, my ideas are informed by the new testimet ideas of fairness & equality i am not a christian but respect the words & deeds of jesus, i know many christian socilaists and they are good people, but they are not the only good ppl i know, you also have many muslims jews hindows and athists in your country and part opf what js mill and franklin were saying was they are as important as christians
@rictorn Wait, the right has certainly made society better. It is the left that has caused most of our major problems. Ronald Reagan made our nation better than any other recent president did, for example. You don't understand how freedom works. In a free society, people need to be able to keep the amount of money they earn. It is true that this results in inequality. But even those at the bottom do better in this type of society. This is because there is more overall wealth.
@aaasssfffdddiii they do not, i am not saying they never do anything good, mcmillans wind of change speach, the tory goverements of the 50's carrying on with atleys brilliant post war work, disrali in a bidding war with gladstone on social reforms for decades, generally they make thinghs better for the rich & worse for the poor, rightist goverments are repressive where as left wing goverements on the west eaourpean model (democratic socialist/libatarian socialist) fight for individual freedom.
@aaasssfffdddiii i think either of us saying you don't understand a word is pointless, (you know about humpty dumpty in alice in wonderland? he had the last word on samantics i feal) i understand it and i am sure you do, we just differ on what we want from freedom, a libatarian socialist belives everyone should be free to live a health happy life, sorry to caricuture but i think the right belive in the freedom to exploite, and the freedom to suffer, look at bush and his repression of muslims,
@rictorn Well, I am not form England, but the Tory government in the 1950s contributed to a slow economy. It was Margaret Thatcher, like Reagan in America, who mad the necessary reforms to keep England competitive
@aaasssfffdddiii 1950's stable economy growth fair distribution of wealth, boring place to live but we had the beatles the kinks the who and the stones to look forward to and we could always listen to blues, roots music from the south of america if we lived near the ports at least, when thuture got in she campaigned against high unemployment (700 000) after 4 years it was 5 million (using the same measures) her economics left us with the welfareism i as a socialist will always capmaign against
@aaasssfffdddiii we had a massive ressision in the early 80's, that many parts of the country took 15 years to recover form finantually, & have never recovered frm socialy, turned working class communities into getos in most major cities, had another ressesion in the 90 where 100's of 1000's of ppl lost there homes, we had a 30 year credit spree we will have to spend the next 30 years paying back, we have an endemic/structral level of unemployment in this country because of thatures poilieies
@aaasssfffdddiii we wasted north sea oil money on tax cuts for the richest, (norway invested theres can afford low tax/high spending now), tony benn a socialist minister negociated a great deal for britain on north sea oil where we got a % of the prifit in perpituaty, he said i told them the terms they said we will not deal with that commie, six months later the oil companmies were competing to take me to lunch, later thuture sold it to them for les than its contemparary market value
@aaasssfffdddiii that growth has gone to the rich made it harder for the poor to live an created mass welfarism and had dreadful social effects, also thature preached freedom and used the police as a dictator would,
@rictorn The governemnt cannot create prosperity. I agrree that the bailout was wrong. Only private individauls trying to make themselves wealthy can create a prosperous society. Historically, that is the only way that we can achieve prosperity. Socialism and Keynesianism have ALWAYS failed. Capitalism has ALWAYS worked. That is not an opinion, that is an objective fact.
@aaasssfffdddiii ragon made some 'dog wistle' speaches in the south basicaly saying he knew where he understood the racists & union laws are profoundly antidemocratic stopping ppl doing what they want thats freedom?, thature stop and search laws targetting black ppl, banning raves, using the police like a facist state sending police to violently beat up1000's of miners and 100's of hippie smashing up thir homes and their faces in frount of children, the right belive in repression
@rictorn Reagan believed strongly in freedom. He got rid of the Fairness doctrine, which limited free speech, he freed the economy up, and he freed people from communist states. He was the strongest advocate of freedom we have had since Abraham Lincoln.
@aaasssfffdddiii he talked a good game but put through anti union legislation stopping ppl doing ligitimate things to help each other, weather you agree or not it was an atack on freedom,
@aaasssfffdddiii we know impirically that neo liberal economics has failed now and a kaynsian model is much much more stable. but even then it was obvious thet the policies of ragan and thature were harmful to the poor and lower middle led to no income increse and was totaly fuled by borrowing, they even had to change gnp to gdp to pretend it was helping poor countries,
@aaasssfffdddiii if you look at all the social measures, health, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, educational achivement, alcaholism........................... in fact across the board the fairer societies do much much better than ubnequal ones welfarism is much lower and ppl are free to live there lives, there is no freedom in loosing your house or dieing young, the libatarian socialist agenda has freedom at its heart your definition of freedom because we are less repressive than the right
@aaasssfffdddiii and the freedom to live your life in peace and work hard to support your family, the right encorages welfarism which is devorsatating to families, where as i agree the centerists in the democratic party are almost as bad as the right in your country on this a libatarian soclalist agenda is an end to welfarism and a freedom for all
@aaasssfffdddiii hi yes sorry gosh this is at the heart of it is a misreading of the headline figures, america is richer but much of this is in the hands of the richest
in france borrowing is much lower they both have a much more sensible of national debt and a dislike of personal debt so the middle clas are better off when you take borrowings into acount
its more expensive to live in france you get free healthcare better educatuion for the many higher productivity and much shorter hours
@rictorn Well, America has much higher productivity than France. It is smaller if you do per hour, but America still comes out ahead. We also have higher quality Health Care. Not everyone has it, but 84% of our population have access to the best health care in the world. France actually has a higher debt than we do, as a percentage of GDP. So the idea of debt would not make sense.
@aaasssfffdddiii yes i would say doing more work in less time is more porductive, find me a capitalist who would say different?
84 % of ppl have full coverage ? do you not care about the 16% and of corse its much much more expensife than the eourpean model
realy i will cheack that out, personal debt is much higher in the uk and the states and ireland and greece portagal and so on, of corse the french have a much more sensible levels of taxation so are in a better position to pay it back
@aaasssfffdddiii um gosh this is at the heart of it we have borrowed to sistain our living standards they get it in pay, its cheaper to live in france, if you have £100 but i have 110 90 of which is borrowed who is wealtheyer?
france has much lower borrowing both personal/govermental to pay pack we will have to address ours
the french have freee health better educaton for most better social stats across the board work fewer hours better productivity, their economic model didnt crash ours did
@rictorn The idea of our economic model crashing is misleading. It did have a pretty bad crash, but it is not near enough to make up for years of stronger economic growth here than in France. On every economic statistic, our standard of living and economic model is much stronger than France's.
@rictorn You have to understand that the world does not come first. We must respect other countries rights, but not put them above our own. Our first responsibility is to God, then ourselves, then our community, then our state, then our country, and then our world. You see this is how a free society works.
@aaasssfffdddiii look if you live your life as i try to on the premis of loving your nabour as yourself then you are a good person (i try to do this i think we all fail but like equality its somthing to strive for) if you go into wars with god on your side thats bad because as dylan my have noticed both sides claim that, i love the english sense of humour and hate racism here, i love american kindness/hospitality but hate its argagance, i don't care about countries humans are important to me
@rictorn Well, I agree that we should respect people of all nations. That does not mean that you cannot put your nation before others. As I said earlier, you put God first, then yourself, then your family, then your community, then your country, and then the world. The world is not first. Nations need to be responsible for themselves. We have a responsibility to not hurt other nations, but we do not need to take care of them.
@aaasssfffdddiii putting humans of all nationalities 1st is more important than the rest, i think putting god 1st actually means the same thing as putting humans 1st otherwise what is the dayity for?
amreican buisness exploits other countriesfor profit, and the goverment sometimes acts as if it owns any country it wants, this if nothing else makes the any country responsable to at least undo some of the harm done
@rictorn The Bible does not articulate leftist values. The only people who claim that are leftist themselves. The right believe in helping the poor, but not through forced redistribution of wealth. We believe voluntary contributions to charity, and that is what the Bible taught.
