But alot of those things I just mentioned about political ideologies, are mostly just the theories behind them. I know that 100 % socialism is quite flawed, but 100 % capitalism is also flawed. Socialism would be too naive and capitalism would be too unequal. But if you mix capitalism and socialism, you will have a fully functioning society. And this is what most countries on this earth have. Mixed economy. Even USA has it. Mixed economy is controlled capitalism with public sectors and welfare.
That's why cities "incorporate". If a group of neighbors want to join together and build common facilities of all sorts, and make rules for their area, and share the costs, that's one thing. But a free nation cannot exist where those who don't want to participate are forced to. The federal government should stick to it's constitutional limits. Of course socialists cannot allow any to opt out, lest their programs collapse. They hate freedom.
She's right. Socialism is a learning disorder. Einstein noted that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. How many times does socialism have to fail to know it doesn't work?
Einstein was also a socialist infact. And also, socialism hasn't failed at all. Alot of Europeen countries have some forms of socialism and it works fine. Not even communism has failed since no real communist society has ever existed. The ones that attempted only got stuck in the socializing stage.
But why do you bring up socialism anyway? Liberalism is very different and almost the opposite of socialism. Anyone who thinks differently is obviously really lost.
Liberalism is not a form of socialism. Liberalism was the first modern political ideology ever created and it was created some time around the French Revolution. Conservatism came right after as a reaction againts the violence and the radical ideas of the liberals. The conservatists were defenders of the tyranny and dictatorship of the French King.
Socialism came like 50 years later as a reaction againts capitalism and how they treated the workers. Socialism was created by the working class.
What is the difference between socialism and liberalism?
Líberalism is free market, small goverment and individualism.
Socialism is equality, workers control the means of production, classless society and in most cases some forms of democracy. Communist-wannabe countries have lacked democracy. This is one of many reason why we can't call them real communists.
"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" -Leon Trotsky.
Was the woman in the video right? Obviously not. Are you right? Absolutly not. You don't really seem to have a clue about what socialism or liberalism is. You even seem to think they are the same thing, while in reality, they are almost the opposite of eachother. The only thing they really have in common is that they both want some forms of democracy.
That's true. Socialists cannot allow people to have rights, it cannot allow individuals to exist as individuals. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the lunch menu. People can only live free when the majority as as powerless as any other dictator. I prefer our constitutional republic. I would not want to live in a democracy.
ROTFLMAO! You quote Trotsky? Actually, he was party right on that point. A nation cannot become infected with the disease of socialism without a movement among an ignorant population. Make the people hungry and ignorant and they will vote away their freedom. Democracy is no friend of liberty, the tyranny of the majority is the worst kind of tyranny. And one cannot have small government and liberty in any socialist system.
Einstein was a genius, but even he was foolish in some aspects, and admitted it. Whatever the flavor, marxism, communism, etc, socialism is foolish and has a 100% failure rate because it denies nature. Those european states cannot support themselves, they are broke with confiscatory taxes in spite of the US taxpayers providing their defense. "Liberals" oppose liberty, as with everything else, they lie about that.
You really don't much about politics do you? Liberalism is againts liberty? Read a dictionary before you say anything. If it weren't for the liberals, you guys wouldn't even have had any democracy or "liberty". Liberalism is the founders of modern democracy.
And the europeen countries are, when it comes to politics and economy, way more organized and better off than you guys are. It's common knowledge that western Europe has higher standards of living than USA.
Here we have evidence that atleast Scandinavia is better off than you guys.
So can socialism function? Obviously it can. Many parts of western Europe have social democracy or social liberalism and it works great. Even better than the American system in many regards.
Communism on the other hand, has not yet been proven to function yet. And there are many reasons to why it haven't worked. And I'm going to explain that later on.
Without American welfare, those socialist stats would have to pay their own defense, their own drugs, and most would be be shelling out most of their GNP for fuel. Sure, socialism works just great as long as someone else is paying the bills for the socialists. That's why socialists cannot allow anyone to opt out of their scam programs. They can't pay for it without picking pockets of the unwilling.
The reason why communism failed is because it happened to early, it didn't have democracy and it wasn't international. In Karl Marx's manifesto, it says that communism should only arrive when all capitalism in the world falls. And in 1917, it hadn't falled at all. It was even at its peak. Sure things were really unequal, but they generated a shitload of money.
Workers and the citizens should be in control of the state in communism, through direct democracy. This didn't happen in Soviet...
Soviet, and every other "communist" state, did not have democracy. They turned the state into a military dictatorship. Workers did not really have a say in anything, the were treated like slaves.
It also says in Karl Marx manifesto that communism can only work if its made internationally. The whole world needs to be communist in order for it to work. Creating a communist state can be really hard to do around capitalistic nations. The trade relations wont work very good.
So these are pretty much the reasons to why Communism didn't work. Infact, they weren't even communists. Before you can reach communism, you need to go through a socializing stage. No country has ever managed to go through a socializing stage in order to become communists.
But I believe communism might arrive in the future. I see tendencies of the capitalism falling. The economy is getting worse and worse. But thats just my theories.
Communism has to quickly become a slave state because it's the only way to make the slaves work for no reward. Freedom and socialism of any flavor are incompatible.
You are terrible wrong if you believe freedom can't exist in any form of socialism. Sweden, a quite socialized country really, are ranked as the most democratic country in the world. And I am not talking about communism type democracy, I am talking about modern democratic values. USA is only on spot 18. Most countries in western europe, most of them quite socialized, are ahead of USA.
"Most democratic" is not a good thing, unless you oppose freedom, which depends on government recognition of rights. INDIVIDUALS have rights, not the majority. A dictatorial majority is no better than any other dictator. I am proud to be "behind" others in such a twisted definition.
Then who is going to rule if not the majority? You kind of only got two things to choose by, and thats dictatorship or democracy. Someone has to make the decisions, and I sure wouldn't want just 1 person to make all the decisions. Because if only 1 person rule, you wont really have much freedom because that dictator is free to remove your freedom.
Democracy is the only way that you can actually have freedom or rights. You of all should know this.
That's simply and obviously total BS! Democracy isn't free, it's tyranny of the majority. The majority in WWII Germany supported Hitler, so how free were the minorities like the jews? In the USA our system is setup so that the constitution is the law. It takes far more than a majority to alter it. Unfortunately, we have socialist politicians who tend to ignore it and a dumbed down population who think we have a democracy and that such a system would be good.
You are the only one who is making a fool of yourself. Who is supposed to make the laws you think? Someone has to make them. And you think you guys are the only country that has a constitution? Every country has a constitution. I'm from Sweden and we are pretty much social democrats. Our constitution is: Instrument of goverment, art of succession, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Sure we only have 4 such laws, but a country shouldn't have more than that.
A bigger constitution makes it harder to make new decisions in order to push the country forward and keep it modernized.
And you believe we don't have any rights or freedom in Europe? Don't make a fool of yourself. We have way more rights than you guys in US. You don't even have UHC or free education. So don't you come here and tell us we don't have any rights! And no, we don't treat minorities worse because we are socialists. We believe in equality. Equality is something socialism stands for
What I meant was that a country should only have a few basic constitutional laws that can ensure freedom and that the rulers wont go corrupt. But more than that is not needed because if you have too many constitutional laws, it will get harder to make new laws that might even bring the country in positive change. Blindly following a 300 year old constitution filled with a shitload of laws will kind of make it harder to make new laws without going againts the constitution.
And you believe we don't have any freedom in Europe? Thats odd, because I'm pretty sure that I can do what I want, be who I want, say what I want and write what I want as long as it doesn't turn into a hate crime. It's actually illegal over here to say hateful things in public about minorities over here, did you know that? So, sorry buddy... Your claim that a democracy would treat minorities worse don't hold at all. Your claim is a complete fallacy.
What are you talking about? One of our constitutional laws are "freedom of expressions". I'm pretty sure talking is a way of expressing yourself. So yes, we do have freedom of speech in our constitution. But there is a vast difference between freedom of speech and hate crimes. No one should have the right to insult others just because they "different". Heavy insults is the same as assualt, except its words instead of fists.
So how exactly, am I arguing that no freedom of speech=freedom?
On th Us based Freedom House index Sweden is considered as free as the US.
On the french based Press Freedom Index Sweden is rated as number 1 in freedom of the press (together with a few other mostly western european countries) while the US is rated 20th, bellow even Malta.
Lol are you serious? Did you just call Nazi Germany a democracy? HAHAHAHAHA! Your claims are becoming more and more pathetic and retarded everytime you post... I mean, do you seriously believe that Nazi Germany was a democracy? Thats about the dumbest claim I've ever heard!
Hitler was DICTATOR you know. He only got elected democratically but he turned himself into a dictator almost right after he got elected. And you wanna know how he got elected?
Germany was treated very badly after WW1. They had to pay for the whole war, they lost a bunch of areas, they weren't allowed to have a big army, etc. Germany got poor as hell and hated all over Europe. But then Hitler came along and managed to unite the people into a common cause. He also claimed to be a worker's party and he also put the word "socialist" in his party name in order to sound a bit better. The Germans had no hope, but Hitler managed to give them hope while brainwashing them.
Hitler won the election and eventually he turned himself into a fascist dictator. And what the German people mostly didn't know, was that Hitler sent several jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally disabled people, social democrats and communists to concentration camps. How could he do this? It's simple, he was a dictator. He could do what he damn well pleased.
I know there is one bad thing about democracy, and that is that it might lead to dictatorship if you vote forth the wrong guy. But it's still obviously better than a dictatorship.
But you also gotta remember how things were in Germany at that time when Hitler got elected. Everything was shit. I don't need to explain further since I have already explained everything in a recent comment.
The nazis WERE and ARE socialist! They are just a different flavor from your beloved Marxists. Had the german people not been so ignorant, using the word "socialist" wouldn't have sounded any better than "slave state". They wanted big government controlling everything, they got it.
You should really learn the defintion of socialism since you don't seem to have the slightest clue about what it is. Nazism has absolutly nothing to do with socialism. Nazism is almost the opposite. Socialism wants equality, workers control, democracy and a class less society.
Nazism supports a class society, dictatorship a strong hierchy and corporatism. Hitler made tax cuts for corporations, he outlawed trade unions, he executed socialists, and he had a pact with fascist Italy.
So how is Nazism socialism? They have absolutly nothing in common except for the name. Nazism is an extreme right ideology and a form of fascism (also extreme right), socialism is to the left. The claim that nazism and fascism would be a form of socialism is just a bunch of propaganda made by the American right because they don't want to be political neighbours with fascism. But they ignore the core definitions of the ideologies and history.
Contrary to the parrot lines, fascism is just another flavor of socialism. The so called "extreme right" does not believe in big government. There is no real difference between government ownership of the means of production (as in communism) and government control of the means of production (fascism). Today's far left is barely distinguishable from the nazis in both belief and practice.
Socialism is not really just about big goverment. There are many differences between socialism and fascism. They have hardly nothing in common. The political spectrum is not built upon big vs small goverment. It's built upon many things.
Fascism is corporatism, unequality, class society, anti-socialism and anti-radical.
Socialism is equality, democracy, worker's in control and ownership of production and a class less society. There is a huge difference, They are the opposite of eachother.
