Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Do you prefer Capitalism why/why not
Do you prefer Socialism why/why not
Please don't have a war
12 replies
I don't know what that is, but I'm listening.
11 replies
basically rightism/capitalism but with fake concert about the poor and ecology
10 replies
hmm, I'm not sure it fits me. I loved Obama, but there are some things I would have liked to be done differently.
8 replies
did you love the bombing of middle eastern hospitals
7 replies
ye
Oh sure, that is DEFINITELY the part that I would not have done differently. What a stupid comment.
5 replies
how can you love someone who bombed hospitals
4 replies
how can you love anyone else
How can you not? Obama is the guy that runs t spawn and kills afk with a knife. I love him, his an inspiration.
2 replies
except the USA were the terrorists in that situation, bombing innocent people for no reason
1 reply
They had hospitals, Osama might have hide in there. I call it a good call
20 replies
13 replies
9 replies
A market needs regulations regarding distribution, or else monopolies will form. The most efficient distribution =/= a fair distribution.
7 replies
of course a capitalist market requires regulation otherwise monopolies will absolutely form which is obviously very bad.
The socialist market essentially bakes monopolies in from the start.
2 replies
I think you are straw-manning my argument. Never had I said that a socialist market is fair or efficient.
1 reply
What do you mean when you say regulation? Would you consider a subsidy to be regulation? Natural monopolies (almost all modern day monopolies) have their ATC lowering even after the MC intersects demand. Therefore, the government would need to provide a subsidy for these companies. Now, the real worry should be monopsonies because if one exists there’s 1) hardly any opportunity for new business and 2) it dramatically decreases life options. That’s really what should be focused on.
3 replies
The reason why most monopolies today are natural is that all modern states have regulations regarding market competition, therefore, avoiding the creation of monopolies within most markets that don't have high entry barriers, FC etc.
I would also consider a subsidy a viable solution for correcting market failures, especially within situations where positive and negative externalities are the case.
Regarding your argument about monopsonies, isn't it a bit difficult to find examples of those from an empirical perspective?
2 replies
An example of a modern day monopsony could be the town in Cali where Tesla is based. They’re the only major employer in the area. There are also areas where oil is the production.
1 reply
Ty mens)). It’s good to debate and get your own stances rhetorically challenged and honed.
I guess here in Denmark, the most relevant monopsomy I can think about is within the Danish labour market between the worker’s unions and employers.
The different unions dictate the mimimum wages within each industry/ labour marked. This ironically makes Denmark (known for it’s democratic socialism) a country without a specific legal minumum wage. To me this is an example of a monopsomy securing worker’s rights and fair wages to the benefit of the common man & woman.
Socialism isn't "redistribution", all systems redistribute wealth, it is the caricature understanding of socialism as well as the hippy liberals who coopt the radical aesthetic which make you associate socialism with poverty, when in fact socialism is about achieving vast material abundance, watch this video btw youtube.com/watch?v=AQbv0_ogOFE
1 reply
+1
+1
1 reply
the other way around, rightists are always uneducated and dont know basic economy
2 replies
Ok, then educate them. Tell them how your economic worl works.
1 reply
so basically instead of getting paper for working all day long while someone who doesnt do shit gets all the profit people actually recognize that your labor has more value than some rich fat white dude who hasnt worked a day in his life
+1
12 replies
+1
+1
wont work in big countries tho and it also requires citizens to take responsibility and understanding that nothing is free.
3 replies
It would work here, but only if the U.S was homogeneous.
1 reply
you mean haivng a brain
and high tax lul
3 replies
2 replies
Communism > all
14 replies
pipe down karl
5 replies
because eat the rich
3 replies
2 replies
i am unemployed and underage and my parents are in debt
1 reply
+1
dumb german
learn some history
4 replies
dumb fakeflagger
look around you, capitalism doesnt work at all
3 replies
Name checks out. It works if you’re rich. Who cars about the peons.
better than genociding people (holodomor)
you are dumb idiot german
no i am not a fake flagger idiot. i also dont like capitalism aswell.