@aaasssfffdddiii jesus stoodfor the profits against the kings for the ordinary ppl against the fachistic oautcratic rich /powerful, most of all he stood for the poor and the week against the strong and the uncaring.
@rictorn Jesus did not argue for redistribution of wealth. He argued for a society in which people voluntarily helped the poor. A socialist society is incompatible with Biblical values. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not steal.". Private property is very important to a Christian society. The fact is that people who claim the Bible advocates leftism only cherry-pick quotes, and most who actually read the Bible would not have that opinion.
@aaasssfffdddiii yes i agree jusus argued to help the poor this iscompatable with socialism, i am not a christian but respect them, privite property is importand even though property is theft so contrevines that commandment(apparently) its importand for a working mixed socialist ecomomy, however your argument that taxation is theft only works if there is 0 tax which leaves us with no inferstructure education civilisation and everyone starts off equal & treets each other fairly, which they don't
@aaasssfffdddiii volentry contributions are good but relatively inafective sparadic and peicemeal. they do nothing to redress the unfairness of ultra capitalism, only socialism can end welfarism, the bible did not adress socialism, but the best way to put jususes ideals into action is through socialism
@rictorn If you look at the different nations. America, a more neoliberal nation, is much more economically successful than European nations, that are typically more socially democratic. Even the middle class have much higher incomes in America. The fact is that classical liberal economic policies have been the most successful model devised by mankind.
@aaasssfffdddiii no less sucsessful its all based on borrowing exploitation boom and bust economics and in case you have not noticed it all just collapsed, the kaysian model has been most sucsefful leading to growth and wealth distribution sustainable for 50 years, austrian cklassical economics resulted in the 30's crash amd slump, and slash and burn economics has lead to more and faster booms and larger busts than any way of running the economy in the past,
@aaasssfffdddii this ignors the fact it also takes money form the poorest and mass middle class and gives it to the richest at an extroidanry rate even in countries where we were rich to start with this is terrible but in poor countries like argentina or russia it is a truely terrible system socialy and economicaly
@rictorn Socialism cannot end welfarism, because socialism is welfarism. Socialism and freedom are incompatible. Unlike a free society, voluntary transactions are not allowed. You also lose your right to private property, which is a centerpiece of a free society. The only way to end welfarism is to create a truly free society where people keep all they earn and the government only performs the neccessary functions.
@rictorn The right also stands for patriotism. This is a love for country and the freedom it stands for. You must always put your own country before other countries. if you are interested in the modern right, you need to read about the ideas of Edmund Burke. He was a 18/19th century politician from Ireland who's ideas formed the basis for the modern right.
@aaasssfffdddiii yes but there may be a fine line between patriatism and nationalism, i think internationalism has much more going for it, that makes no sense if 'You must always put your own country before other countries' if your country belives in freedom you should support it when it dose not you should not, nationalism is quite xenophobic where as internationalism is much nicer,
@aaasssfffdddiii i have heard of burke but never heard much about his ideas, the trouble is you can make the righjt sound ok but in practice the right dose not make socie3ty better, at best it trys to justify ignoring repression inequality and exploitation, at worst it will try to justify them
@aaasssfffdddiii the right conformism( lack tolerance for those who are unlike 'us' deny individualism, frm kalvinism), exploitation(of the poor anyone else who u can ), amorrality(many ppl on the right are moral in everyday lifebut the system encorages imorality against those who are different or exploitable see multinationals in poor countries, repression(of the powerless), freedom (to exploite), religious intolerance, conserrvatism(no belife in progress or improovment), nationalism/patriatism
@bapyou They actually helped people by stopping the horrors of socalism and communism. You know nothing about America. Nobody is oppressed. I have lived here for years. The people in America who are under the poverty threshold actually live better than the AVERAGE European. Not really oppression... But you are right that Obama is an oppressor. But you should like him becasue he is a communist just like you.
And your communist is responsible for 120 Million deaths in the 20th century.
@bapyou If we killed off all of the lazy in society, we might be a more productive society. If we "eradicated" all who disagree with us, like you proposed, we wouldn't fight as much. But would society really be better?
I don't believe it would. Because we would be giving up freedom. The Founding Fathers strongly believed in freedom. One of the greatest men in history, Benjamin Franklin, said "if you exchange liberty for security, you will get neither". He was right. We must never forget this.
"One of the greatest men in history, Benjamin Franklin, said "if you exchange liberty for security, you will get neither"."
Yeah ... I'm real familiar with that quote. There's a large segment of the population who scream & holler about the murderer Geroge Bush "He kept us safe! He kept us safe!"
Safe from what?
I loathe the right-wing with such a vast amount of venom, typing words into a computer does no justice to my rage. You have no idea & never will, scum.
@bapyou And to your point about Reagan. Yes, he was a union buster. But is this bad?
Unions kill jobs and destroy productivity. They feed class warfare and violence. Union leaders are thugs who take advantage of the working man. Public Unions suck off taxpayer money. Public workers can retire at 42 and get HUGE pensions. It is a broken system.
And how is Reagan the enemy of working people?
Under Reagan, working people actually gained income, and got to keep more of it because of tax cuts.
@aaasssfffdddiii In a socialist system, unions are irrelevant because the workers own the system. In capitalism, unions are a bulwark against capitalists stealing everything from workers. Unions can be corrupt, but that's because union leaders "got in bed" with capitalists after WW2. Rank & file were forced to sign forms stating they were not communist. It was carefully orchestrated propaganda.
FDR saved capitalism in the U.S. In the 1930s there were millions of angry American communists.
@aaasssfffdddiii "Under Reagan, working people actually gained income, and got to keep more of it because of tax cuts."
Complete revisionist bullshit. What ass-kissing Reagan websites do you glare at each day?
Real wages for working people declined throughout Reagan's terms in office; minimum wage remained at $3.35/hr (1981 to 1989), a 36% drop in real income. Working people compensated by working more hours. 80% of parents worked longer hours in 1989 than 1979 w/o a rise in income.
@bapyou On you're other point. Unevenly distributed wealth doesn't matter. We have income mobility. Furthermore, under Reagan wealth was distributed less evenly, but still even the poor got richer. Therefore, income inequality is irrelevant.
o.k. ,so explain to me, or give one give one reason, (what is this, middle school?) why I, as a working, taxpaying, trying to keep it managed middle class person should gleefully hand over my money to the govt. mismanagers for the purpose of supporting those who will not work and support themselves?
How many illegal aliens have created jobs? How many "poor people" have created a single job? How many jobs have Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, either directly or indirectly, created? Literally millions. How much money have Californians wasted giving illegal aliens healthcare in this state? Millions. You're right, we need to take back what is ours: our money from illegal aliens, who are, in fact, felons. The welfare state is failing and it is your socialists principles which are at fault.
socialism refers to economic organization advocating public or worker ownership and administration of the production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals withcompensation based on the amount of labor expended.
the ussr and NK are not socialist at all. please give one reason to explain why either are socialist?
And considering the USA spends 4x as much money monetering cuba as it does osama bin laden and tries at every oppertunity to wreck them, cubas doing ok, with a higher life expectency than the US etc
ok well it wasnt socialist for one main reason, and that it that the workers were not in control of the resources and means of production. what happened in the USSR was that a few elites were in control of everything. it was called socialist by the ussr so as to keep the ppl happy by making them think that they had a say, and by the USA to defame all socialism. what happened in soviet russia was one of the worst regimes ever, but it wasnt socialist, it was effective slavery
Lol tis grand. No i get what you mean, but what happened in the USSR wasnt communist either. Communism was/is a form of socialism that was coined i believe by Marx and his group(may have been earlier that that even), and what it was was nothing like what went on in the ussr. again the main point of it was to promote economic democracy where the workers were in control, but in the ussr the control of everything was in the hands of a few elites.