Fascism does infact share a lot with the core defintion of conservatism. Fascism kind of really a form of classical conservatism really. Core definitions of conservatism has always been valuing family, church and state in order to protect againts radical ideas. They also support a strict hierchy and unequality. Remove democracy and capitalism and replace it with dictatorship and corporatism and you will have fascism.
That's absolute BS you are parroting! The left is currently copying Hitler's game plan to a tee. I have NEVER heard ANY conservative call for bigger government or more takeover of the private sector. And neither have you.
Read a bit about nazism and then read about socialism. I assure you, you will realize how extremely wrong you are. How exactly is the left copying nazism when the left wants nothing but equality for EVERYONE!? Nazism do NOT WANT EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! They only want equality for people that are white, "strong" and straight.
The fascist dictators would be more productive because they don't punish success as much as other socialists. You really think that's a significant difference?
Socialism does not punish success. Socialism believes that success should be reached with cooperation. They believe people should develop together, not individually. Socialism wants everyone to own their own work and control the means of production. They don't want a boss at the workplace taking most of the income for himself, they want the income to be shared equally on the workplace. They want everyone to have equal rights to freedom.
That's precisely the point! Socialism denies all rights. INDIVIDUALS have rights, not collectives. We are not mindless ants. If the individual doesn't have rights, then there are no rights. As for the boss keeping the profits, that's his properly because he invested his money and time in creating HIS business. A free society allows that, but some prefer to sell their labor at an agreed price and then whine.
Socialism does not deny rights at all. They want to make everything as public as possible so that everyone can have equal rights to education, health care, protection, freedom, etc, Socialism does not necessarily reject individual freedom, they just want the production and work to be solved with solidarity. You are still free to choose what you want to work with, just like in capitalism. The difference is that in socialism, you own your work. In capitalism, someone else owns your work.
But the thing about socialism is that you are not supposed to start your business all by yourself. You are supposed to share the ownership with everyone that works on the workplace so that the income can be shared equal. Decision making should be made democratically.
Exactly! It's slavery! No one is allows freedom of thought or even the basic freedom of trade without the master's approval. That is socialism in a nutshell.
@wrjamescom That is socialism in a nutshell? Please read about socialism for once and don't use biased claims from the extreme right. There is no such thing as a "master" in socialism. Everyone are their own masters and labor in socialism. A master is something that exists in capitalism.
Ina fantasy would, socialism may exist with all happy people who love and support each other and everyone eagerly pulling their weight and able to to their fair share, and everyone having identical goals and moving together in the same direction. In such a fantasy, no master is needed, that's true. But let's stick to reality, ok? Socialism is a slave state system.
@wrjamescom Fake-socialism is slavery. Soviet Union, Eastern Europe (back in the days), China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. They were all slave states. But they weren't exactly real socialist states since they didn't really follow the socialist ideology much. They only pretended to be fake socialist states, but were almost the opposite of socialism. So you are right about those, they were slave states, but they weren't socialists.
Alright, let's try an illustrative example. Suppose you have your way and we enact your socialist utopia. I decide I want to work twice as much, spend half as much, save and eventually I start trading $1 an hour for other's labor which I use to make something lots of people want, and I get very rich. Am I free in your utopia or am I not? Will your system disallow me the right to trade such things or punish me for trading?Can I opt out of your programs? Am I free?
@wrjamescom The fall of communism in Soviet and Eastern Europe was not only a victory for capitalism, but also a victory for socialism.
By the way, watch a few videos here on Youtube with Noam Chomsky and you will get an idea about what socialism is really about. Noam Chomsky is like one of the most intelligent persons in the world right now and he believes in Anarchism (socialism+libertarianism), the most extreme left wing ideology there is.
ROTLMAO! Noam Chomsky is one of the most foolish, learning disabled morons of the last 1000 years! Be serious. Socialism has NEVER worked and can never work because it ignores and opposes human nature. Any half intelligent person grows past believing in such BS by the time they reach puberty.
@wrjamescom The reason why socialism might be flawed, is not because it's freedom oppressive. It's because it involves a naive view on human nature. It doesn't take into considiration that greedy and selfish assholes and power crazy people exists. The world would be a much better place without these kinds of disgusting and evil people.
That's correct. Capitalism is simply what free people do, it's people trading what they have for what they want. Socialism, by definition, denies such freedom and only the evil benefit from it.
@wrjamescom I'm pretty sure trade exist in socialism aswell... The only difference between capitalism and socialism really is that in capitalism, most are labors and some are owners. In socialism, everyone are owners and labors of their work. Which one seems to be better for the worker you think? And don't come with this "stealing" bullshit, because taxes exist in almost every country and they mostly all serve the same function.
In a free system (capitalist) EVERYONE owns their labor and can trade it to others or use it themselves and trade the product. Most choose to trade it by the hour to others because it's less work and less risky. In a socialist system, the state owns everyone's labor. It requires a slave state unless every individual in the society is like a mindless ant sharing all the same goals and abilities and desires, which is impossible.
And are people free to refuse cooperation? Not in a socialist state. In a socialist system, could I work twice as much and get twice the reward? No. Could I take the savings and buy labor and materials and trade the product for more? No. Could I even sell my labor to someone else who wanted to make more? No. There is no freedom in a socialist system. Under socialism everything and everyone is property of the dictatorial state. That is slavery.
"To all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs".
Sorry for repeating myself so much right now, but just so that you understand, I'm gonna tell you something now. Lazy bums have the ability to work. They just need a push. Those that are the needy people are simply just those that are physically disabled or old. They give parts of their money to these people. But isn't that just nothing but humane?
A push? Bums just need extreme hunger to get motivated. If idiots would stop giving to panhandlers and stop voting for politicians who support anti constitutional and foolish welfare scams then the bums would either go to work or otherwise disappear.
Thats a very false statement. Public sectors and welfare is an invention of socialism and socialism came in the mid 19th century. And you know what? Poor people has always existed and they always will. The only difference is that back in the days, they had to starve to death. But did this motivate them? Well they probably wanted a job but they still couldn't. Poor and failed people exist by nature. Capitalism does in no way make things better. Atleast socialism keeps them from starving.
Socialism punishes those who work harder and produce more and rewards those who produced less in childish attempt to make people "equal". It's silly and foolish and doesn't work outside of fantasyland. A bum on the street has the same freedom in a free society as anyone else. But he's where he chose to be.
A hobo does not have the same freedom as rich people in capitalism. You need money in order to be free in a capitalistic society. How can you enjoy life, buy stuff and have access to education and health care if you don't have any money? Socialism wants to create freedom to everyone by expanding the public sector. A public sector wouldn't exist in capitalism and therefore, those that are poor wont be able to have any opportunities to develop, since they can't afford education or anything else.
The bum chose not to work. Others choose to work just enough to live a poor working life. Others choose to work more and have more. Some choose to work long hours and save and invest and live much better. In a free society, all are free to choose their own path and accept the results. Socialists would punish those who work and save and invest and reward the bums.
No one chooses in a capitalist system. People just attempt to chase their dreams but the majority of all people wont reach their dreams. Some will fail and some will succeed.
Socialism wants everyone to have equal opportunities and freedom. Their main goal is to make everyone winners. They don't believe that more money=more happiness. They don't want greedy people taking more than what they need and deserve at the cost of making some people poor.
Capitalism punish workers because the bosses takes most of the income for themselfs. Sure the bosses have invested life savings in the company, but if his company becomes successful, he will pretty much cover those expenses 10 times over pretty fast. But even when the boss has covered his expenses, he will still take the majority of all the income from those that has to make the hard work. A company wouldn't function without labor. Labors deserve more income.
Socialism will not punish the worker. How is workers punished when they get to own their own work and control the means of production? Sure they have to give money to needy people, but that is at the cost of greed. Greed is the most despicable thing ever. Greed is selfish thinking. Socialism don't want people to be selfish, they want people to be helpful to eachother. They believe solidarity is the best way to keep a country functioning.
The USA has several million millionaires, and hundreds of millions of rich people. The "public sector" is bums leeching off the hard earned of others. It's the private sector that allows the poorest of the poor to get rich.
@wrjamescom I don't really think you have that many rich people in America. 1-4 % of your population owns like 85 % of all wealth. 17 % of all Americans are really poor, 40 % are really poor atleast 10 years of their lifes and 58 % of all Americans are really poor atleast 1 year of their life. About 39 million Americans are extremely poor.
Europe has rich people aswell you know. USA has around 3 million households with a net worth of 1 million dollars while Europe 2.9 million.
@wrjamescom You are really missing the point with public sectors. A large public sector leads to more and equal oppurtunities for everyone. Public sectors is things like universial health care and education for instance. Universal education will make get more people educated because even poor people can go to school and a have a shot at a decent life with universial education. This creates larger labor at all points and a better economic growth. Without this, poor people wont be successful.
Many poor people work and succeed and then are no longer poor. It's not the place of government to take from those who earn to give to those who don't. A free society allows all to make their own choices.
@wrjamescom It's called taxes, buddy. Every country, including USA, takes from those that work and gives it to those that don't work. But there is nothing wrong with it, since most of the money goes to people that can't work and to public sectors so that people can have social security. Except USA don't really spend much on social security. Alot of their tax money goes to corporations, debts and military. You Americans are all financing the military.
Funding the military is legitimate. It's a constitutional expense. There is no constitutional authority for government to take from anyone to give to bums. It's done, that's true. But it should be stopped and I vote accordingly. Government is not qualified to run charity. The Social Security Ponzi scam is similar and should be eliminated.
@wrjamescom How can you succeed without public sectors? Without free education, a lot of people wont even afford to begin chase their dreams. Instead they have to be stuck on some shitty job the rest of their lifes. Collage in USA costs a fortune and only 27 % of the Americans has been to collage (younger people not included).
Yeah, those poor college dropouts like Bill Gates and Rush Limbaugh are just pitiful in the way they are forced to live, aren't they? Look, Bozo. Anyone who wants an education can get it. I paid for mine by working and paying cash. Too many people think they are too good to do that. If they'd rather remain uneducated that's their choice.
And also I don't think hobos are on the streets because they "choose" to be. People become poor either because they come from a poor family, or they simply just can't get a job because of various different reasons. I don't think anyone wants to become a hobo. I don't think anyone is like "When I grow up, I want to become a hobo!" I really doubt thats the case. People often don't choose to be poor, which you, Mr. Growing-up-on-a-silver-spoon, don't seem to understand.
A few do actually choose to be street bums. There's a very small but real portion of the bums who simply prefer having no responsibility and the street live to normal civil living. The vast majority don't choose to be street bums exactly, but they choose to not work and so are choosing it less directly. I didn't grow up with silver anything. I worked 7 days a week and put myself through college. I never even applied for a student loan or grant. Your assumptions say much about yourself.
Street bums do not choose not to work in most cases. They have ended up on the streets because of various different reasons. Mostly it's because they are loosers of the capitalists system. Capitalism is a competition and poor people are those that are not so good in this competition. Some people are by nature less talented than other people. Some people could've lost their jobs and have a hard time getting a new one, some might have failed at keeping their business going, etc.
@wrjamescom There are exceptions of course. But most poor people from poor families don't end up having the same luck as Oprah Winfrey. Some succeeds with escaping from poverty, but most people don't.
So you are saying that todays socialists likes to send other socialists to death camps? Makes sense.... Nazis did send socialists to death camps you know...