4 replies
3 replies
how's linux? Never used
2 replies
5 replies
4 replies
fascism + regulated capitalism!
6 replies
Name
we already have one
2 replies
no we have an oligarchy
1 reply
in such perverted form where borders between these two are barely seen
2 replies
capitalism because i like my money
Depends what you think capitalism or socialism is.
I prefer a mixed economy where the state regulates private businesses to ensure they don't go overboard (like the financial institutions did and we had to bail them out back in 2008 to ensure society wouldn't collapse entirely).
I prefer the state has a firm grip on key services in a country. Healthcare, police, military, education, social services and infrastructure (including public transportation).
I don't mind private companies making an entrance into those fields as long as the state dictates the conditions and the companies are expected to serve the public to a satisfactory extent (look up New Public Management if you are unsure what I mean).
So it's not one or the other but really making both systems work and balance eachother to a degree.
8 replies
financial institutions are now more out of control than ever.
6 replies
Why do you think so?
5 replies
no meaningful regulation was enacted after 2008
1 reply
MiFiD and Basel are meaningful
income inequality is also rising and the amount of capital owned by these financial companies and pension funds etc is greater than ever before. the risk of bubbles hasnt decreased. covid made a small dent but the US stock market went up last year while 20% of the economy disappeared.
2 replies
What is wrong with pension funds?
And yeah the USA hasn't changed one bit since 2008, the financial institutes just found other methods of 'scamming' people.
1 reply
I'm pretty sure he meant hedge funds
As as marxist I see socialism as a transitional phase from capitalism to communism, so I just prefer calling myself communist.
"Democratic socialism" and "the nordic model" are enemies of real socialism, they are bourgeoisie ideologies that aim to prolong the lifetime of capitalism and give concessions to the working class enough to keep them passive, only benefiting the ruling class by the end of the day. There is no "third way", the road of social democracy is the road to capitalism, that's why the replies saying they prefer a mix of both are highly amusing to me.
20 replies
I didn't expect to see someone on this thread that actually knows what the fuck they're talking about
+1
I am tired of this "liberal communism" bullshit.
1 reply
+1 on "liberal communism"
i am so tired of the liberal pro-dems soyboys like the_vyrox and other kids, they are even dumber than rightists
+99999
finally someone smart here
So you want communism. It has sure as heel worked in UUSR and Eastern Germany. Those countries are doing so well. Communism in theory is awesome, but it does not work in real life. Communism is but a utopian dream.
10 replies
2 replies
I am aware of that, but if it is not actual communism they should state it as such.
1 reply
how about that democratic peoples republic of korea they seem pretty democratic and republican
Before the USSR, Russia was an underdeveloped semi-feudal state where famines and poverty were very common, then it turned to a heavily industrialized superpower in just 30 years - and was the second fastest growing economy of the 1900's.
Even data from the World Bank (a capitalist institution) shows that the quality of life in socialist countries was higher than capitalist countries with similar economical development. I'm willing to link the study if you're genuinely interested in the topic.
So yeah, the past socialist countries, while flawed, definitely proved it can work, and learning from their mistakes the future communists will be even more efficient :)
6 replies
While what you say sound right(never seen the data you mention but i trust your sources), i still stand by what i previously wrote: Communism in pure form is a utopian dream that we will never achieve. Bear in mind people in USSR were suppressed by the government( they also were before but still). Socialist economy may work in sometimes in specific scenarios, but then there are also downsides, which there are to everything, but all in all I value freedom over the positive things socialism brings, but that is simply my opinion and you are free to have yours.
5 replies
USSR and other socialist countries mostly just suppressed those who wanted to overthrow socialism, much like capitalist countries have and are suppressing socialists wanting to overthrow capitalism. The notion that socialist countries were police states with no personal liberties is vastly overblown; majority of the people lived completely normal lives.