I can see what you're saying, but i have to disagree with you on what communism is altogether. And regarding Marx, what he came up with was Marxism, which is basically communism. I know that sounds stupid, but that is actually what it's called, Marxism, lol.
shifty1367 - this is an excellent point and a piece of truth that not many people are aware of (true definition of socialism and how it was skewed by the former USSR and US, which continues to falsely characterize it); my hat goes off to you!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bill Gates has paid more in taxes and done more for our economy with his little toe than every person in that room could do in a century of working. The wealthiest 1% nationally have 40% of the tax burden. If anything they should be paying less. California budget problems come from the unions these moron talk about leeching money from the taxpayers for their pensions, etc. look at it closely. the recession was caused by socialism... not capitalism. America hasn't been capitalist for a long time.
Bill gates sure, he's a philanthropist, he's happy to give his money away (within reason). But he's not the only rich person in the world. Why should rich pay less taxes, how would that benefit anyone??? Wouldn't even benefit them that much because they're rich regardless, taxes aren't keeping them from not being rich. And if you think USA is socialist then you're foolish. The recession was caused primarily by pure capitalistic institutions such as the banks and other predatory lenders.
pure capitalism is the last reason that we have a recession lol look up the definition of capitalism. basically it means that all things to do with wealth is controlled by the individual. Technically it is impossible for anything to have "pure" capitalism. There will always be some form of government control, or else it would be anarchy.
Nah, look at it this way, if it was a pure laizze fair capitalism, greed runs ramped. You're right it would be anarchy and just those who just happen to acquire the wealth first will be on top and everyone else would be their slaves, and it would be like that for generations. I don't know what I said earlier because somehow its magically removed so I can't elaborate or amend my statement but yeah.
"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks. Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society. Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer." - Karl Marx
So let me understand this......
Walmart employs about 1.4 million people, and Microsoft about 93,000 world wide.....Microsoft tax return is approx $5 Billion.
So by "taking back" (re-nationalizing") Microsoft or Walmart then the Federal Government would have to pay the wages,health insurance for all these people.....
Where will they get the money from? Have these people not understood why the Soviet Union collapsed through economic mismanagement?
dopplereffeckt675 6 months ago
@dopplereffeckt675 "Have these people not understood the Soviet Union collapsed through economic mismanagement?"
As if the United States isn't about to collapse because of economic mismanagement & naked capitalist greed.
Fucking idiot.
Russia, FYI, is ruled now by a group of oligarchs enriching themselves on the backs of Russia's working class, oligarchs no less totalitarian than were the Stalinists.
Further, a majority of Russians want the old Soviet system back.
Your days are numbered.
bapyou 6 months ago
@bapyou
Hmmmm....and there is me thinking Federal interference (re-bank bailouts), Keynsian economic and distortion of the free market was the cause..
Still I guess that some 7 million people starving to death in the Ukraine, 20 million in China in the Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot and "Year Zero" are examples of socialism in action.
As for a "majority" wanting a return to Communism in Russia-I gather they rather like Putin and Nationalism.
Grow up-go and see the world you fucktard.
dopplereffeckt675 6 months ago
@dopplereffeckt675 Every right-wing shitfleck on Earth endlessly regugitates the same talking points: Pol Pot, the Ukraine, China, which, in total, sums up the breadth of your knowledge with respect to socialist states and how life played out in them.
Pol Pot does not represent the entire range of socialist thought. He was brutal, mis-guided monster. So were Ronald Fucking Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.
Under China's communist rule, starvation ceased & its population increased.
bapyou 6 months ago
@bapyou
You really are a prize cunt.
Unlike you I have been to communist countries- Friends of mine lived in East Germany, where the Stazi lived two floors above. Other friends came from Romainia and Bulgaria.My girlfiend just happens to be Chinese....
Now if you don't like the West so much-I suggest you get off the capitalist built computer-run by fucking capitalists, and fuck off to North Korea.....I am sure Comrade Kim will let you in with loving arms.
Now fuck off.
dopplereffeckt675 6 months ago
@dopplereffeckt675
Ahhhh yes. The old right-wing "Love it or leave it" refrain. You're just full of cliches aren't you bunny girl? In civil terms this is what is known as banishment. Supposedly the United States --beacon of feedom to the world -- does not banish its citizens for speaking up against its system. Or doesn't it?
And your friends are from Eastern Europe where the new capitalist economies are in the toilet? Your gf from China where wealth disparity is at an all time high? Oh my!
bapyou 6 months ago
hmm, I will defenitely will make business in usa. where people will take everything from me. we need John Galt
88volcano 8 months ago
without the goverment there is no education no roads no prosperity no society no civilisation, thats why we ahve goverment, look at failed states they have no goverment, the bailout was vital what was stupid was getting into the problem in the fist place and what got us into it was neo liberal economics, marxism failed, freadmanism failed, kaynes sucseeded and is still sucseeding what do you think of kaynisasism as?
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn
You are not old enough to remember the UK in the 1970's....................
Of course roads would be built, schools would be built etc-the private sector would provide them. The "failed states" that you refer to DO have Governments, most adopted the very socalist programmes that you espouse.
Still once these goons realize when starting to work for a living, and see their tax bill, then they will see that Socialism is very much alive and well in the US.....
dopplereffeckt675 6 months ago
@dopplereffeckt675 hello there is a very interesting debate to be had around what the hell you do if you become prime minister in 1979, becuase as marx and the ausutrian economists alike would have not been supprised that kainsianism eventually failed, (no correction in austrian terms, no crisis in marx's terms) but the fact is marxism was a total failer, uber free market economics was a total falier resluts in massive booms and busts in which the poor have to pay for the mistakes of the rich,
rictorn 6 months ago
@dopplereffeckt675 the only system which 1 last any reasonable length of time without colapse is a kainsian socilal democratic model, this is the only model withinwhich a middle class grows, the other 2 distinkt systems result in the impoverishment of teh many and the enrichment of the few
rictorn 6 months ago
when i see a sighn saying privite road it either has gates or if its communal if its shared its rouble and mud we have to accept there are some things privite sector dose best and some things public sector dose best
rictorn 6 months ago
this is america.
we EARN wealth
we don't DISTRIBUTE it.
boondox68 1 year ago
@boondox68 the rich don't earn wealth they accumilate it
rictorn 6 months ago
In USA there are over 600 billionaries and tens of thousands, if not hundred thousands of thousand millionaries. If they were to pay taxes as regular workers, that would really change the budged defecit. USA has more billionaries in the world, second comes China, third Russia.
yurtaevi 1 year ago
@yurtaevi Actually, the rich pay more than their fair share in the US, they pay far more than the other tax brackets. Our top 5% pay 65% of the Taxes, and the top 20% pay 87% of the taxes.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii "the rich pay more than their fair share in the US"
This is a goddamned fallacy. The rich pay far less in percentage income than in the past. Taxes on the wealthy were 91% during the Eisenhower admin. Furthermore, corporate taxes are routinely circumvented, which is where real wealth lies.
It's not a matter of who contributes most in personal tax, it's a matter of unevenly distributed wealth & the realization that, in a finite world, unlimited growth is an impossibility.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Finite world?
Food production grows with the population, as production goes up. Water recycles itself, as do other resources. God gaves us this world to use to its fullest. Things don't just dissapear. Our world has been functioning for 15 billion years without running out of stuff. That is because our resources replenish themselves. Things don't dissapear. Certain resources change into new resources when used, over time. Our world is finite, but its resources aren't...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii You're a dope, an idiot, & a cretin. Congratulations on your accomplishments in life.