No, I don't believe that Gore or Pelosi would want to send people with common political views to death camps. Are you joking or something? Or are you just plain retarded? And I don't think Al Gore is a socialst btw. Maybe a social liberal but definetly not a socialist.
This is what the political spectrum looks like. The left wants equal freedom and the right wants unequal freedom, and extreme right don't want freedom at all. The left is pretty much about abolishing unjust and freedom oppressive things. It's just that, the extreme left are abit naive about it. They are so naive so that it eventually turns into the very things they were trying to abolish. Look at Soviet Union for instance
Communists don't even want a big goverment. Maybe at the start but their goal is too abolish the goverment completly. "Once the classes are gone, the goverment will loose its function". This is kind of whats written in Karl Marx manifesto. And also, no one has really managed to reach communism even. Before you can reach the communist stage, you have to go through a socializing process and dictatorship of the proletariat. So far, every country ever tried with this has gotten stuck in this stage.
And they always will. That's the point. Marx's vision was a fantasy world. You cannot expect creatures to work for no reward. So socialism requires the foorce of dictatorship to produce what it needs. Why else would socialists insist that the unwilling participate in their programs?
Why would they insist on following socialism? Because a fully working socialst society makes things better for the worker. Socialism was even created by the working class as a reaction againts the industrial revolution and capitalism, because they treated the workers really badly. They had insane working hours with minimum salary. The capitalists pretty much stole from them in a way because they underpaid their workers so much.
In a free society, everyone is free to work for more and earn more. Socialism doesn't allow that. Look, "workers" as you refer to them are in the business of selling their labor. They are like any other vendor. Labor is just something a business has to buy to produce the product or service it sells. The labor's value is only determined by the ability to find a buyer. Some people's labor is worthless. Some worth little, some worth a great deal.
"By each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". -Karl Marx.
If someone has the abilities to work more than others, then he is free to do that. He could even be paid more if he is in need of it. This also shows that people in a socialist society should work with what they are good at. If someone has the abilities to fix cars, then he should do that. If someone has the abilities to build houses, he should do that, etc.
@wrjamescom Who appointed me master? Dude, I was just being realistic. Physically disabled people and old people does not have the ability to work. They fall under the category of needy people. Anyone that are unable to work are needy. The ones that have the abilities to work partly supply the needy ones in forms of taxes. But this is really a system we partly have nowadays. People pay 30-40 % of their income to the goverment that uses them for public sectors and welfare.
And you also seem to forget that these "workers" are persons aswell. You have to look after their needs and wants aswell, and this is what socialism is doing. They don't see workers as objects, they see them as human beings, equally to everyone else. They believe that no one should be above or below anyone else in value. They don't want a vertical society, they want a horizontal society. People in socialism are both owners and labor of their work.
"Workers" are people who work. NOBODY works harder than a guy who invests his life savings into trying to build a business. His employees are just that, "employees", vendors who trade him labor an hour at a time for an agreed price. If they agree on a price of a dollar an hour and work 40 hours, they are entitled to $40. They are not entitled to more, or any guarantee of trading again next week.
@wrjamescom A successful company will cover the owners expenses and life savings pretty fast. Why should he be entitled most of the income when he is only going +? The company wouldn't even exist it weren't for the labors. The labors are the ones that has to work their ass off several hours a day and if it weren't for them, the company wouldn't function. The labors are the ones that keeps the wheel spinning. They deserve more income.
Wrong. What you are calling the "extreme right" is just another flavor of the extreme left socialists. It's a common myth perpetuated by leftists who don't want to be associated with their nazi brothers. Whether a dictator is a single thug (Hitler, Castro, Stalin), a group of thugs (China, Saudi Arabia), a collective of zealots (Iran, "Palestine", San Francisco, Copenhagen), it's all the same story in that those in power want to force the subjects live as the master chooses.
You are really not taking history and definitions into considiration when you are using this extremely flawed "big vs small goverment" bullshit.
If you look at the real definition of communism, you will see that their main goal is to abolish the goverment and the even more extreme left, anarchism, wants to remove it completly. So your flawed view on the spectrum kind of goes out the window already here.
Their main goal is a silly stupid fantasy! That's the point! Socialism cannot exist without forcing the unwilling to participate. That's simple dictatorship by any sane definition.
What you fail to see is that socialism would make things better for the workers and therefore the people would be more willing to work, not less. They get to own their own work and they will even get more paid since there is no boss above them that are taking most of the income from you. You will simply not be a slave.
That's absolute BS, backwards from reality! Socialism punishes workers. Of course I'm defining "workers" as people who work while you are defnining "workers" as employees who you think are entitled to more than they agreed to trade for and more than their labor is worth on the free market. That's easy for socialists because you are control freaks, always eager to butt in and spend someone else's hard earned.
Agreements between labors and owners (slaves and slave masters) are strictly capitalistic. In socialism, there are no agreements between anyone like that. All the workers at a workplace are owners of that particular workplace. They share the income equally with eachother and give parts of it (taxes I guess) to those that needs money but lacks ability to work. The needy people are people that are physically disabled or old. Socialism wants need before greed.
And that is what capitalism is. In capitalism, some are slave master's and some are slaves. You are only free to choose your slave master. Sure you get paid, but the slave masters takes most of the income from you. They take what you have produced and earns money from it, mostly for their own selfish greed.
But it's not really completly slavery though. You are still free on some issues. But what I'm saying is that capitalism is closer to slavery than what socialism is.
Nonsense! In a free society, where people are free to trade what they have for what they want, some choose to trade 40 hours a week of their labor for regular checks and indulge themselves rather than working longer and taking risks and investing. Others choose to safe and invest and work longer and harder to build more wealth. That's not slavery, it's free trade. If you don't learn a skill, if you drop out, then your labor isn't worth much.
It is slavery compared to socialism. Workers own their own work in socialism. In capitalism, someone else owns your work. The only difference is that you get paid in capitalism and are also free to choose your slave master, unlike slavery.
/watch?v=QbKU50BrMFI
This guy makes a pretty good explanation to why capitalism is almost slavery.
Fascism's corporatism does infact have a lot in common with conservatism's view on the hiearchy. Conservatism wants a strong hiearchy in the society and a class society. Corporatism is an economic system that is extremely unequal and shows a strong hiearchy. The difference is really just that conservatism uses capitalism instead. But the thing about capitalism is that it's only really free when it comes to the economy, but it's not very free socially, atleast not for everyone.
You sound like a 5 year old. You can NEVER make everyone the same. Some people work longer nd save and invest while others work less, party, and blow their money. It's irrational to take from those who worked and saved and give to lazy spendthrifts in the name of "equality".
Again with Marx famous line: "To all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs".
A lazy bum sure has the ability to work. They are not mental or physically disabled or anything, they are just lazy. If you just offer them and push them out to work, they will work. And also, since decisions are made through direct democracy, I hardly think that welfare for bums would exist. It would get voted away by the majority.
If you are going to worship Marx, you really should learn what he said. It was "FROM EACH according to his ability, TO EACH according to his need." "All" vs "each" is an important distinction. Even Marx, idiot and bum that he was, recognized that individuals exist, even though he felt individualism should be punished and eliminated. But if you eliminate handouts, bums will go to work as soon as they get hungry enough.
@wrjamescom Individualism is only disencouraged when it comes to work and money. But there is more to life than just work and money. Socialism believes that an economy should be built with solidarity and not selfishness. But outside work, people are free to live their lifes with their own individual style and preferences.
@wrjamescom And eliminating handouts wont give jobs to poor people. It will only make them starve. Jobs don't grow on trees you know (especially not now when the economy is fucked). Not everyone is able to get job no matter how hard they try. So therefore, we have welfare and public sectors so that they don't have to starve.
Capitalism is very competition based. There has to be winners and loosers. Completly free and uncontrolled capitalism makes for a very unequal and unfair society. You are only really free if you have money, a winner. But those who are loosers in a capitalist society, is not free because they don't have any money. Capitalism puts a lot of weight on money. And if you don't have any money, you can't be free since you cannot buy anything. You need money in order to be free in capitalism.
Everyone benefits, but they do not benefit equally. Those that do nothing but sit behind desks all day earn a lot more than those that works their asses off in the factory or whatever it is. And the capitalists, the owners of the company, takes the vast majority of all the income, even when they have already surpassed the the ammount of money they had to put in to the company from the start, 10 times over. It's naive to believe otherwise when it comes to 100 % capitalist society.
If someone worked their butts off, saved and invested and has some wealth to risk, and someone else offers then 50% of a company in return for risking his hard earned on a venture, who the hell are you to say he isn't earning every dime he gets sitting on his butt? You socialists just hate freedom, you can't stand the fact that some people are successful while you aren't. You cannot stand it thinking about people that work more than you are willing ending up with more.
@wrjamescom I'm a socialist. And I love freedom. I love equality and freedom. Capitalism is not freedom. Well it is freedom for those that have money. You really don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Socialism doesn't want to increase the size of the goverment just because they want more power, they are doing it in order to increase the public sector so that everyone can have a chance of living a decent life. They want the goverment to be a tool of the people.
So you are a socialist, and love freedom? Freedom for just you? In your socialist freedom loving mind, should I be free to keep the fruits of my labr, of should my freedom and hard earned be taken from me to support the socialist scams you would impose on the rest of us? Should I be free not to participate and pay into Social Security, welfare, food stamps, marxist health care, etc...? Are you sure you love freedom? I doubt it.
@wrjamescom CAN YOU PLEASE LEARN THE REAL DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM AND PLEASE STOP TALK A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT! I have explained and explained the true definition of socialism, but you just keep on insist upon your propaganda view on it. SOCIALISM IS ABOUT FREEDOM AND EQUALITY! It means FREEDOM and EQUALITY for EVERYONE! Unlike capitalism where you are only free if you have money. Socialism is equal freedom and power to the people, capitalism is unequal freedom with power to the rich. Learn it.
You need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality. You keep ranting with nonsense contridictory BS about your fantasy dream world as if you can define slavery to mean free. People are NOT equal! What part of that can you not comprehend? The fantasy system (your vision of socialism) can never make everyone equal. People are individuals with their own goals and abilities and desires. Even if you could force everyone to be equal you'd have to enslave everyone to do it.
@wrjamescom And you know what, yes you get to keep your money in a socialist system. It's just that you have to pay a few % in taxes. But every country have taxes you know and it wont be much difference with socialism really. We only pay around 30 % in taxes and work around 30 hours a week average and we make more money than you guys. And we are social (parlamentarian) democrats. We have a relatively large public sector and we have lots of welfare. But we still only have to pay 30 % in taxes.
@wrjamescom And yes you have to pay taxes. You even do that in USA, except your politicans mostly spend it on the military and paying up bonuses to corporations and banks, so I can't really blame you guys for hating taxes. The american goverment are pretty much stealing your money. In Europe, we get our tax money back through public sectors and welfare and sometimes we even recieve bonuses if the tax income has been good.
@wrjamescom You pay taxes in USA right? Can you refuse to pay taxes in USA? I sincerely doubt it. Does that mean you don't have any freedom in USA either? Are you sure you have freedom in USA? I doubt it, because you have to pay taxes.
But seriously, taxes does in no way remove your freedom, since pretty much every country has a taxation system. And I'm pretty sure I can say what I want, do what I want, write what I want and be who I want, regardless of the taxes.