Also I think the key thing here is to understand that capitalism needs to keep a huge amount of the worlds population in poverty in order to sustain itself, and like Stalin said:
“It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.”
Anyway, HLTV isn't the optimal place to discuss this, as if I really wanted to try and convince you it would require a lot of time and effort but hey, at least we can agree to disagree. If you're ever interested in actual answers as to why communism isn't just an utopia, read Marx :)
4 replies
Stalin is definitely a guy to listen about oppression by others and personal liberty. If you're ever interested in actual answers as to why communism is impossible and Marx and Engels's ideas was never used and will never be used for anything except for justifying exploitation way worse than capitalist exploitation, read something else. I would recommend Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"
3 replies
Unironically yes, but even if you hate Stalin, there's nothing wrong with the quote itself.
I've read many counter-arguments to communism, so I'm well aware of Hayek's work, and just as you'd expect from an liberal, it's full of logical fallacies. If you genuinely think that any socialist nation ever came even close to capitalist exploitation, you are historically illiterate.
2 replies
1 reply
What a great argument, comparing a country suffering from heavy sanctions to practically a puppet state of the USA flooded with foreign investment. Also ironically enough South Korea's military dictatorship used economical planning to grow their economy after the Korean war, even capitalists acknowledge planned economy to be more efficient than free markets!
+1 smart mens
very well said comrade
capitalism, because it's good. Do you like socialism? Visit venezuela.
23 replies
venezuela isnt very socialist and they got rekt by usa because oil
6 replies
yes, 96% of the population is in poverty but is USA's fault.
3 replies
brazil is also poor because of usa
2 replies
brazil is poor because of biden
a lot of countries are poor because of america
1 reply
yeah if the USA didnt exist
venezuela isnt socialist or communist in fact they aren't even leftist in any way
15 replies
they aren't leftist? wtf, are you joking?
14 replies
they don't align with any communist/socialist views give maybe one or two policies but overall they are a capitalistic country
13 replies
maduro's party: United Socialist Party of Venezuela
hugo chávez nationalized the steel industry, agriculture, banking sector, gold mining, telecommunications, eletricity and even the tourism.
personality cult in every street
electoral fraud so that the socialist party remains in power
extreme bureaucracy preventing any private entity from functioning (2nd worst economic freedom of the world)
high inflation for socialism to continue to exist (1000%)
cinema can only show films allowed by maduro
what do you want more
12 replies
sounds a lot more like the fascist government it actually is than socialism
11 replies
facism and socialism are cousins but venezuela has socialism, because want the collectivization of the means of production and goods, central planning and stuff
9 replies
LMAO AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
+1
5 replies
Funny thing is each time fascism rises it makes alliances with the capital to get rid of the socialists and Communists first.
Ideologically they're opposite, but they feed themselves on the same ground
1 reply
you have no clue what socialism is, go educate yourself poor kid
2 replies
Capitalism.
Socialism is unrealistic, it requires the government to actually govern completely in favor of the the people. I think that today it just isn't possible to have a non-corrupted government. Socialism has also been proven to stifle breakthroughs in all fields. There is far less incentive to create something new that people will like under a socialist system, in capitalism innovation is rewarded with fortune and possible fame but socialism just doesn't allow for those kinds of rewards for innovation. Socialism leads to communism, communism has killed over a 100 million people. Capitalism rewards people who work hard for what their work is worth, I can work hard for several years to be in a position where I make a lot of money and then I can enjoy the fruits of my labor while under a Socialist system I could do all the same work and still only receive what the government deems I need. Capitalism has proven successful for many countries and has brought prosperity to those countries while Socialism has never worked on a large scale and has more often than not lead to mass poverty and death for its people.