Unlike what your moronic conservative bretheren enjoy claiming, lefitists do actually WORK. As such, I dont have time to untangle & set straight every moronic statement you've made here.
But I'll "refudiate" one for you: The poor did NOT get richer during the Reagan admin: Every credible economist cites the decrease in real wages for avg Americans since then. But corp profits soared.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou The bottom 20% in wages gained 6% from 1981-1989. That is from the census bureau. Under Reagan, all quintiles grew...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Ronald Reagan was union-bashing scum & the enemy of working people. He is also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans. I'd piss on his fucking grave, but he is not worthy of my piss.
I loathe you fucks with all my heart: right-wingers are the scum of the Earth. Loathe is too weak a word. The sooner you are eradicated (and you WILL be eradicated) the sooner we can all live decent lives as working, creative, productive citizens of the world.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou You are an astouding person. You talk about the betterment of mankind, but you advocate "eradicating" an entire group of people. This is classic Marx. He said that the weak would "perish in the revolutionary holocaust". I guess this is what you are proposing for conservatives like me. I dislike marxists and socialists,but I believe in freedom. I would never advocate that we eradicate any people, regardless of your beliefs. I guess that is the difference between the two of us.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii "You talk about the betterment of mankind, but you advocate "eradicating" an entire group of people."
Numerous right-wingers -- right here on YouTube -- have written they "want to kill all communists/socialists/leftists." Go & chastise your brethren, not me. I don't like you; I never will. If you are right-wing, you are the scum of the Earth. Your words are worthless.
"I dislike marxists & socialists, but I believe in freedom."
Tell it to the ghost of Ronald Reagan.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Ronald Reagan never advocated suppressing anyone. In fact, he strongly believed in freedom of speech. Yes, I am conservative. This is because I believe in freedom. I don't know what goes on in your marxist fantasies. But I would guess that it would involve eliminatig religion, political freedom, and economic freedom. I hope you listen yourself. You should heed the words of the Founding Fathers of America, they would disagree wit your views very much.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii "Ronald Reagan never advocated suppressing anyone."
Oh really?
Tell that to former Black Panther Angela Davis. As governor of California Reagan was directly involved (as he was not involved with any other similar case) for denying Davis work at UCLA. He falsified charges that Davis was "overtly critical" of fellow faculty. Why? Becasue Davis was a communist.
And Reagan funding Central America's right-wing governments resulted in suppression of thousands of leftists.
bapyou 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii " ... your marxist fantasies ... involve eliminating religion, political freedom & economic freedom."
Reading your comment I can tell you this: You know nothing about Marx or communism except the talking points the American propaganda machine has been feeding the American population the past 90 years. America's ruling class keeps us in line because its fortunes & political control are at stake. We have no political freedom in the U.S. We vote our next oppressor each 4 years.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou Actually, the bottom 20% of America was making 6% more in 1989 than they were in 1981 (inflation adjusted). This is from the Census Bureau. It is a fact. The poor actually got richer under Reagan. He didn't suppress Angela Davis, he didn't hire her because she was a communist who hated America. Did he ever say he wanted to "eradicate" her?
No, that would be you. Those "right wingers" were overthrowing oppressive communist regimes.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii "The poor actually got richer under Reagan."
A bald fucking lie. Production has increased since the early 80s, whereas real wages have stagnated.
" Reagan didn't hire Angela Davis because she was a communist who hated America"
But that's not what he said. Score one for freedom of speech.
"Those "right wingers" were overthrowing oppressive communist regimes.
Yeah. But those right-wingers love them some oppressive right-wing regimes! Hello Batista! Somoza! etc...
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou I'm sorry, I made a mistake. Under Ronald Reagan, mean income for the bottom 20% of households increased by 12%, not 6% as I said in my last comment. This is adjusted for inflation. You can look at the census income numbers if you don't believe me. There is no such thing as an opressive right wing regime. The right stands for freedom and small government. It is the left that wants big government. Hitler, for example, was a leftist who hated capitalism.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii plese stop saying this about hitler itss juvanile
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, Hitler was a leftist.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Sorry, I wasnt being ironic. You can look it up. He followed a keynesian economic model, just like FDR in America. He railed against capitalism. He advocated creating a government retirement system and many other things.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii no its ok i get it you are trying to get us to think about left and right
hitler used kaynesian principals to get the economy going as, but was to understate the case right wing on
he like the bush regime was a military kaysnian as was starlin despite this bush and starlin would have totaly condemed kaynes ideas,
as for jm kaynes the great man was a liberal not and never a socialist
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii where as starlin was on the left but was a facist you make me realise even more than ever that there is no point in pretending to be on the left or right its what you belive in and do that is important.
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii
if you belive in demorcacy,internationalism,freedom,equality you can claim to be a leftist, but any repression(starlin) anitdemocracy(chaves) inequality(blair) nationalism(morales) you can't realy claim to be a true leftist
if you belive in inquality,servitude,nationalism,repression you can be a rightest but if you belive atall in equality (difficult but harold mcmillan), labour rights(disrali), internationalism( johnmajor), freedom(camaron) you are not totaly a rightest
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Freedom? Actually, the right is the side that wansts smaller government. Here is a more accurate description:
Right-- Freedom, Patriotism, Traditional Values, History, Respect for Higher Power, Personal Choice, and Individualism
Left-- Oppression, Immorality, No Respect for History, Progress for progess sake, Godless, Collective power over the individual, and Lack of Freedom
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii hello yes very good you make me laugh.you seam like a fun chap and are certainly making me think, because you are either just saying random stuff that makes no sense, which is great i love surealism, we are in a period of alice in wonderland economics at them moment, you are certainlty not just being ironiic now because there are a few things in your description of the (not many though) right that are the case or the right would like to think were the case
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii lets leave ober left and right behind because as we have discusssed its pointless having hitler pinochet saarlin and moe in this discussion becaiuse right and left they are all evil
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii
the left (eourpean social democrats, my belifes in english libatarian socialism, these traditions share the enlightenment values the usa was founded on )
freedom(to live free not to exploite), democracy(socialism is founded on democracy) , equality (or the persuit of such), tolerance(of religions and differances, which do others no harm, see js mill, from this individialism/choice),internationalism(we don't belive in killing or exploition ppl from different countries),
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn America is a Republic, not a democracy. The founders warned against democracy. As Benjamin Franklin put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.". You see, Democracy puts the mob before the individual. Republicanism puts the individual first. Capitalism is founded on Republicanism, which was the value on which America was founded.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii well i have heard that before but did not know it was franklin who said it, thanks for enlightening me, yes thats a pity but i am not sure your reading is not just selfserving?(sorry if that sounds rude i do not mean to be) do you belive in the things you say your countries constitution means? becuase if it dose mean that it may just be wrong and if it only means what it says it may also be wrong and you could still be right. i certainly disagree with it if you are corect
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn I do believe in our constitution is the supreme law of the land. Of course it is not perfect. As society changes, so do the laws. While this is true, we can never give up the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, as Jefferson said, are permanent. However, we have an amendment process to change the constitution. If we simply pervert the meaning of laws, we will forfeit our liberty to whatever politicians are in power.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i think the eaorpean enlightenment informs us all in the developed world they inform w.eourpean socialism, but i don't see how the multinational companies who cuase wars and poverty to expliot nateral resorces in poor countries can claim to be informed by them? i am arguing for socialism in any country (where ppl vote for it of corse), we have to be careful of set texts as the fundementalist in christianity, judaism,islam show, a text can be twisted to promote hatred.