@wrjamescom What you fail to see is that Marx famous line; "By each according to their abilities, to each according to the their needs", is pretty much something thats in live action today. People work, and then they pay taxes to the goverment and they use the money for public sectors and welfare, so that the needy can get help. This is how the taxation system works in almost every developed country, partly even in USA.
@wrjamescom And you know what you are if you don't pay taxes? A selfish and uncaring bastard. You can't just completly go your own way in a society. 100 % individualism wouldn't work. You have to care about others aswell, and your nation. Everyone has to help with building up the society so that you and all the others can have a liveable life. A country without taxes wouldn't work at all. It would simply just collapse. A society requires some form of solidarity in order to function.
@wrjamescom Public sectors offers opportunities to everyone. How many poor people can recieve eduction if it isn't free you think? Not many. How many poor people can recieve education if it's public? Everyone. Education is the most important thing in a society. Education offers opportunities for a good future life. Without free education, a lot of people wont be able to chase their dreams. Thats why public sectors is so important.
@wrjamescom If you want to keep your population healthy and living, then it's a good idea to put health care in the public sector. USA does not have health care in the public sector. 30-50 million Americans don't have any health ínsurance, and 45 000 Americans die every because of lack of health insurance. Don't you think it would be a good idea to put health care in the public sector? Every other developed country has it that way, why can't USA?
@wrjamescom What I'm saying is, most countries is actually quite socialized. Almost every country has a mixed economy. Mixed economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. Mixed economy is capitalism with public sectors, welfare and social security.
The more socialist they are, the worse trouble they are in. In a few cases it's not directly apparent. China, for example, is a pretty good example of a socialist state that seems to function at the moment. The slaves are growing in wealth (at least some of them) and the masters are making a fortune. But the looming problems are quite obvious to the educated and to the chinese slave masters.
@wrjamescom When I was younger and more ignorant, I hated taxes. I thought we just paid it so that the politicans could take it from us. But then I grew up, and realized what the tax money was really for. I realized that without tax money, we wouldn't have social security, public sectors or welfare. Without taxes, poor people would starve and the rich would take all the money for themselfs. Without it, we would've become full blooded darwinists, in which the fittest survive and the weak dies.
You apparently never grew up. Taxes are for legitimate expenses of government, the minimum necessary to operate and run the legitimate functions of government. Feeding bums isn't legitimate, it's theft. Social security is a failed Ponzi scam that government has no business being involved with. We'd have far fewer bums is handouts weren't stolen from workers, taken by force, literal robbery, to give to them and encourage them to breed more bums.
@wrjamescom So do I love freedom? Yes I do. I believe freedom along with equality is the most important things on this planet. I believe everyone should have the right to say, do, be and write what they want. But I also believe in equality. I believe it's despicable that some people can take everything while others have to starve. This something I'm againts. I'm not completly againts capitalism, as long as it's relatively equal and that some people don't have to starve at the cost of others.
Well, when you grow up you'll learn that you can't have two things that are mutually exclusive. You cannot have freedom and equality. You can have equal rights, but never equality. You cannot have a society where everyone has the same wealth or lifestyle or even opportunities because you can't program everyone to have identical desires and work ethics and drives and make identical choices. Free people make wise and foolish choices and everything between.
No one "has to starve" and no one is "taking everything". Wealth is created, it's not a zero sum game. Rich people aren't rich because others are poor. It's not a static amount of wealth. You think like a three year old. In a free system, anyone who wants to better himself is allowed to do so without punishment for succeeding.
@wrjamescom I don't dislike success. I dislike greedy and selfish people that wants to take everything for themselfs without thinking about the poor people that has nothing. Those are the ones that I hate. They are nothing but greedy egomaniacs.
@wrjamescom Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell is wrong with you? Are you seriously suggesting that poor people wanting money, are more greedy than those that wants more and more even though they already have way more than enough? Wow... You should really learn the definitions of greed and need.... It's disguisting that some people takes everything for themselfs at the cost of other people starving.
Everyyone wants money. When you think you are entitled to someone else's, then you are greedy. Bill Gates has never tried to get government to pick my pocket and give my hard earned to him. But plenty of bums have.
@wrjamescom But people taking more and more even though they are already richer than the richest is probably freedom to you, isn't it? But you know, it's also quite evil, immoral and it's hurtful to other people that needs it more. Murder is also freedom, but it's also evil, immoral and hurtful to other people. According to your agenda, we might aswell legalize murder aswell, because it's freedom of the egomaniac asshole, isn't it?
Sober up. There's nothing wrong with anyone getting the price someone else is willing to pay in a trade. Your jealosy of people who earn more than you does not translate into anything evil on their part.
Free people can trade what they have for what they want. People who refuse to work and have nothing are as free as Bill Gates. But they are enjoying the fruits of their choices and actions just as Gates is enjoying his. You thing a bird in a cage is free because he's fed every day, while the bird in the wild has to fend for himself? What kind of twisted definition of "freedom" have you been indoctrinated to believe?
Learn to read, then read what I said instead of assuming and then arguing with your assumptions. And you really should learn history before attempting to teach others.
Should I learn history? I believe I was fairly right off when it comes to how Hitler got power. But maybe you have another version of it. Please explain how Hitler came to power.
Or maybe that wasn't what you were referring to? If not, what was it?
well I come from a country that did had a dictatorship and I can tell you that a dictatorship as the same and more faults as a democracy and on top of that you can not complain about them and try to adress them.
Dictatorships are never good. We learnt our lesson the hard way hope your lot wont have to learn yours the same way because of people like you.
I'm a minority in the USA and as such I am quite glad that I do not live in a democracy where I'd have no rights. All you did was trade one dictator for a collection of dictators and pat yourselves on the back to reward your ignorance. Your country still isn't free, you still have no rights, only what liberty your master (the majority) allows you. If you speak and the majority is offended, you will be punished. How is that different from before?
Marx was just a lazy pathetic bum and a moron. In his fantasy world, wealth just appears from nowhere. People aren't mindless ants. If you take away the profit, few will bother to work. If the world was 100% democratic and communist, everyone world starve while voting themselves more food that no one produced.
I don't think people would just sit on their asses starving when the world is full of food. Just our survival instincts will make us work so that we could supply food for eachother in the society.
You should pay more attention to reality. That's exactly what's causing so many problems in thee western countries today. Too any people are voting themselves benefits at others' expense and we are running out of people willing to work to pay for it. In a pure socialist world, there'd be too few working to feed all the bums.
And yet the people in Europe are working and those who are unemployed are screaming for a job!
No one wants to be unemployed and live on welfare. The welfare only gives you enough money to survive, but not so much to live. A person who lives on welfare is also looked upon as loosers and parasites of the society.
So no, the socialism in Europe does not kill hard work.
You are just basing your claims on conservative propaganda that doesn't even match reality.
They could create their own jobs if the nanny government masters allowed it. Welfare bums should be shamed into working for a living. But to many, the shame is a price they are willing to pay, particularly when the socialist society tells them they are "entitled" to the fruits of someone else's labor.
Didn't I just tell you that welfare bums are considered as loosers and that everyone looks down on them? NO ONE WANTS TO BE A WELFARE BUM! Our society strongly disencourages living on welfare! But they still pay welfare to people because they don't want them to become hobos and starve!
And you know what? WE ARE ALLOWED TO CREATE OUR OWN JOBS! We have capitalism aswell you know. We can create our own companies if we want to. But not everyone are blessed with creative thinking you know.
Sure you can... you just can't keep the profits, and you have to get your master's approval for every step. As for the welfare bums, if no one wanted to be one then there wouldn't be so many. Some people don't care about their reputation. Many have been raised with no honor and have been taught by the left that they are entitled.
What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you believe that Europe is some kind of communist dictatorship? You really don't seem to know a thing about how Europe really works. You are completly lost on this subject. Just because we are a bit socialistic, you go off calling us slaves, and this claim you base off on some right winged propaganda your country has feed you.
You know what? Read a bit about how Europe works and then come back later with a logical argument.
I also find it funny that you call our goverment slave masters.
Fredrik Reinfeldt can go fuck himself because he is a dumb piece of shit. I hope he burn himself to death along with Carl XVI Gustaf.
You know who those guys are? Fredrik Reinfeldt is our prime minister and the latter is our king. And you know what? I wont get any type of punishment at all for saying this. We can insult our politicians how much we want without anything happening. Does that sound like a slave master to you?
You know who Ingvar Kamprad is btw? He is the founder of the Swedish furniture company called IKEA and he is today the 5th most wealthiest man in the world. And you may ask, how did he become this rich if he didn't get to keep his profit? Well the answer is that he did actually get to keep his profits. Anyone who starts their own company gets to keep their profits. They just have to pay a few taxes. But everyone has to pay taxes in order for the goverment to afford public services and welfare.
Welfare bums exists in every country, even in USA, except that they are called hobos in your country since you don't have much welfare over there. The only reason why we have more nowadays is not because the left teaches them to, it's because they are unemployed and can't get a new job because of the financial crisis you Americans created.
Our country never encourages on becoming a welfare bum. We have a strong working culture in our country.
I know politics well enough, however you obviously don't understand English. Or was your misquote due to malice rather than ignorance? I said "liberals" (in quotes) oppose liberty, which is obviously true. They lie about believe in liberty. It is the "liberals" who want a big government nanny state regulating everything we do and opposing all rights, singe rights belong to individuals, not collectives. continued...
So you meant fake-liberals then? Well then we atleast agree on one point. Anyone who calls themselfs liberals but at the same time believe in those things you brought up, are not liberals at all by definition. They are more like social liberals if any.
And by the way socialism does not control people's lifes. They might be nanny states, but the thing is, the Europeen countries are good nanny states. They are nannies to the people while the American goverment are nannies to the corporations.
But alot of those things I just mentioned about political ideologies, are mostly just the theories behind them. I know that 100 % socialism is quite flawed, but 100 % capitalism is also flawed. Socialism would be too naive and capitalism would be too unequal. But if you mix capitalism and socialism, you will have a fully functioning society. And this is what most countries on this earth have. Mixed economy. Even USA has it. Mixed economy is controlled capitalism with public sectors and welfare.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@oRReOP
That's why cities "incorporate". If a group of neighbors want to join together and build common facilities of all sorts, and make rules for their area, and share the costs, that's one thing. But a free nation cannot exist where those who don't want to participate are forced to. The federal government should stick to it's constitutional limits. Of course socialists cannot allow any to opt out, lest their programs collapse. They hate freedom.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
She's right. Socialism is a learning disorder. Einstein noted that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. How many times does socialism have to fail to know it doesn't work?
wrjamescom 2 years ago
Einstein was also a socialist infact. And also, socialism hasn't failed at all. Alot of Europeen countries have some forms of socialism and it works fine. Not even communism has failed since no real communist society has ever existed. The ones that attempted only got stuck in the socializing stage.
But why do you bring up socialism anyway? Liberalism is very different and almost the opposite of socialism. Anyone who thinks differently is obviously really lost.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Liberalism is not a form of socialism. Liberalism was the first modern political ideology ever created and it was created some time around the French Revolution. Conservatism came right after as a reaction againts the violence and the radical ideas of the liberals. The conservatists were defenders of the tyranny and dictatorship of the French King.