39 replies
take the money out of politics and the corruption problem is solved. should have elected bernie. rip.
just eliminate superpacs that would be a good start
21 replies
"just take the money out of politics"
would be cool but i dont see it happening
also even democrats dont like bernie, he is too radical, the people who like him the most are usually either too young to vote or just dont vote for some reason, i dont even know why but the age group bernie has a large amount of support from has small voter turn out. important states such as florida also hate bernie because they have a large population of immigrants from countries like cuba where socialism failed them
17 replies
the reason socialism keeps failing in south america is that the usa sabotages it. kind of weird to then not vote for socialism when you live in the usa
16 replies
The reason socialism keeps failing is because socialism has flaws too big for it to succeed. #68 says it pretty well. Giving the government all of this power with no checks and balances against it is like buying a drink for an alcoholic and expecting him to quit drinking. Its just not going to happen.
13 replies
socialism didnt fail in the ussr for quite a while. it allowed them to keep up with the usa which was the largest economy in the world with the best paid workforce and best technology, while russia was basically rekt after ww2. it didnt fail in china or in northwest europe either. admittedly the usa did give us a bunch of money to get back on our feet.
10 replies
You're forgetting the part where these countries (China/USSR) brutally suppress their people. Also the Nordic Model isn't very socialist, private corporations still exist and still compete against each other and these corporations can make their leaders rich, it's kind of like what the guy at #17 said, its a mixture of sorts where there are private corporations AND a large welfare state that is funded by citizens paying a large amount of taxes. Personally I'm a lot of more focused on how this would effect America if these systems were implemented and I just don't see them working. It requires people to respect that the welfare state is for the people who need it the most while abuse of the welfare state is already rampant in the US, I know for a fact that multiple of my friends are receiving unemployment checks while working right now which is just wrong.
9 replies
well thats because they get their checks cut if they report their other income which is also wrong and inevitably leads to this situation. the correct answer to this is implementing basic income. we have the same problem here in the netherlands.
8 replies
They're making enough income to survive off of, they don't need the unemployment money. I know these people and I know how much money they make, they'd be completely fine with the income they are making but they are still exploiting the welfare state which would only become easier. Universal basic income is just not a good idea in my opinion. A person should make what they earn, not what the government deems that they need. The government is filled with rich people, they are very out of contact with the citizens, the government initially tried to give us in America $600 for multiple months of lost income, they "fixed" this by adjusting the size of the stimulus to $2000 per person but even this isn't enough for some families and most have yet to receive anything at all from the government, the government should not be deciding how much money I make, that should be between my employer and I
7 replies
yeah but the thing is that giving them the welfare and their wage means that they have more spending power which is better than just giving all the money to jeff bezos straight away
6 replies
There's not unlimited money, if people who don't need to receive money from the welfare state are receiving money from it, there is less money for those who actually need that it, for those who couldn't survive without it.
5 replies
there is unlimited money its just a number they type into a computer
4 replies
No, if you print more money, then the value of that money goes down. This is what happened to Germany after World War 1, they needed to pay massive debts after losing the war and their solution was to just print more money to pay off that debt but this sharply devalued their dollar and spending power went down for anyone using it.
2 replies
but that doesnt happen if your currency happens to be the global backup currency, then you can sell as many dollars as you want to foreign governments and rack up infinite debt that you never intend to repay.
1 reply
No matter what the currency stands for or what it is otherwise used for, the more of a currency there is the less it is worth
Socialism fails because it fundamentally misunderstands human nature. For this, it will *never* succeed.
1 reply
+1
Socialist have so many excuses for why socialist countries are so sub-standard. The most convenient one is to blame the strongest capitalist country (usa). It's convenient because implementing socialism into the usa solves everyone's problems. Never mind they're prescribing the poison as the cure.
1 reply
"take the money out of politics" is equivalent to saying "if everyone was just less selfish, socialism would totally work". True statement and also fairy land.
1 reply
+1
Precisely. It’s 2021, it shouldn’t even be a question by now.
My only addition to what you said is that, it’s not that the country has to have a non-corrupt government. Man is inherently corrupt. It’s the law and a country’s institutions that keep man’s corruption at bay. If these do not work, you get countries like my own (Argentina) or Venezuela.
4 replies
+1
its the law and institutions that legitimize, legalize, and enable the corruption, as well.