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Okay, I don't want to sound mean here. However, your comment on neo-liberal economics failing is just ridiculous. The empirical evidence all back up the idea that neoliberalism is very successful. It is keynesianism that has bever been successful. Neoliberal ideas have brought us so far in the past two centuries.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii it failed & was proped up by govement/borrowing, the money when streight form society where it could have built schools hospitals to the richest ppl on earth, if we had not done this the atm's would have shut down banks like dominos & so on, you should read meltdown end of the age of greed by paul mason, he wrote it on the basis that as a bbc employee he's swarn to be impartial, could not say anything he could not at least argue was impiricaly true, he says its a failed model
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Socialism, to me, is a very dangerous ideaology. Of course, I don't like the fact that it leads to a much weaker economy. However, It really bothers me that it would lead to a loss of freedom. In a socialist society, everyone is dependant on the collective, or society. In a capitalist society, people are dependant on themselves. Therefore, everyone in a socialist society is simply part of the collective. While a capitalist society involves individuals.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii lets sepporate socialism & soviate style communism, even in the 30's when many english socialists were impressed by soviet communism(many were not) because of the progress made since the repressive tsarist regime, many went on official trips to russia shown the best bits new factories/houses, some were taken in but most came back having seen somthing opposed to the freedoms they belived in, they would spend the rest of there lives campaigning for socialism & against communism
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn You cannot ignore the utter failure of every socialist experiment. They all featured terrible economies and repression of individual freedom. In America, we have high levels of individual freedom, as do all capitalist economies. I know socialist intellecuals may have rejected the Soviet Union. However, every socialist nation is the same. Widespread poverty and oppression are universal.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii thats just not true i thought we had agreed there is a differance between soviet and sweedish systems? i realy don't see there is a argument here, there are high levels of freedom in the oecd countries, but the poor are more free in those which are more of a socialist mixed economy,
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Sure, Sweden is not the same as the Soviet system. However, Sweden is much less prosperous than America. Look at nearly every economy indicator. You will see that America has a better economy and a higher standard of living than Sweden.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you have to look at 1 wealth distribution if you look at ordinary people they are better off in sweden, if you look at poor ppl they are much better off in sweden, if you look at social stats, low crime, health care educational achivement much better off in sweeden, gdp is only a useful measure if everyone has = wealth and they don't, its not built on a bed of debt, their economy is much much stronger now than our neo liberal messes, i export many boats to sweden
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn No, the middle class incomes are much higher in America too. Sweden is not model for America.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii anyone who belives in freedom and sustainable ecpnomic growth should be a l;ibatarian socialist, if they do not then they can be a conservative, a facist or a soviet communist these are the ppl who in practicce opose individual freedom as your brilliant example of the burka showed
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Look, I don't want to be rude about this. However, Keynesian economics has never worked nearly as well as classical liberalism. Prior to 1890, America had a laissez Faire system. We had rapid growth and an explosion of innovation. In the 1930s, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii hi again nice chatting, you can grow fast when you are developing but you reach a point where you slow down then capitalists feel the need to invent ways to make money more quickly, this is where you have to either regulate of watch the whole thing get out of control, and crash at that point you get mass unemployment and even satrvation in the4 richest country in the world, kaynes ideas slow growth & prevent disaster and mass suffering, i'll take kaynes over freidman or marx
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, Keyne's idea have never worked in practice. Look at Japan in the 1990s. After decades of rapid growth, Keynesianism was tried. It created horribly stagnant growth in a decade where every other country was growing quickly.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i realise you may hold these belifes but i said i agree its good america would not support the burka ban but it was sarcosies bill, sarcosies ban, a rightest ban on a minorety they don't agree with, japan had a bust which came from a freidmaninspired bubble (kaynes would have advocated it damaning it down) japan only started to grow when they tried a stimulus 1995 0.9% growth (freidmainte low miney supply policies 1990 to 1995, 1996 stimulus and 3.6% gtrowth
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn No, the stimulus started in the early 1990s in Japan. Look, Keynesianism simply does not work, it never has.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@rictorn Friedman's ideas have worked in practice. Again, look at Ireland.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii ireland you know there bust ? fast growth & massive bust some very rich people & many suffering thats what freidmanism dose, freidman & marx are so similar very clever economists, brilliant communicators, exceptional popularists, brilliant (marxis) very good (friedman) analasis of the problems, both totaly & fundementaly proven wrong in practice, those 2 extremists either side dragging us into the mire kaynes is the one keeping contol of the world economy, sustaining growth
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn My goodness, you know very little about economics. You said friedman had proven wrong in practice. That might be the most ill-informed statement I have ever heard. Friedmans ideaology has been extremely successful. It is keynesianism that has failed EVERY time it has been tried.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@rictorn The 1929 crash was caused by the Fed. It was then prolonged by the New Deal. Look at the 1873 crash and 1893 crash, when the government did not intervene. We grew back faster.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii no it happened before the fed did anything, it was much bigger you can have resessions and grow back easier than depressions
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The fed started in 1913. 1913 is before 1929.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@rictorn Capitalism does not lead to welfarism. Everyone is wealthier in a capitalist system. Socialism IS welfarism. Capitalism is prosperity.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii no prosperity at the moment, just a bailout we print money and borrow money and most of it gp's stright to the richest people in the world, not because goverments give it to them but because thats how the economy is set up, its that bad we collectively print it they get it through market mechenisms do they need it? no, are they greedy and happy to take it anyway, yes
i would get rid of wealfare through full employment how would you do it? capitalism necuisitates welfairism
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The Burqa Ban was an idea of the left, supported by some on the European Right. However, America, which is more right wing than Europe, does not have any major party supporting a Burqa Ban. Even though we are, supposedly, more Islamophobic. It was radical feminists who wanted to keep Islamic women from practicing their religion freely.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii by the 40's and 50's there were hardly any socialists who thought soviet communism was good, by the 60'sthe amount of socialists defending the soviet union was more or less 0, this did not stop us being radical socialists but the radical socialists in my experiance in eourpean politics are much more libaterian than the rightist conservatives, mainstream democratic socialists/libatarian socialists in w.eourpe have not put repressive policies into action.
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn How could socialist be more libertarian than conservatives? Socialist's advocate state ownership of everything. Yet libertarianism advocates a smaller state. Private property is a necessity for liberty. John Adams said "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or li berty cannot exist."
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you have to look at practice, the left wants to guard libertyu the right seams to be hapy to curbe freedomas of ppl who arre different to themselves,at times thuture used the police as a branch of the state, not to ensure the fredom of the individual as we on the left beilve they should be, but to carry out th ewill of the will of the state as in police states of the left and right
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii murder is not acceptable in order to forfil political aims
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii its so easy to find libatarian socialists in the english socialism its the mainstream of the movement, george orwell was a libatarian socialist, he wrote down and out in paris and london & the road to wigan peer in the 30's campaigning against the way capitalism treets poor people, animal farm & 1984 in the 40's campaigning against represive regimes on the far left & right, animal farm was a direct attack on soviet communism & he was like me a radical ans libatarian socialist.
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn As I said, libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. A socialist society requires a central bureacracy to redistribute the goods and services. This bureacracy would inevitably have power over the entire population, causing a loss of freedom.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii no not at all, not in theory or practice, the libetarian socialist model is the mainsream of socialism, have you watched the world at war? its the difinitive and the best series of documentaries on world war 2, it is quiote brilliant and no leftist or rightist bias at all, you should down load it, it was made in the 60's so you get hitlers sectuary. generals soliders civilians a on all sides concentration camp suvivers and guids all taliking on it
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii anyway on that micheal foot pops up later the most left wing leader of the labour party for 50 years, he crops up in about 1942 defending press freedom, comparing the goverment with gorbals, micheal foot is one of the great libetarian socilaists, funny, interesting, compasionate and pasionate, hes bbc obitary ended 'micheal foot, brilliant, kind, socialist, libatarian,'
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you seam to have a geographicaly based veiw of socialism, i have never known as warm an apriciation of any old politician on there death, from right across the political speectrum ppl here knew micheal was somone both libatarians and socialists could learn from, but he like me tthought they are enextricably linked
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn This idea that capitalism collapsed is simply not true. One crash does not mean an entire system collapsed. It certainly did not. Over the last 30 years, America has grown far faster than europe. Even if you include the crash. I assume you live in England. Look over the sea to Ireland. They lowered their corporate tax rate from 50% to 12.5% and they got the most rapd growth in the second half of the 1990s.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii it was not at total collaps of capitalism but it could have been, it was a total collaps of freidmanite capitalism because if it had not been bailed out it was on the way out, boom and bust get rich quick for some and long term suffering for others, ireland like anyone can life of debt, but not for ever, laybnes was wrong in the long term we are not all dead in the long term we are all in debt.