Socialism came like 50 years later as a reaction againts capitalism and how they treated the workers. Socialism was created by the working class.
oRReOP 1 year ago
What is the difference between socialism and liberalism?
Líberalism is free market, small goverment and individualism.
Socialism is equality, workers control the means of production, classless society and in most cases some forms of democracy. Communist-wannabe countries have lacked democracy. This is one of many reason why we can't call them real communists.
"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen" -Leon Trotsky.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Was the woman in the video right? Obviously not. Are you right? Absolutly not. You don't really seem to have a clue about what socialism or liberalism is. You even seem to think they are the same thing, while in reality, they are almost the opposite of eachother. The only thing they really have in common is that they both want some forms of democracy.
oRReOP 1 year ago
That's true. Socialists cannot allow people to have rights, it cannot allow individuals to exist as individuals. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the lunch menu. People can only live free when the majority as as powerless as any other dictator. I prefer our constitutional republic. I would not want to live in a democracy.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@oRReOP
ROTFLMAO! You quote Trotsky? Actually, he was party right on that point. A nation cannot become infected with the disease of socialism without a movement among an ignorant population. Make the people hungry and ignorant and they will vote away their freedom. Democracy is no friend of liberty, the tyranny of the majority is the worst kind of tyranny. And one cannot have small government and liberty in any socialist system.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Socialism was created by and is still followed by those ignorant of history and blind to reality.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Einstein was a genius, but even he was foolish in some aspects, and admitted it. Whatever the flavor, marxism, communism, etc, socialism is foolish and has a 100% failure rate because it denies nature. Those european states cannot support themselves, they are broke with confiscatory taxes in spite of the US taxpayers providing their defense. "Liberals" oppose liberty, as with everything else, they lie about that.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
You really don't much about politics do you? Liberalism is againts liberty? Read a dictionary before you say anything. If it weren't for the liberals, you guys wouldn't even have had any democracy or "liberty". Liberalism is the founders of modern democracy.
And the europeen countries are, when it comes to politics and economy, way more organized and better off than you guys are. It's common knowledge that western Europe has higher standards of living than USA.
oRReOP 1 year ago
/watch?v=K5nsGbqrVb4
Here we have evidence that atleast Scandinavia is better off than you guys.
So can socialism function? Obviously it can. Many parts of western Europe have social democracy or social liberalism and it works great. Even better than the American system in many regards.
Communism on the other hand, has not yet been proven to function yet. And there are many reasons to why it haven't worked. And I'm going to explain that later on.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Without American welfare, those socialist stats would have to pay their own defense, their own drugs, and most would be be shelling out most of their GNP for fuel. Sure, socialism works just great as long as someone else is paying the bills for the socialists. That's why socialists cannot allow anyone to opt out of their scam programs. They can't pay for it without picking pockets of the unwilling.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
The reason why communism failed is because it happened to early, it didn't have democracy and it wasn't international. In Karl Marx's manifesto, it says that communism should only arrive when all capitalism in the world falls. And in 1917, it hadn't falled at all. It was even at its peak. Sure things were really unequal, but they generated a shitload of money.
Workers and the citizens should be in control of the state in communism, through direct democracy. This didn't happen in Soviet...
oRReOP 1 year ago
Soviet, and every other "communist" state, did not have democracy. They turned the state into a military dictatorship. Workers did not really have a say in anything, the were treated like slaves.
It also says in Karl Marx manifesto that communism can only work if its made internationally. The whole world needs to be communist in order for it to work. Creating a communist state can be really hard to do around capitalistic nations. The trade relations wont work very good.
oRReOP 1 year ago
So these are pretty much the reasons to why Communism didn't work. Infact, they weren't even communists. Before you can reach communism, you need to go through a socializing stage. No country has ever managed to go through a socializing stage in order to become communists.
But I believe communism might arrive in the future. I see tendencies of the capitalism falling. The economy is getting worse and worse. But thats just my theories.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Communism has to quickly become a slave state because it's the only way to make the slaves work for no reward. Freedom and socialism of any flavor are incompatible.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
You are terrible wrong if you believe freedom can't exist in any form of socialism. Sweden, a quite socialized country really, are ranked as the most democratic country in the world. And I am not talking about communism type democracy, I am talking about modern democratic values. USA is only on spot 18. Most countries in western europe, most of them quite socialized, are ahead of USA.
This comes from a research made by the economist.
oRReOP 1 year ago
"Most democratic" is not a good thing, unless you oppose freedom, which depends on government recognition of rights. INDIVIDUALS have rights, not the majority. A dictatorial majority is no better than any other dictator. I am proud to be "behind" others in such a twisted definition.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Then who is going to rule if not the majority? You kind of only got two things to choose by, and thats dictatorship or democracy. Someone has to make the decisions, and I sure wouldn't want just 1 person to make all the decisions. Because if only 1 person rule, you wont really have much freedom because that dictator is free to remove your freedom.
Democracy is the only way that you can actually have freedom or rights. You of all should know this.
oRReOP 1 year ago
That's simply and obviously total BS! Democracy isn't free, it's tyranny of the majority. The majority in WWII Germany supported Hitler, so how free were the minorities like the jews? In the USA our system is setup so that the constitution is the law. It takes far more than a majority to alter it. Unfortunately, we have socialist politicians who tend to ignore it and a dumbed down population who think we have a democracy and that such a system would be good.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
You are the only one who is making a fool of yourself. Who is supposed to make the laws you think? Someone has to make them. And you think you guys are the only country that has a constitution? Every country has a constitution. I'm from Sweden and we are pretty much social democrats. Our constitution is: Instrument of goverment, art of succession, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Sure we only have 4 such laws, but a country shouldn't have more than that.
oRReOP 1 year ago
A bigger constitution makes it harder to make new decisions in order to push the country forward and keep it modernized.
And you believe we don't have any rights or freedom in Europe? Don't make a fool of yourself. We have way more rights than you guys in US. You don't even have UHC or free education. So don't you come here and tell us we don't have any rights! And no, we don't treat minorities worse because we are socialists. We believe in equality. Equality is something socialism stands for
oRReOP 1 year ago
Any constitution easily changed by a majority is meaningless. What's the point of having such nonsense? So you can say you have one?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
What I meant was that a country should only have a few basic constitutional laws that can ensure freedom and that the rulers wont go corrupt. But more than that is not needed because if you have too many constitutional laws, it will get harder to make new laws that might even bring the country in positive change. Blindly following a 300 year old constitution filled with a shitload of laws will kind of make it harder to make new laws without going againts the constitution.
oRReOP 1 year ago
And you believe we don't have any freedom in Europe? Thats odd, because I'm pretty sure that I can do what I want, be who I want, say what I want and write what I want as long as it doesn't turn into a hate crime. It's actually illegal over here to say hateful things in public about minorities over here, did you know that? So, sorry buddy... Your claim that a democracy would treat minorities worse don't hold at all. Your claim is a complete fallacy.
oRReOP 1 year ago
You don't have free speech, that's correct. It's pretty funny that you argue that no having such rights equates to freedom.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
What are you talking about? One of our constitutional laws are "freedom of expressions". I'm pretty sure talking is a way of expressing yourself. So yes, we do have freedom of speech in our constitution. But there is a vast difference between freedom of speech and hate crimes. No one should have the right to insult others just because they "different". Heavy insults is the same as assualt, except its words instead of fists.
So how exactly, am I arguing that no freedom of speech=freedom?
oRReOP 1 year ago
Do notice that free speech is easyly measurable
On th Us based Freedom House index Sweden is considered as free as the US.
On the french based Press Freedom Index Sweden is rated as number 1 in freedom of the press (together with a few other mostly western european countries) while the US is rated 20th, bellow even Malta.
greenday1978 1 year ago
Lol are you serious? Did you just call Nazi Germany a democracy? HAHAHAHAHA! Your claims are becoming more and more pathetic and retarded everytime you post... I mean, do you seriously believe that Nazi Germany was a democracy? Thats about the dumbest claim I've ever heard!
Hitler was DICTATOR you know. He only got elected democratically but he turned himself into a dictator almost right after he got elected. And you wanna know how he got elected?
oRReOP 1 year ago
Germany was treated very badly after WW1. They had to pay for the whole war, they lost a bunch of areas, they weren't allowed to have a big army, etc. Germany got poor as hell and hated all over Europe. But then Hitler came along and managed to unite the people into a common cause. He also claimed to be a worker's party and he also put the word "socialist" in his party name in order to sound a bit better. The Germans had no hope, but Hitler managed to give them hope while brainwashing them.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Hitler won the election and eventually he turned himself into a fascist dictator. And what the German people mostly didn't know, was that Hitler sent several jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally disabled people, social democrats and communists to concentration camps. How could he do this? It's simple, he was a dictator. He could do what he damn well pleased.
oRReOP 1 year ago
He pleased the majority. That was my point.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
I know there is one bad thing about democracy, and that is that it might lead to dictatorship if you vote forth the wrong guy. But it's still obviously better than a dictatorship.
But you also gotta remember how things were in Germany at that time when Hitler got elected. Everything was shit. I don't need to explain further since I have already explained everything in a recent comment.
oRReOP 1 year ago
The nazis WERE and ARE socialist! They are just a different flavor from your beloved Marxists. Had the german people not been so ignorant, using the word "socialist" wouldn't have sounded any better than "slave state". They wanted big government controlling everything, they got it.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
You should really learn the defintion of socialism since you don't seem to have the slightest clue about what it is. Nazism has absolutly nothing to do with socialism. Nazism is almost the opposite. Socialism wants equality, workers control, democracy and a class less society.
Nazism supports a class society, dictatorship a strong hierchy and corporatism. Hitler made tax cuts for corporations, he outlawed trade unions, he executed socialists, and he had a pact with fascist Italy.
oRReOP 1 year ago
So how is Nazism socialism? They have absolutly nothing in common except for the name. Nazism is an extreme right ideology and a form of fascism (also extreme right), socialism is to the left. The claim that nazism and fascism would be a form of socialism is just a bunch of propaganda made by the American right because they don't want to be political neighbours with fascism. But they ignore the core definitions of the ideologies and history.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Contrary to the parrot lines, fascism is just another flavor of socialism. The so called "extreme right" does not believe in big government. There is no real difference between government ownership of the means of production (as in communism) and government control of the means of production (fascism). Today's far left is barely distinguishable from the nazis in both belief and practice.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Socialism is not really just about big goverment. There are many differences between socialism and fascism. They have hardly nothing in common. The political spectrum is not built upon big vs small goverment. It's built upon many things.
Fascism is corporatism, unequality, class society, anti-socialism and anti-radical.