2 replies
1 reply
every country on earth is neck deep in corruption bruther
"Capitalism has proven successful for many countries and has brought prosperity to those countries"
like Honduras or Guatemala?
9 replies
More like America, New Zealand, Australia UK and others
3 replies
Australia and UK are not pure capitalism.
The Banana republics were
2 replies
Well no country has pure capitalism but they are far closer to capitalist than socialist
1 reply
I think a mix of both is best.
Because countries where is was 'pure' capitalism are shit and same goes for 'pure' socialism.
corruption will destroy any country.
3 replies
Yes, but it is capitalism that made this corruption possible.
But again I'm not saying that socialism would be better.
2 replies
I think corruption is more of a human thing rather than a capitalism or socialism thing. The question is whether there is a economic system + government structure that effectively curbs corruption. I'm not saying the USA is without problems, but it's been reasonably successful.
1 reply
Yes I agree, corruption is the problem, but it was the capitalism that made those fruit companies rich and with that money they could rule the country, a strong government and regulations could have prevented that.
I was not trying to say capitalism is bad, I just didn't agree with everything the other guy said.
In reality, great part of the world do not have access to minimum wage or minimum conditions of living and this portion is yet very connected with some capitalism in the production of commodities for example. Like extraction of minerals in countries of sub Saharan Africa, for instance . If it was to reproduce the standards of consume of countries like U.S. the world couldn't stand to it, and extinction would happen for sure.
"How many democratic socialists do we have to kill, before you would understand, that socialism doesn't work?"
Capitalism, it's an easy question.
However, worth noting is that socialism has some great ideas and policies that can and should be implemented into capitalism. I don't know if this makes me a socialist or a capitalist in your eyes, but i see myself as a capitalist because i support a free market where anyone can become rich, but also a fair society where everyone get's a chance, not only the fortunate ones.
I understand there are multiple forms of "socialism". I definitely do not support all-out socialism, but i just think that it has many good points.
61 replies
you cant have both those things. capitalism inevitably leads to accumulation of the means of production in the hands of the few.
60 replies
Yes you can. You can surpress and control capitalism, to stunt inequality. For example, the few are obligated to pay much higher tax rates while the many get lower tax rates.
It's only one example, but there are many other policies that you can put in place to increase equality.
54 replies
yeah in a perfect world without corruption and lobbyists and with fair tax rates etc. but we dont live in that world. not even you in sweden. im dutch btw
53 replies
And we don't live in a world where fully fledged socialism is even remotely possible. We have to make the best out of our situation, and neither capitalism nor socialism is the answer to that.
51 replies
we could do it with currently available technology.
for example: housing. we have a carbon neutral heat source, that humanity has used for thousands of years: wood. and we have good materials for insulation that are also carbon neutral, some of which have also been used for a long time by our ancestors. some of them are new. with currently available materials, we can construct houses much cheaper than is currently happening. however, lower prices would reduce profit margins for the capitalists so they are against it.
combine this with things like advances in sustainable farming methods, greenhouse technology, reforestation efforts, telecommunications technology, etc, and pretty soon we wont need the current economic system anymore. its just a matter of enabling people to be self sufficient. theres more than enough room for everybody to live without having to make money and pay for the right to exist.
42 replies
I think you are partially right, but personally i do not mind that you can make profit for providing services to people. If you go around helping a large amount of people and make money off of that, i don't see any problem.
It sounds like you want a society where you rely on being abled and able to work to get by. What about all the other people who cannot generate income or produce anything?
41 replies
people shouldnt need to produce anything when we already have enough food, water, and housing for everyone
40 replies
That's bs, you will always have to produce no matter how much food, water or housing you currently have.
So, should there be "a few" that produces everything for free or should every single person produce an equal amount of goods? Who is willing to do the more tough and dangerous tasks while other do the most easy tasks for the same income? It will not work in the end.