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i think america has so much going for it, we agreed (i think) like w.eourpean democracies are founded on the ideas & ideals of the enlightenment, but its no more free than w.eouirpe which have alternated between socialist and conservative goverments, eg jay walking? the eourpean veiw is i am a adult i can cross a fliping road, but we could all go to another country find a law against somthing we do everyday, i think we have very similar levels of freedom which subtly differ.
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, that is true. The Western European nations take freedom much less serious than we do. France has a Burqa Ban on Muslims. Obviously, that violates freedom of religion. That is taken more serious in America.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii yes i agree the berca ban was terrible, sacossie is of the right, a righjtist, a conservative, the left the socialist party opposed it, i am glad we can make common cause on these issues
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii the eorpean socialist model is a mixed socialist/capitalist model privite ownership except where privite ownership is not working in a sector that is vital for ppl to live like water, we belive in a kaynesian economic model which it has been proven is much much stronger than the boom and bust chicago school economic madness
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii do you realy think that? capitalism leads envertably to welfarism because it exasobates the differances between rich and poor, creates an underpaid iunderclass and unemployment who rely on welfare because they have been let down by capitalism, the only way to end welfarism is through socialism through full employment and a living wage
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii the right conformism( lack tolerance for those who are unlike 'us' deny individualism, frm kalvinism), exploitation(of the poor anyone else who u can ), amorrality(many ppl on the right are moral in everyday lifebut the system encorages imorality against those who are different or exploitable see multinationals in poor countries, repression(of the powerless), freedom (to exploite), religious intolerance, conserrvatism(no belife in progress or improovment), nationalism/patriatism
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The fact is that the enlightenment was based on individual rights. The modern left is the exact opposite of what our founders believed. They believed in limited government, history, free markets, and liberty. Freedom is a negative concept. The only thing required for ones freedom is inaction by others. This is because our rights come from God, not government. In a free market system, every transaction is voluntary. Therefore, exploitation is imposiible in a free market system.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii its great we both agree that enlightonment values are the basis of what we belive, and i know its a cliche but the labour party in the uk owes more to methordism than to marx, as much a party of judio-christian values of fair play as of socilaism, and i was brought up a christian but have many jewish relatives and of corse side with the oppressed muslims in the west bank and gaza, so we are certainly both admirers of all religions and the gunuine religious.
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The right stands for traditional values. In America, those values are of liberty, life, and pursuit of happiness. That is why the right stands for those things. They stand for the life rights of the unborn. They stand for freedom from an oppressive state. They stand for a government that does not get in the way of the pursuit of happiness. They also understand the idea that our rights come from God, not government. The understand the importance of Jesus Christ in our nation.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i don't think the right can satnd for liberty it stands for ineuqality, the exploitation of those in other countries and a has no regard for the liberty of the poor, i too agree murdering unborn kids is bad, its like war where you pretend because somone is unlike you its ok to kill them terrible (its not a left right issue here) i don't think they can look at how the right can opress minorities, they stand for a goverment which dose not want to aliviate misary
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii we both belive that human rights are inate, their priar to & indipendant of governement, my ideas are informed by the new testimet ideas of fairness & equality i am not a christian but respect the words & deeds of jesus, i know many christian socilaists and they are good people, but they are not the only good ppl i know, you also have many muslims jews hindows and athists in your country and part opf what js mill and franklin were saying was they are as important as christians
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Wait, the right has certainly made society better. It is the left that has caused most of our major problems. Ronald Reagan made our nation better than any other recent president did, for example. You don't understand how freedom works. In a free society, people need to be able to keep the amount of money they earn. It is true that this results in inequality. But even those at the bottom do better in this type of society. This is because there is more overall wealth.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii they do not, i am not saying they never do anything good, mcmillans wind of change speach, the tory goverements of the 50's carrying on with atleys brilliant post war work, disrali in a bidding war with gladstone on social reforms for decades, generally they make thinghs better for the rich & worse for the poor, rightist goverments are repressive where as left wing goverements on the west eaourpean model (democratic socialist/libatarian socialist) fight for individual freedom.
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i think either of us saying you don't understand a word is pointless, (you know about humpty dumpty in alice in wonderland? he had the last word on samantics i feal) i understand it and i am sure you do, we just differ on what we want from freedom, a libatarian socialist belives everyone should be free to live a health happy life, sorry to caricuture but i think the right belive in the freedom to exploite, and the freedom to suffer, look at bush and his repression of muslims,
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, I am not form England, but the Tory government in the 1950s contributed to a slow economy. It was Margaret Thatcher, like Reagan in America, who mad the necessary reforms to keep England competitive
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii 1950's stable economy growth fair distribution of wealth, boring place to live but we had the beatles the kinks the who and the stones to look forward to and we could always listen to blues, roots music from the south of america if we lived near the ports at least, when thuture got in she campaigned against high unemployment (700 000) after 4 years it was 5 million (using the same measures) her economics left us with the welfareism i as a socialist will always capmaign against
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii we had a massive ressision in the early 80's, that many parts of the country took 15 years to recover form finantually, & have never recovered frm socialy, turned working class communities into getos in most major cities, had another ressesion in the 90 where 100's of 1000's of ppl lost there homes, we had a 30 year credit spree we will have to spend the next 30 years paying back, we have an endemic/structral level of unemployment in this country because of thatures poilieies
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii we wasted north sea oil money on tax cuts for the richest, (norway invested theres can afford low tax/high spending now), tony benn a socialist minister negociated a great deal for britain on north sea oil where we got a % of the prifit in perpituaty, he said i told them the terms they said we will not deal with that commie, six months later the oil companmies were competing to take me to lunch, later thuture sold it to them for les than its contemparary market value
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, UK has been one of the few European nations that has grown as fast as America in the past 30 years, that is because of Thatcher.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii that growth has gone to the rich made it harder for the poor to live an created mass welfarism and had dreadful social effects, also thature preached freedom and used the police as a dictator would,
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The governemnt cannot create prosperity. I agrree that the bailout was wrong. Only private individauls trying to make themselves wealthy can create a prosperous society. Historically, that is the only way that we can achieve prosperity. Socialism and Keynesianism have ALWAYS failed. Capitalism has ALWAYS worked. That is not an opinion, that is an objective fact.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii ragon made some 'dog wistle' speaches in the south basicaly saying he knew where he understood the racists & union laws are profoundly antidemocratic stopping ppl doing what they want thats freedom?, thature stop and search laws targetting black ppl, banning raves, using the police like a facist state sending police to violently beat up1000's of miners and 100's of hippie smashing up thir homes and their faces in frount of children, the right belive in repression
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Reagan believed strongly in freedom. He got rid of the Fairness doctrine, which limited free speech, he freed the economy up, and he freed people from communist states. He was the strongest advocate of freedom we have had since Abraham Lincoln.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii he talked a good game but put through anti union legislation stopping ppl doing ligitimate things to help each other, weather you agree or not it was an atack on freedom,
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii we know impirically that neo liberal economics has failed now and a kaynsian model is much much more stable. but even then it was obvious thet the policies of ragan and thature were harmful to the poor and lower middle led to no income increse and was totaly fuled by borrowing, they even had to change gnp to gdp to pretend it was helping poor countries,
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii if you look at all the social measures, health, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, educational achivement, alcaholism........................... in fact across the board the fairer societies do much much better than ubnequal ones welfarism is much lower and ppl are free to live there lives, there is no freedom in loosing your house or dieing young, the libatarian socialist agenda has freedom at its heart your definition of freedom because we are less repressive than the right
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii and the freedom to live your life in peace and work hard to support your family, the right encorages welfarism which is devorsatating to families, where as i agree the centerists in the democratic party are almost as bad as the right in your country on this a libatarian soclalist agenda is an end to welfarism and a freedom for all
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Think about America and France. Even though France has less inequality, America's lower and middle class's do much better than France's.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii hi yes sorry gosh this is at the heart of it is a misreading of the headline figures, america is richer but much of this is in the hands of the richest
in france borrowing is much lower they both have a much more sensible of national debt and a dislike of personal debt so the middle clas are better off when you take borrowings into acount
its more expensive to live in france you get free healthcare better educatuion for the many higher productivity and much shorter hours
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, America has much higher productivity than France. It is smaller if you do per hour, but America still comes out ahead. We also have higher quality Health Care. Not everyone has it, but 84% of our population have access to the best health care in the world. France actually has a higher debt than we do, as a percentage of GDP. So the idea of debt would not make sense.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii yes i would say doing more work in less time is more porductive, find me a capitalist who would say different?