Socialism is equality, democracy, worker's in control and ownership of production and a class less society. There is a huge difference, They are the opposite of eachother.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Fascism does infact share a lot with the core defintion of conservatism. Fascism kind of really a form of classical conservatism really. Core definitions of conservatism has always been valuing family, church and state in order to protect againts radical ideas. They also support a strict hierchy and unequality. Remove democracy and capitalism and replace it with dictatorship and corporatism and you will have fascism.
conservatism+corporatism+dictatorship=fascism.
oRReOP 1 year ago
That's absolute BS you are parroting! The left is currently copying Hitler's game plan to a tee. I have NEVER heard ANY conservative call for bigger government or more takeover of the private sector. And neither have you.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Read a bit about nazism and then read about socialism. I assure you, you will realize how extremely wrong you are. How exactly is the left copying nazism when the left wants nothing but equality for EVERYONE!? Nazism do NOT WANT EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! They only want equality for people that are white, "strong" and straight.
oRReOP 1 year ago
The fascist dictators would be more productive because they don't punish success as much as other socialists. You really think that's a significant difference?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Socialism does not punish success. Socialism believes that success should be reached with cooperation. They believe people should develop together, not individually. Socialism wants everyone to own their own work and control the means of production. They don't want a boss at the workplace taking most of the income for himself, they want the income to be shared equally on the workplace. They want everyone to have equal rights to freedom.
oRReOP 1 year ago
That's precisely the point! Socialism denies all rights. INDIVIDUALS have rights, not collectives. We are not mindless ants. If the individual doesn't have rights, then there are no rights. As for the boss keeping the profits, that's his properly because he invested his money and time in creating HIS business. A free society allows that, but some prefer to sell their labor at an agreed price and then whine.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Socialism does not deny rights at all. They want to make everything as public as possible so that everyone can have equal rights to education, health care, protection, freedom, etc, Socialism does not necessarily reject individual freedom, they just want the production and work to be solved with solidarity. You are still free to choose what you want to work with, just like in capitalism. The difference is that in socialism, you own your work. In capitalism, someone else owns your work.
oRReOP 1 year ago
But the thing about socialism is that you are not supposed to start your business all by yourself. You are supposed to share the ownership with everyone that works on the workplace so that the income can be shared equal. Decision making should be made democratically.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Exactly! It's slavery! No one is allows freedom of thought or even the basic freedom of trade without the master's approval. That is socialism in a nutshell.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom That is socialism in a nutshell? Please read about socialism for once and don't use biased claims from the extreme right. There is no such thing as a "master" in socialism. Everyone are their own masters and labor in socialism. A master is something that exists in capitalism.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Ina fantasy would, socialism may exist with all happy people who love and support each other and everyone eagerly pulling their weight and able to to their fair share, and everyone having identical goals and moving together in the same direction. In such a fantasy, no master is needed, that's true. But let's stick to reality, ok? Socialism is a slave state system.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Fake-socialism is slavery. Soviet Union, Eastern Europe (back in the days), China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. They were all slave states. But they weren't exactly real socialist states since they didn't really follow the socialist ideology much. They only pretended to be fake socialist states, but were almost the opposite of socialism. So you are right about those, they were slave states, but they weren't socialists.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Alright, let's try an illustrative example. Suppose you have your way and we enact your socialist utopia. I decide I want to work twice as much, spend half as much, save and eventually I start trading $1 an hour for other's labor which I use to make something lots of people want, and I get very rich. Am I free in your utopia or am I not? Will your system disallow me the right to trade such things or punish me for trading?Can I opt out of your programs? Am I free?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom The fall of communism in Soviet and Eastern Europe was not only a victory for capitalism, but also a victory for socialism.
By the way, watch a few videos here on Youtube with Noam Chomsky and you will get an idea about what socialism is really about. Noam Chomsky is like one of the most intelligent persons in the world right now and he believes in Anarchism (socialism+libertarianism), the most extreme left wing ideology there is.
oRReOP 1 year ago
ROTLMAO! Noam Chomsky is one of the most foolish, learning disabled morons of the last 1000 years! Be serious. Socialism has NEVER worked and can never work because it ignores and opposes human nature. Any half intelligent person grows past believing in such BS by the time they reach puberty.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom The reason why socialism might be flawed, is not because it's freedom oppressive. It's because it involves a naive view on human nature. It doesn't take into considiration that greedy and selfish assholes and power crazy people exists. The world would be a much better place without these kinds of disgusting and evil people.
oRReOP 1 year ago
That's correct. Capitalism is simply what free people do, it's people trading what they have for what they want. Socialism, by definition, denies such freedom and only the evil benefit from it.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom I'm pretty sure trade exist in socialism aswell... The only difference between capitalism and socialism really is that in capitalism, most are labors and some are owners. In socialism, everyone are owners and labors of their work. Which one seems to be better for the worker you think? And don't come with this "stealing" bullshit, because taxes exist in almost every country and they mostly all serve the same function.
oRReOP 1 year ago
In a free system (capitalist) EVERYONE owns their labor and can trade it to others or use it themselves and trade the product. Most choose to trade it by the hour to others because it's less work and less risky. In a socialist system, the state owns everyone's labor. It requires a slave state unless every individual in the society is like a mindless ant sharing all the same goals and abilities and desires, which is impossible.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
And are people free to refuse cooperation? Not in a socialist state. In a socialist system, could I work twice as much and get twice the reward? No. Could I take the savings and buy labor and materials and trade the product for more? No. Could I even sell my labor to someone else who wanted to make more? No. There is no freedom in a socialist system. Under socialism everything and everyone is property of the dictatorial state. That is slavery.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Taking from those who earned to distribute to others is not good for the worker. Your parrot lines are false and nonsense.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
"To all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs".
Sorry for repeating myself so much right now, but just so that you understand, I'm gonna tell you something now. Lazy bums have the ability to work. They just need a push. Those that are the needy people are simply just those that are physically disabled or old. They give parts of their money to these people. But isn't that just nothing but humane?
oRReOP 1 year ago
A push? Bums just need extreme hunger to get motivated. If idiots would stop giving to panhandlers and stop voting for politicians who support anti constitutional and foolish welfare scams then the bums would either go to work or otherwise disappear.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Thats a very false statement. Public sectors and welfare is an invention of socialism and socialism came in the mid 19th century. And you know what? Poor people has always existed and they always will. The only difference is that back in the days, they had to starve to death. But did this motivate them? Well they probably wanted a job but they still couldn't. Poor and failed people exist by nature. Capitalism does in no way make things better. Atleast socialism keeps them from starving.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Socialism punishes those who work harder and produce more and rewards those who produced less in childish attempt to make people "equal". It's silly and foolish and doesn't work outside of fantasyland. A bum on the street has the same freedom in a free society as anyone else. But he's where he chose to be.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
A hobo does not have the same freedom as rich people in capitalism. You need money in order to be free in a capitalistic society. How can you enjoy life, buy stuff and have access to education and health care if you don't have any money? Socialism wants to create freedom to everyone by expanding the public sector. A public sector wouldn't exist in capitalism and therefore, those that are poor wont be able to have any opportunities to develop, since they can't afford education or anything else.
oRReOP 1 year ago
The bum chose not to work. Others choose to work just enough to live a poor working life. Others choose to work more and have more. Some choose to work long hours and save and invest and live much better. In a free society, all are free to choose their own path and accept the results. Socialists would punish those who work and save and invest and reward the bums.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
No one chooses in a capitalist system. People just attempt to chase their dreams but the majority of all people wont reach their dreams. Some will fail and some will succeed.
Socialism wants everyone to have equal opportunities and freedom. Their main goal is to make everyone winners. They don't believe that more money=more happiness. They don't want greedy people taking more than what they need and deserve at the cost of making some people poor.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Capitalism punish workers because the bosses takes most of the income for themselfs. Sure the bosses have invested life savings in the company, but if his company becomes successful, he will pretty much cover those expenses 10 times over pretty fast. But even when the boss has covered his expenses, he will still take the majority of all the income from those that has to make the hard work. A company wouldn't function without labor. Labors deserve more income.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Socialism will not punish the worker. How is workers punished when they get to own their own work and control the means of production? Sure they have to give money to needy people, but that is at the cost of greed. Greed is the most despicable thing ever. Greed is selfish thinking. Socialism don't want people to be selfish, they want people to be helpful to eachother. They believe solidarity is the best way to keep a country functioning.
oRReOP 1 year ago
The USA has several million millionaires, and hundreds of millions of rich people. The "public sector" is bums leeching off the hard earned of others. It's the private sector that allows the poorest of the poor to get rich.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom I don't really think you have that many rich people in America. 1-4 % of your population owns like 85 % of all wealth. 17 % of all Americans are really poor, 40 % are really poor atleast 10 years of their lifes and 58 % of all Americans are really poor atleast 1 year of their life. About 39 million Americans are extremely poor.
Europe has rich people aswell you know. USA has around 3 million households with a net worth of 1 million dollars while Europe 2.9 million.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom You are really missing the point with public sectors. A large public sector leads to more and equal oppurtunities for everyone. Public sectors is things like universial health care and education for instance. Universal education will make get more people educated because even poor people can go to school and a have a shot at a decent life with universial education. This creates larger labor at all points and a better economic growth. Without this, poor people wont be successful.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Many poor people work and succeed and then are no longer poor. It's not the place of government to take from those who earn to give to those who don't. A free society allows all to make their own choices.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom It's called taxes, buddy. Every country, including USA, takes from those that work and gives it to those that don't work. But there is nothing wrong with it, since most of the money goes to people that can't work and to public sectors so that people can have social security. Except USA don't really spend much on social security. Alot of their tax money goes to corporations, debts and military. You Americans are all financing the military.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Funding the military is legitimate. It's a constitutional expense. There is no constitutional authority for government to take from anyone to give to bums. It's done, that's true. But it should be stopped and I vote accordingly. Government is not qualified to run charity. The Social Security Ponzi scam is similar and should be eliminated.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom How can you succeed without public sectors? Without free education, a lot of people wont even afford to begin chase their dreams. Instead they have to be stuck on some shitty job the rest of their lifes. Collage in USA costs a fortune and only 27 % of the Americans has been to collage (younger people not included).
oRReOP 1 year ago
Yeah, those poor college dropouts like Bill Gates and Rush Limbaugh are just pitiful in the way they are forced to live, aren't they? Look, Bozo. Anyone who wants an education can get it. I paid for mine by working and paying cash. Too many people think they are too good to do that. If they'd rather remain uneducated that's their choice.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
And also I don't think hobos are on the streets because they "choose" to be. People become poor either because they come from a poor family, or they simply just can't get a job because of various different reasons. I don't think anyone wants to become a hobo. I don't think anyone is like "When I grow up, I want to become a hobo!" I really doubt thats the case. People often don't choose to be poor, which you, Mr. Growing-up-on-a-silver-spoon, don't seem to understand.
oRReOP 1 year ago
A few do actually choose to be street bums. There's a very small but real portion of the bums who simply prefer having no responsibility and the street live to normal civil living. The vast majority don't choose to be street bums exactly, but they choose to not work and so are choosing it less directly. I didn't grow up with silver anything. I worked 7 days a week and put myself through college. I never even applied for a student loan or grant. Your assumptions say much about yourself.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Street bums do not choose not to work in most cases. They have ended up on the streets because of various different reasons. Mostly it's because they are loosers of the capitalists system. Capitalism is a competition and poor people are those that are not so good in this competition. Some people are by nature less talented than other people. Some people could've lost their jobs and have a hard time getting a new one, some might have failed at keeping their business going, etc.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Opra Winfrey is so poor because she came from a poor family? Well, that makes sense. I'm sure lots of people were wondering why she's so hungry.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom There are exceptions of course. But most poor people from poor families don't end up having the same luck as Oprah Winfrey. Some succeeds with escaping from poverty, but most people don't.