39 replies
why should people have to produce anything for anyone else when they are selfsufficient? they could do it voluntarily out of charity. but there is no obligation. everyone who wishes so can just opt out of modern society and do that. if you are self sufficient you dont need factories or cities that require maintenance. you maintain your own house.
there is already more food produced on earth than we need to feed everyone. all we need to do is distribute the land properly. with current technology one person can produce far more food than they can consume themselves, and do so sustainably. so scarcity of food can be eliminated. same with fresh water. and with housing. it also doesnt take that much time to grow food in a less intensive agriculture because you know it just grows by itself. so people would have more than enough time left to do other things like working on new technology or art and music. or making alcoholic drinks and drugs. etc. not for money but just because they enjoy it and they have the time.
we dont need the rat race.
38 replies
So basically you want to rewind time to 4,000 years ago?
36 replies
yeah but with 21st century tech and sustainable farming that doesnt lead to animal extinction and desertification and a lot more free time and better healthcare
34 replies
Bro, you sound very naive.
All these things do not exist without the work of hundreds of millions of people who work and maintain factories and cities.
Do you take phones, cars, internet, clothes, houses, food, water and "technology" for granted? I don't know if your baiting now, but that sounds like some kind of fantasy world where everyone can just sit at home, play games and "go out hunting when they feel like" to get some food. Not only does it not work, it's not possible in our universe.
33 replies
you dont need a car or a cellphone if you are selfsufficient. you dont need sweatshops in bangladesh if you grow your own cotton or wool. the technology you do actually need is not scarce. wood and stone and water. there is more than enough room to keep enough animals to feed everyone meat and do it carbon neutral. not through hunting but from livestock animals. the only reason meat is scarce is so that the capitalists can make money on it. its also easy to grow enough vegetables and potatoes to survive just with some manual labor, with current scientific understanding of plant growth and gmo crops etc.
22 replies
No man. You can go back 4,000 years, but you literally cannot keep the technology of today. Basically you want everyone to have a house and livestock. No countries, no borders, no government. Where will the technology come from? What happens when it needs to be swapped out after a couple of years? What will you do when you have no running water because there is no one there for you to maintain your sewer system?
21 replies
for example im a computer programmer. so i would go live somewhere with some other programmers and spend some of my free time developing with them. somewhere else some electrical engineers design new cpus. somewhere else people live who maintain a production line that builds lithography machines. we can just keep the current technology system in place. we dont have to dismantle every factory we have built and abandon modern tech and return to the stone age. we just need to output a little less greenhouse gasses and absorb a bit more of them. and distribute our resources more equally.
if you are self sufficient you dont need a sewer you can just take a shit in your fields or build an outhouse with a pit underneath so you can throw the shit on your land in spring
20 replies
And who would want to maintain production lines all day while others can sit at home and programming software?
I promise you, you would not survive a single week living like this. Try to take a shit outside once.
19 replies
the people who are currently maintaining those production lines at ASML in my country love their jobs. ive been there. they would not love it any less if it was their own project instead of just a job.
18 replies
There are many jobs that are REQUIRED for modern technology to function that NO ONE wants to do. How will you get them to do this without giving them a proper reward?
17 replies
if no one wants to do the work then apparently no one needs the technology that it provides
you know because otherwise they could just go do it.
16 replies
I guess you wont need your computer to program on because someone didn't want to break their necks working at the mines.
15 replies
yes, and then that would incentivize people like you and me to ensure better labor conditions in those mines
13 replies
This doesn't make any sense bro. So you will stop programming and start manufacturing advanced equipment for them? How will you do this on a grand scale?
12 replies
how did people do it on a grand scale in the iron age? they just did it. they mined iron and other ores and transported them to other places and traded them for other goods.
10 replies
I don't think it's worth keeping this discussion going. I think that you either need to stop smoking whatever you're smoking or you need to wake up and come to a realization that your fantasy society is not even remotely possible. I am not some rich billionaire who is trying to convince you that capitalism is good to keep my billions. I am a lower/middle class citizen.