84 % of ppl have full coverage ? do you not care about the 16% and of corse its much much more expensife than the eourpean model
realy i will cheack that out, personal debt is much higher in the uk and the states and ireland and greece portagal and so on, of corse the french have a much more sensible levels of taxation so are in a better position to pay it back
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii um gosh this is at the heart of it we have borrowed to sistain our living standards they get it in pay, its cheaper to live in france, if you have £100 but i have 110 90 of which is borrowed who is wealtheyer?
france has much lower borrowing both personal/govermental to pay pack we will have to address ours
the french have freee health better educaton for most better social stats across the board work fewer hours better productivity, their economic model didnt crash ours did
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The idea of our economic model crashing is misleading. It did have a pretty bad crash, but it is not near enough to make up for years of stronger economic growth here than in France. On every economic statistic, our standard of living and economic model is much stronger than France's.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@rictorn You have to understand that the world does not come first. We must respect other countries rights, but not put them above our own. Our first responsibility is to God, then ourselves, then our community, then our state, then our country, and then our world. You see this is how a free society works.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii look if you live your life as i try to on the premis of loving your nabour as yourself then you are a good person (i try to do this i think we all fail but like equality its somthing to strive for) if you go into wars with god on your side thats bad because as dylan my have noticed both sides claim that, i love the english sense of humour and hate racism here, i love american kindness/hospitality but hate its argagance, i don't care about countries humans are important to me
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Well, I agree that we should respect people of all nations. That does not mean that you cannot put your nation before others. As I said earlier, you put God first, then yourself, then your family, then your community, then your country, and then the world. The world is not first. Nations need to be responsible for themselves. We have a responsibility to not hurt other nations, but we do not need to take care of them.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii putting humans of all nationalities 1st is more important than the rest, i think putting god 1st actually means the same thing as putting humans 1st otherwise what is the dayity for?
amreican buisness exploits other countriesfor profit, and the goverment sometimes acts as if it owns any country it wants, this if nothing else makes the any country responsable to at least undo some of the harm done
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The Bible does not articulate leftist values. The only people who claim that are leftist themselves. The right believe in helping the poor, but not through forced redistribution of wealth. We believe voluntary contributions to charity, and that is what the Bible taught.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii jesus stoodfor the profits against the kings for the ordinary ppl against the fachistic oautcratic rich /powerful, most of all he stood for the poor and the week against the strong and the uncaring.
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Jesus did not argue for redistribution of wealth. He argued for a society in which people voluntarily helped the poor. A socialist society is incompatible with Biblical values. The Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not steal.". Private property is very important to a Christian society. The fact is that people who claim the Bible advocates leftism only cherry-pick quotes, and most who actually read the Bible would not have that opinion.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii yes i agree jusus argued to help the poor this iscompatable with socialism, i am not a christian but respect them, privite property is importand even though property is theft so contrevines that commandment(apparently) its importand for a working mixed socialist ecomomy, however your argument that taxation is theft only works if there is 0 tax which leaves us with no inferstructure education civilisation and everyone starts off equal & treets each other fairly, which they don't
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii volentry contributions are good but relatively inafective sparadic and peicemeal. they do nothing to redress the unfairness of ultra capitalism, only socialism can end welfarism, the bible did not adress socialism, but the best way to put jususes ideals into action is through socialism
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn If you look at the different nations. America, a more neoliberal nation, is much more economically successful than European nations, that are typically more socially democratic. Even the middle class have much higher incomes in America. The fact is that classical liberal economic policies have been the most successful model devised by mankind.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii no less sucsessful its all based on borrowing exploitation boom and bust economics and in case you have not noticed it all just collapsed, the kaysian model has been most sucsefful leading to growth and wealth distribution sustainable for 50 years, austrian cklassical economics resulted in the 30's crash amd slump, and slash and burn economics has lead to more and faster booms and larger busts than any way of running the economy in the past,
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddii this ignors the fact it also takes money form the poorest and mass middle class and gives it to the richest at an extroidanry rate even in countries where we were rich to start with this is terrible but in poor countries like argentina or russia it is a truely terrible system socialy and economicaly
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn Socialism cannot end welfarism, because socialism is welfarism. Socialism and freedom are incompatible. Unlike a free society, voluntary transactions are not allowed. You also lose your right to private property, which is a centerpiece of a free society. The only way to end welfarism is to create a truly free society where people keep all they earn and the government only performs the neccessary functions.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you arer painting libatarian socialism with the same brush as soviet communism, it in theory and in practice is a different thing
rictorn 1 year ago
@rictorn The right also stands for patriotism. This is a love for country and the freedom it stands for. You must always put your own country before other countries. if you are interested in the modern right, you need to read about the ideas of Edmund Burke. He was a 18/19th century politician from Ireland who's ideas formed the basis for the modern right.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii yes but there may be a fine line between patriatism and nationalism, i think internationalism has much more going for it, that makes no sense if 'You must always put your own country before other countries' if your country belives in freedom you should support it when it dose not you should not, nationalism is quite xenophobic where as internationalism is much nicer,
rictorn 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i have heard of burke but never heard much about his ideas, the trouble is you can make the righjt sound ok but in practice the right dose not make socie3ty better, at best it trys to justify ignoring repression inequality and exploitation, at worst it will try to justify them
rictorn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaasssfffdddiii the right conformism( lack tolerance for those who are unlike 'us' deny individualism, frm kalvinism), exploitation(of the poor anyone else who u can ), amorrality(many ppl on the right are moral in everyday lifebut the system encorages imorality against those who are different or exploitable see multinationals in poor countries, repression(of the powerless), freedom (to exploite), religious intolerance, conserrvatism(no belife in progress or improovment), nationalism/patriatism
rictorn 1 year ago
@bapyou They actually helped people by stopping the horrors of socalism and communism. You know nothing about America. Nobody is oppressed. I have lived here for years. The people in America who are under the poverty threshold actually live better than the AVERAGE European. Not really oppression... But you are right that Obama is an oppressor. But you should like him becasue he is a communist just like you.
And your communist is responsible for 120 Million deaths in the 20th century.