oRReOP 1 year ago
In socialism, you are given your freedom. In capitalism, you have to earn your freedom.
oRReOP 1 year ago
So you are saying that todays socialists likes to send other socialists to death camps? Makes sense.... Nazis did send socialists to death camps you know...
oRReOP 1 year ago
They absolutely would is they could! Do you seriously believe that Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi wouldn't live to send Rush Limbaugh to such a camp?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
No, I don't believe that Gore or Pelosi would want to send people with common political views to death camps. Are you joking or something? Or are you just plain retarded? And I don't think Al Gore is a socialst btw. Maybe a social liberal but definetly not a socialist.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Anarchism - Communism - Socialism | Liberalism - Conservatism - Fascism
This is what the political spectrum looks like. The left wants equal freedom and the right wants unequal freedom, and extreme right don't want freedom at all. The left is pretty much about abolishing unjust and freedom oppressive things. It's just that, the extreme left are abit naive about it. They are so naive so that it eventually turns into the very things they were trying to abolish. Look at Soviet Union for instance
oRReOP 1 year ago
Communists don't even want a big goverment. Maybe at the start but their goal is too abolish the goverment completly. "Once the classes are gone, the goverment will loose its function". This is kind of whats written in Karl Marx manifesto. And also, no one has really managed to reach communism even. Before you can reach the communist stage, you have to go through a socializing process and dictatorship of the proletariat. So far, every country ever tried with this has gotten stuck in this stage.
oRReOP 1 year ago
And they always will. That's the point. Marx's vision was a fantasy world. You cannot expect creatures to work for no reward. So socialism requires the foorce of dictatorship to produce what it needs. Why else would socialists insist that the unwilling participate in their programs?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Why would they insist on following socialism? Because a fully working socialst society makes things better for the worker. Socialism was even created by the working class as a reaction againts the industrial revolution and capitalism, because they treated the workers really badly. They had insane working hours with minimum salary. The capitalists pretty much stole from them in a way because they underpaid their workers so much.
oRReOP 1 year ago
In a free society, everyone is free to work for more and earn more. Socialism doesn't allow that. Look, "workers" as you refer to them are in the business of selling their labor. They are like any other vendor. Labor is just something a business has to buy to produce the product or service it sells. The labor's value is only determined by the ability to find a buyer. Some people's labor is worthless. Some worth little, some worth a great deal.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
"By each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". -Karl Marx.
If someone has the abilities to work more than others, then he is free to do that. He could even be paid more if he is in need of it. This also shows that people in a socialist society should work with what they are good at. If someone has the abilities to fix cars, then he should do that. If someone has the abilities to build houses, he should do that, etc.
oRReOP 1 year ago
And you think you are qualified to decide what someone else needs? Who appointed you master?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Who appointed me master? Dude, I was just being realistic. Physically disabled people and old people does not have the ability to work. They fall under the category of needy people. Anyone that are unable to work are needy. The ones that have the abilities to work partly supply the needy ones in forms of taxes. But this is really a system we partly have nowadays. People pay 30-40 % of their income to the goverment that uses them for public sectors and welfare.
oRReOP 1 year ago
And you also seem to forget that these "workers" are persons aswell. You have to look after their needs and wants aswell, and this is what socialism is doing. They don't see workers as objects, they see them as human beings, equally to everyone else. They believe that no one should be above or below anyone else in value. They don't want a vertical society, they want a horizontal society. People in socialism are both owners and labor of their work.
oRReOP 1 year ago
"Workers" are people who work. NOBODY works harder than a guy who invests his life savings into trying to build a business. His employees are just that, "employees", vendors who trade him labor an hour at a time for an agreed price. If they agree on a price of a dollar an hour and work 40 hours, they are entitled to $40. They are not entitled to more, or any guarantee of trading again next week.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom A successful company will cover the owners expenses and life savings pretty fast. Why should he be entitled most of the income when he is only going +? The company wouldn't even exist it weren't for the labors. The labors are the ones that has to work their ass off several hours a day and if it weren't for them, the company wouldn't function. The labors are the ones that keeps the wheel spinning. They deserve more income.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Wrong. What you are calling the "extreme right" is just another flavor of the extreme left socialists. It's a common myth perpetuated by leftists who don't want to be associated with their nazi brothers. Whether a dictator is a single thug (Hitler, Castro, Stalin), a group of thugs (China, Saudi Arabia), a collective of zealots (Iran, "Palestine", San Francisco, Copenhagen), it's all the same story in that those in power want to force the subjects live as the master chooses.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
You are really not taking history and definitions into considiration when you are using this extremely flawed "big vs small goverment" bullshit.
If you look at the real definition of communism, you will see that their main goal is to abolish the goverment and the even more extreme left, anarchism, wants to remove it completly. So your flawed view on the spectrum kind of goes out the window already here.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Their main goal is a silly stupid fantasy! That's the point! Socialism cannot exist without forcing the unwilling to participate. That's simple dictatorship by any sane definition.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
What you fail to see is that socialism would make things better for the workers and therefore the people would be more willing to work, not less. They get to own their own work and they will even get more paid since there is no boss above them that are taking most of the income from you. You will simply not be a slave.
oRReOP 1 year ago
That's absolute BS, backwards from reality! Socialism punishes workers. Of course I'm defining "workers" as people who work while you are defnining "workers" as employees who you think are entitled to more than they agreed to trade for and more than their labor is worth on the free market. That's easy for socialists because you are control freaks, always eager to butt in and spend someone else's hard earned.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Agreements between labors and owners (slaves and slave masters) are strictly capitalistic. In socialism, there are no agreements between anyone like that. All the workers at a workplace are owners of that particular workplace. They share the income equally with eachother and give parts of it (taxes I guess) to those that needs money but lacks ability to work. The needy people are people that are physically disabled or old. Socialism wants need before greed.
oRReOP 1 year ago
And that is what capitalism is. In capitalism, some are slave master's and some are slaves. You are only free to choose your slave master. Sure you get paid, but the slave masters takes most of the income from you. They take what you have produced and earns money from it, mostly for their own selfish greed.
But it's not really completly slavery though. You are still free on some issues. But what I'm saying is that capitalism is closer to slavery than what socialism is.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Nonsense! In a free society, where people are free to trade what they have for what they want, some choose to trade 40 hours a week of their labor for regular checks and indulge themselves rather than working longer and taking risks and investing. Others choose to safe and invest and work longer and harder to build more wealth. That's not slavery, it's free trade. If you don't learn a skill, if you drop out, then your labor isn't worth much.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
It is slavery compared to socialism. Workers own their own work in socialism. In capitalism, someone else owns your work. The only difference is that you get paid in capitalism and are also free to choose your slave master, unlike slavery.
/watch?v=QbKU50BrMFI
This guy makes a pretty good explanation to why capitalism is almost slavery.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Fascism's corporatism does infact have a lot in common with conservatism's view on the hiearchy. Conservatism wants a strong hiearchy in the society and a class society. Corporatism is an economic system that is extremely unequal and shows a strong hiearchy. The difference is really just that conservatism uses capitalism instead. But the thing about capitalism is that it's only really free when it comes to the economy, but it's not very free socially, atleast not for everyone.
oRReOP 1 year ago
You sound like a 5 year old. You can NEVER make everyone the same. Some people work longer nd save and invest while others work less, party, and blow their money. It's irrational to take from those who worked and saved and give to lazy spendthrifts in the name of "equality".
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Again with Marx famous line: "To all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs".
A lazy bum sure has the ability to work. They are not mental or physically disabled or anything, they are just lazy. If you just offer them and push them out to work, they will work. And also, since decisions are made through direct democracy, I hardly think that welfare for bums would exist. It would get voted away by the majority.
oRReOP 1 year ago
If you are going to worship Marx, you really should learn what he said. It was "FROM EACH according to his ability, TO EACH according to his need." "All" vs "each" is an important distinction. Even Marx, idiot and bum that he was, recognized that individuals exist, even though he felt individualism should be punished and eliminated. But if you eliminate handouts, bums will go to work as soon as they get hungry enough.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Individualism is only disencouraged when it comes to work and money. But there is more to life than just work and money. Socialism believes that an economy should be built with solidarity and not selfishness. But outside work, people are free to live their lifes with their own individual style and preferences.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom And eliminating handouts wont give jobs to poor people. It will only make them starve. Jobs don't grow on trees you know (especially not now when the economy is fucked). Not everyone is able to get job no matter how hard they try. So therefore, we have welfare and public sectors so that they don't have to starve.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Capitalism is very competition based. There has to be winners and loosers. Completly free and uncontrolled capitalism makes for a very unequal and unfair society. You are only really free if you have money, a winner. But those who are loosers in a capitalist society, is not free because they don't have any money. Capitalism puts a lot of weight on money. And if you don't have any money, you can't be free since you cannot buy anything. You need money in order to be free in capitalism.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Nonsense! When business is good everyone benefits, even the bums get more handouts when people have the cash.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Everyone benefits, but they do not benefit equally. Those that do nothing but sit behind desks all day earn a lot more than those that works their asses off in the factory or whatever it is. And the capitalists, the owners of the company, takes the vast majority of all the income, even when they have already surpassed the the ammount of money they had to put in to the company from the start, 10 times over. It's naive to believe otherwise when it comes to 100 % capitalist society.
oRReOP 1 year ago
If someone worked their butts off, saved and invested and has some wealth to risk, and someone else offers then 50% of a company in return for risking his hard earned on a venture, who the hell are you to say he isn't earning every dime he gets sitting on his butt? You socialists just hate freedom, you can't stand the fact that some people are successful while you aren't. You cannot stand it thinking about people that work more than you are willing ending up with more.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom I'm a socialist. And I love freedom. I love equality and freedom. Capitalism is not freedom. Well it is freedom for those that have money. You really don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Socialism doesn't want to increase the size of the goverment just because they want more power, they are doing it in order to increase the public sector so that everyone can have a chance of living a decent life. They want the goverment to be a tool of the people.
oRReOP 1 year ago
So you are a socialist, and love freedom? Freedom for just you? In your socialist freedom loving mind, should I be free to keep the fruits of my labr, of should my freedom and hard earned be taken from me to support the socialist scams you would impose on the rest of us? Should I be free not to participate and pay into Social Security, welfare, food stamps, marxist health care, etc...? Are you sure you love freedom? I doubt it.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom CAN YOU PLEASE LEARN THE REAL DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM AND PLEASE STOP TALK A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT! I have explained and explained the true definition of socialism, but you just keep on insist upon your propaganda view on it. SOCIALISM IS ABOUT FREEDOM AND EQUALITY! It means FREEDOM and EQUALITY for EVERYONE! Unlike capitalism where you are only free if you have money. Socialism is equal freedom and power to the people, capitalism is unequal freedom with power to the rich. Learn it.
oRReOP 1 year ago
You need to learn the difference between fantasy and reality. You keep ranting with nonsense contridictory BS about your fantasy dream world as if you can define slavery to mean free. People are NOT equal! What part of that can you not comprehend? The fantasy system (your vision of socialism) can never make everyone equal. People are individuals with their own goals and abilities and desires. Even if you could force everyone to be equal you'd have to enslave everyone to do it.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom And you know what, yes you get to keep your money in a socialist system. It's just that you have to pay a few % in taxes. But every country have taxes you know and it wont be much difference with socialism really. We only pay around 30 % in taxes and work around 30 hours a week average and we make more money than you guys. And we are social (parlamentarian) democrats. We have a relatively large public sector and we have lots of welfare. But we still only have to pay 30 % in taxes.
oRReOP 1 year ago
ROTFLMAO! You aren't counting the hidden taxes.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom And yes you have to pay taxes. You even do that in USA, except your politicans mostly spend it on the military and paying up bonuses to corporations and banks, so I can't really blame you guys for hating taxes. The american goverment are pretty much stealing your money. In Europe, we get our tax money back through public sectors and welfare and sometimes we even recieve bonuses if the tax income has been good.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom You pay taxes in USA right? Can you refuse to pay taxes in USA? I sincerely doubt it. Does that mean you don't have any freedom in USA either? Are you sure you have freedom in USA? I doubt it, because you have to pay taxes.