Thanks!
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@bapyou What's wrong with eliminating religion?
Sasuk3xxx 1 year ago
@bapyou If we killed off all of the lazy in society, we might be a more productive society. If we "eradicated" all who disagree with us, like you proposed, we wouldn't fight as much. But would society really be better?
I don't believe it would. Because we would be giving up freedom. The Founding Fathers strongly believed in freedom. One of the greatest men in history, Benjamin Franklin, said "if you exchange liberty for security, you will get neither". He was right. We must never forget this.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaasssfffdddiii
"One of the greatest men in history, Benjamin Franklin, said "if you exchange liberty for security, you will get neither"."
Yeah ... I'm real familiar with that quote. There's a large segment of the population who scream & holler about the murderer Geroge Bush "He kept us safe! He kept us safe!"
Safe from what?
I loathe the right-wing with such a vast amount of venom, typing words into a computer does no justice to my rage. You have no idea & never will, scum.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou And to your point about Reagan. Yes, he was a union buster. But is this bad?
Unions kill jobs and destroy productivity. They feed class warfare and violence. Union leaders are thugs who take advantage of the working man. Public Unions suck off taxpayer money. Public workers can retire at 42 and get HUGE pensions. It is a broken system.
And how is Reagan the enemy of working people?
Under Reagan, working people actually gained income, and got to keep more of it because of tax cuts.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii In a socialist system, unions are irrelevant because the workers own the system. In capitalism, unions are a bulwark against capitalists stealing everything from workers. Unions can be corrupt, but that's because union leaders "got in bed" with capitalists after WW2. Rank & file were forced to sign forms stating they were not communist. It was carefully orchestrated propaganda.
FDR saved capitalism in the U.S. In the 1930s there were millions of angry American communists.
bapyou 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii "Under Reagan, working people actually gained income, and got to keep more of it because of tax cuts."
Complete revisionist bullshit. What ass-kissing Reagan websites do you glare at each day?
Real wages for working people declined throughout Reagan's terms in office; minimum wage remained at $3.35/hr (1981 to 1989), a 36% drop in real income. Working people compensated by working more hours. 80% of parents worked longer hours in 1989 than 1979 w/o a rise in income.
bapyou 1 year ago
@bapyou On you're other point. Unevenly distributed wealth doesn't matter. We have income mobility. Furthermore, under Reagan wealth was distributed less evenly, but still even the poor got richer. Therefore, income inequality is irrelevant.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
CIA and FBI probably watching them closley.
yurtaevi 1 year ago
A very powerful & interesting debate, I wish I was involved to be quite honest!
myinfamy 1 year ago
tax the filthy rich cocksuckers not the people making 100,000 - 500,000. look at the ultra-rich that feed off the little people.
thefullmonte2003 1 year ago
@shifty1367
o.k. ,so explain to me, or give one give one reason, (what is this, middle school?) why I, as a working, taxpaying, trying to keep it managed middle class person should gleefully hand over my money to the govt. mismanagers for the purpose of supporting those who will not work and support themselves?
gorylla1 1 year ago
How many illegal aliens have created jobs? How many "poor people" have created a single job? How many jobs have Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, either directly or indirectly, created? Literally millions. How much money have Californians wasted giving illegal aliens healthcare in this state? Millions. You're right, we need to take back what is ours: our money from illegal aliens, who are, in fact, felons. The welfare state is failing and it is your socialists principles which are at fault.
poidog776 2 years ago
Step 1 of controlling the debate, make a scapegoat
Latvianman101 1 year ago
@poidog776, Those millions of jobs that Bill Gates has created are in India, not in the US. You need to wake the fuck up.
SolomanKane2k8 1 year ago
socialism refers to economic organization advocating public or worker ownership and administration of the production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals withcompensation based on the amount of labor expended.
gorylla1 2 years ago
yeah, socialism has worked out so well for cuba, north korea, ussr, etc. etc. if you dont like it here please leave.
gorylla1 2 years ago
@gorylla1
If you don't like hearing other Americans' opinions and wish to trample on their right to free speech, please leave.
octelcogopod 2 years ago
the ussr and NK are not socialist at all. please give one reason to explain why either are socialist?
And considering the USA spends 4x as much money monetering cuba as it does osama bin laden and tries at every oppertunity to wreck them, cubas doing ok, with a higher life expectency than the US etc
shifty1367 2 years ago
get it now?
gorylla1 2 years ago
Communism is extreme socialism. the USSR is communist, explain how it's NOT socialist lol
jjguitar22 2 years ago
ok well it wasnt socialist for one main reason, and that it that the workers were not in control of the resources and means of production. what happened in the USSR was that a few elites were in control of everything. it was called socialist by the ussr so as to keep the ppl happy by making them think that they had a say, and by the USA to defame all socialism. what happened in soviet russia was one of the worst regimes ever, but it wasnt socialist, it was effective slavery
shifty1367 2 years ago
I believe the word you were looking for was COMMUNISM.
jjguitar22 2 years ago
ok that seemed a little more harsh than i meant lol. i just hate communism, wasn't a personal attack.
jjguitar22 2 years ago
Lol tis grand. No i get what you mean, but what happened in the USSR wasnt communist either. Communism was/is a form of socialism that was coined i believe by Marx and his group(may have been earlier that that even), and what it was was nothing like what went on in the ussr. again the main point of it was to promote economic democracy where the workers were in control, but in the ussr the control of everything was in the hands of a few elites.
shifty1367 2 years ago
i also hate what happened in the ussr,it was a despicable and brutal regime, but it wasnt communist as defined by marx, it was something else.
shifty1367 2 years ago
I can see what you're saying, but i have to disagree with you on what communism is altogether. And regarding Marx, what he came up with was Marxism, which is basically communism. I know that sounds stupid, but that is actually what it's called, Marxism, lol.
jjguitar22 2 years ago
shifty1367 - this is an excellent point and a piece of truth that not many people are aware of (true definition of socialism and how it was skewed by the former USSR and US, which continues to falsely characterize it); my hat goes off to you!!
jgarzilli 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bill Gates has paid more in taxes and done more for our economy with his little toe than every person in that room could do in a century of working. The wealthiest 1% nationally have 40% of the tax burden. If anything they should be paying less. California budget problems come from the unions these moron talk about leeching money from the taxpayers for their pensions, etc. look at it closely. the recession was caused by socialism... not capitalism. America hasn't been capitalist for a long time.
memperor 2 years ago
lol libertarian troll.
mwells219 2 years ago
Bill gates sure, he's a philanthropist, he's happy to give his money away (within reason). But he's not the only rich person in the world. Why should rich pay less taxes, how would that benefit anyone??? Wouldn't even benefit them that much because they're rich regardless, taxes aren't keeping them from not being rich. And if you think USA is socialist then you're foolish. The recession was caused primarily by pure capitalistic institutions such as the banks and other predatory lenders.
blacklite911 2 years ago
pure capitalism is the last reason that we have a recession lol look up the definition of capitalism. basically it means that all things to do with wealth is controlled by the individual. Technically it is impossible for anything to have "pure" capitalism. There will always be some form of government control, or else it would be anarchy.
jjguitar22 2 years ago
Nah, look at it this way, if it was a pure laizze fair capitalism, greed runs ramped. You're right it would be anarchy and just those who just happen to acquire the wealth first will be on top and everyone else would be their slaves, and it would be like that for generations. I don't know what I said earlier because somehow its magically removed so I can't elaborate or amend my statement but yeah.
blacklite911 2 years ago
but are you aware also that (globally) the top 1% controls about 80% of the wealth?
shifty1367 2 years ago
"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks. Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society. Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer." - Karl Marx
jp1joey 2 years ago
This is Socialism, not the Democratic party. Please learn the political differences.
nowandzen7 2 years ago