But seriously, taxes does in no way remove your freedom, since pretty much every country has a taxation system. And I'm pretty sure I can say what I want, do what I want, write what I want and be who I want, regardless of the taxes.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom What you fail to see is that Marx famous line; "By each according to their abilities, to each according to the their needs", is pretty much something thats in live action today. People work, and then they pay taxes to the goverment and they use the money for public sectors and welfare, so that the needy can get help. This is how the taxation system works in almost every developed country, partly even in USA.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom And you know what you are if you don't pay taxes? A selfish and uncaring bastard. You can't just completly go your own way in a society. 100 % individualism wouldn't work. You have to care about others aswell, and your nation. Everyone has to help with building up the society so that you and all the others can have a liveable life. A country without taxes wouldn't work at all. It would simply just collapse. A society requires some form of solidarity in order to function.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Public sectors offers opportunities to everyone. How many poor people can recieve eduction if it isn't free you think? Not many. How many poor people can recieve education if it's public? Everyone. Education is the most important thing in a society. Education offers opportunities for a good future life. Without free education, a lot of people wont be able to chase their dreams. Thats why public sectors is so important.
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom If you want to keep your population healthy and living, then it's a good idea to put health care in the public sector. USA does not have health care in the public sector. 30-50 million Americans don't have any health ínsurance, and 45 000 Americans die every because of lack of health insurance. Don't you think it would be a good idea to put health care in the public sector? Every other developed country has it that way, why can't USA?
oRReOP 1 year ago
@wrjamescom What I'm saying is, most countries is actually quite socialized. Almost every country has a mixed economy. Mixed economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. Mixed economy is capitalism with public sectors, welfare and social security.
oRReOP 1 year ago
The more socialist they are, the worse trouble they are in. In a few cases it's not directly apparent. China, for example, is a pretty good example of a socialist state that seems to function at the moment. The slaves are growing in wealth (at least some of them) and the masters are making a fortune. But the looming problems are quite obvious to the educated and to the chinese slave masters.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Trash cans have lids for a good reason. If you feed vermin, you just get a lot more vermin.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom When I was younger and more ignorant, I hated taxes. I thought we just paid it so that the politicans could take it from us. But then I grew up, and realized what the tax money was really for. I realized that without tax money, we wouldn't have social security, public sectors or welfare. Without taxes, poor people would starve and the rich would take all the money for themselfs. Without it, we would've become full blooded darwinists, in which the fittest survive and the weak dies.
oRReOP 1 year ago
You apparently never grew up. Taxes are for legitimate expenses of government, the minimum necessary to operate and run the legitimate functions of government. Feeding bums isn't legitimate, it's theft. Social security is a failed Ponzi scam that government has no business being involved with. We'd have far fewer bums is handouts weren't stolen from workers, taken by force, literal robbery, to give to them and encourage them to breed more bums.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom So do I love freedom? Yes I do. I believe freedom along with equality is the most important things on this planet. I believe everyone should have the right to say, do, be and write what they want. But I also believe in equality. I believe it's despicable that some people can take everything while others have to starve. This something I'm againts. I'm not completly againts capitalism, as long as it's relatively equal and that some people don't have to starve at the cost of others.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Well, when you grow up you'll learn that you can't have two things that are mutually exclusive. You cannot have freedom and equality. You can have equal rights, but never equality. You cannot have a society where everyone has the same wealth or lifestyle or even opportunities because you can't program everyone to have identical desires and work ethics and drives and make identical choices. Free people make wise and foolish choices and everything between.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
No one "has to starve" and no one is "taking everything". Wealth is created, it's not a zero sum game. Rich people aren't rich because others are poor. It's not a static amount of wealth. You think like a three year old. In a free system, anyone who wants to better himself is allowed to do so without punishment for succeeding.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom I don't dislike success. I dislike greedy and selfish people that wants to take everything for themselfs without thinking about the poor people that has nothing. Those are the ones that I hate. They are nothing but greedy egomaniacs.
oRReOP 1 year ago
A bum wanting others to support him is far more greedy than one who earns a billion dollars.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Are you fucking kidding me? What the hell is wrong with you? Are you seriously suggesting that poor people wanting money, are more greedy than those that wants more and more even though they already have way more than enough? Wow... You should really learn the definitions of greed and need.... It's disguisting that some people takes everything for themselfs at the cost of other people starving.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Everyyone wants money. When you think you are entitled to someone else's, then you are greedy. Bill Gates has never tried to get government to pick my pocket and give my hard earned to him. But plenty of bums have.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom But people taking more and more even though they are already richer than the richest is probably freedom to you, isn't it? But you know, it's also quite evil, immoral and it's hurtful to other people that needs it more. Murder is also freedom, but it's also evil, immoral and hurtful to other people. According to your agenda, we might aswell legalize murder aswell, because it's freedom of the egomaniac asshole, isn't it?
oRReOP 1 year ago
Sober up. There's nothing wrong with anyone getting the price someone else is willing to pay in a trade. Your jealosy of people who earn more than you does not translate into anything evil on their part.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Free people can trade what they have for what they want. People who refuse to work and have nothing are as free as Bill Gates. But they are enjoying the fruits of their choices and actions just as Gates is enjoying his. You thing a bird in a cage is free because he's fed every day, while the bird in the wild has to fend for himself? What kind of twisted definition of "freedom" have you been indoctrinated to believe?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Learn to read, then read what I said instead of assuming and then arguing with your assumptions. And you really should learn history before attempting to teach others.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Should I learn history? I believe I was fairly right off when it comes to how Hitler got power. But maybe you have another version of it. Please explain how Hitler came to power.
Or maybe that wasn't what you were referring to? If not, what was it?
oRReOP 1 year ago
well I come from a country that did had a dictatorship and I can tell you that a dictatorship as the same and more faults as a democracy and on top of that you can not complain about them and try to adress them.
Dictatorships are never good. We learnt our lesson the hard way hope your lot wont have to learn yours the same way because of people like you.
greenday1978 1 year ago
I'm a minority in the USA and as such I am quite glad that I do not live in a democracy where I'd have no rights. All you did was trade one dictator for a collection of dictators and pat yourselves on the back to reward your ignorance. Your country still isn't free, you still have no rights, only what liberty your master (the majority) allows you. If you speak and the majority is offended, you will be punished. How is that different from before?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Marx was just a lazy pathetic bum and a moron. In his fantasy world, wealth just appears from nowhere. People aren't mindless ants. If you take away the profit, few will bother to work. If the world was 100% democratic and communist, everyone world starve while voting themselves more food that no one produced.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
I don't think people would just sit on their asses starving when the world is full of food. Just our survival instincts will make us work so that we could supply food for eachother in the society.
oRReOP 1 year ago
You should pay more attention to reality. That's exactly what's causing so many problems in thee western countries today. Too any people are voting themselves benefits at others' expense and we are running out of people willing to work to pay for it. In a pure socialist world, there'd be too few working to feed all the bums.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
And yet the people in Europe are working and those who are unemployed are screaming for a job!
No one wants to be unemployed and live on welfare. The welfare only gives you enough money to survive, but not so much to live. A person who lives on welfare is also looked upon as loosers and parasites of the society.
So no, the socialism in Europe does not kill hard work.
You are just basing your claims on conservative propaganda that doesn't even match reality.
oRReOP 1 year ago
They could create their own jobs if the nanny government masters allowed it. Welfare bums should be shamed into working for a living. But to many, the shame is a price they are willing to pay, particularly when the socialist society tells them they are "entitled" to the fruits of someone else's labor.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Didn't I just tell you that welfare bums are considered as loosers and that everyone looks down on them? NO ONE WANTS TO BE A WELFARE BUM! Our society strongly disencourages living on welfare! But they still pay welfare to people because they don't want them to become hobos and starve!
And you know what? WE ARE ALLOWED TO CREATE OUR OWN JOBS! We have capitalism aswell you know. We can create our own companies if we want to. But not everyone are blessed with creative thinking you know.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Sure you can... you just can't keep the profits, and you have to get your master's approval for every step. As for the welfare bums, if no one wanted to be one then there wouldn't be so many. Some people don't care about their reputation. Many have been raised with no honor and have been taught by the left that they are entitled.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
What the hell is wrong with you? Why do you believe that Europe is some kind of communist dictatorship? You really don't seem to know a thing about how Europe really works. You are completly lost on this subject. Just because we are a bit socialistic, you go off calling us slaves, and this claim you base off on some right winged propaganda your country has feed you.
You know what? Read a bit about how Europe works and then come back later with a logical argument.
oRReOP 1 year ago
I also find it funny that you call our goverment slave masters.
Fredrik Reinfeldt can go fuck himself because he is a dumb piece of shit. I hope he burn himself to death along with Carl XVI Gustaf.
You know who those guys are? Fredrik Reinfeldt is our prime minister and the latter is our king. And you know what? I wont get any type of punishment at all for saying this. We can insult our politicians how much we want without anything happening. Does that sound like a slave master to you?
oRReOP 1 year ago
You know who Ingvar Kamprad is btw? He is the founder of the Swedish furniture company called IKEA and he is today the 5th most wealthiest man in the world. And you may ask, how did he become this rich if he didn't get to keep his profit? Well the answer is that he did actually get to keep his profits. Anyone who starts their own company gets to keep their profits. They just have to pay a few taxes. But everyone has to pay taxes in order for the goverment to afford public services and welfare.
oRReOP 1 year ago
Welfare bums exists in every country, even in USA, except that they are called hobos in your country since you don't have much welfare over there. The only reason why we have more nowadays is not because the left teaches them to, it's because they are unemployed and can't get a new job because of the financial crisis you Americans created.
Our country never encourages on becoming a welfare bum. We have a strong working culture in our country.
oRReOP 1 year ago
I know politics well enough, however you obviously don't understand English. Or was your misquote due to malice rather than ignorance? I said "liberals" (in quotes) oppose liberty, which is obviously true. They lie about believe in liberty. It is the "liberals" who want a big government nanny state regulating everything we do and opposing all rights, singe rights belong to individuals, not collectives. continued...
wrjamescom 1 year ago
So you meant fake-liberals then? Well then we atleast agree on one point. Anyone who calls themselfs liberals but at the same time believe in those things you brought up, are not liberals at all by definition. They are more like social liberals if any.
And by the way socialism does not control people's lifes. They might be nanny states, but the thing is, the Europeen countries are good nanny states. They are nannies to the people while the American goverment are nannies to the corporations.
oRReOP 1 year ago