9 replies
yeah so why would you want to be exploited instead of being selfsufficient? especially in sweden where you have like 10 million square km land per person. more than enough for everyone.
8 replies
I'm not being "exploited". We are so spoiled today that we have totally forgotten how hard life was. The luxuries that you get by not being lazy is underestimated. You claim to be a socialist, what you have been adovcating for the past hour has nothing to do with socialism at all.
7 replies
you are being exploited if you are either paying for college education or working wage labor, currently
if you are unemployed or selfemployed or can study for free then i agree, sweden is a pretty good country to live in. but its a lot worse in a lot of other places because of the capitalist system sweden profits from.
5 replies
If you would ask them i don't think they would ever think of looking backwards, because no one wants to go there.
4 replies
huh, who?
3 replies
I meant people who suffer from this capitalist system.
2 replies
yeah because their land is being turned into desert and the colonial powers abolished all their religions and culture and system of goernment
they dont remember what it was like before all that happened so of course they dont want independence. its scary
1 reply
you dont need capitalism to run a global economy, otherwise what have we been doing for most of recorded human history up to the end of feudalism?
also most manual labor can already be automated, its just currently not profitable to do so because capitalism
we could put everyone out of a job except for a few intellectuals, in 1 decade
basically the story that everyone needs to have a job to survive is complete nonsense, we already have enough resources for everyone to be able to survive, it just isnt distributed correctly
9 replies
You're just contradicting yourself at this point. To survive, one crucial thing you need is food. How will you get food if you do not work? No one else will work for you in your society.
There are only two options in this world.
1. You work for yourself
2. Everyone works for each other
There is no way that you can be self-sufficient without working.
7 replies
i didnt say "work" i said "job"
6 replies
If you read it again, you must get my point.
You either "work" for yourself.
Everyone works for each other (job).
It's just a made up word.
5 replies
growing your own food is not a job. it is work. yeah people will need to work like a couple hours every week to survive. maybe 8. its really not a lot of work. it was a lot more work 4000 years ago. these days the crops we have are very fruitful and grow quite fast and we have crops for every season. we have the understanding of biology to grow them efficiently.
3 replies
Have you ever tried farming? It's incredibly tough work. It sounds like you are some naive and spoiled kid from a big city who dreams of a utopia where everyone is willing to sacrifice their freedoms and choices to sacrifice themselves for equality.
2 replies
you need to go watch some youtube videos about permaculture / sustainable farming. the current system of intensive agriculture in europe is a lot of work and its hard to make a profit on it even with the farming subsidies. but there is a better way.
oh intensive agriculture also erodes the soil, in the UK and france the governments reckon they have a few decades of production left before soil depletion.
there is simply no reason anymore to continue the current economic system except to deliberately keep certain people poor and others super rich
If society wakes up one day and everyone suddenly believes "not everyone needs a job for this to all work out" what do you think would happen? Do you figure that 75%-80% would still go to work and the other 25% would be okay because there would still be enough to go around as long as it was evenly distributed?
Come on. The reason why you can even imagine that "not everyone needs to work" is because so many people do even though they would rather not. If only the people that simply enjoy working for the sake of working, went to work, everyone else would be dirt poor because so little would be produced.
Oh and if you tell the few remaining working people "by the way, we're going to take the gains you get from working and distribute them equally among society, but don't worry, you'll get the same as everyone else." guess how many working people you now have?
technology like 3d printing and crop rotation and genetically modified crops will make it a lot easier than 4000 years ago
The 'rat race' created all the technology you're talking about; the ability to grow/harvest food in vast sums, genetic research to enhance crops to be more productive, the transportation that moves food all around the world to be distributed as best as it can, even the forum we're currently chatting on.
The 'rat race' has been vital to every advancement we've made in the last 200 years. How likely would it be that that massive tractor that plows all that farmland you're referring to would have been researched/developed/manufactured if everyone simply had their plot of land and grew their own vegetable gardens to live off?
the excuse of "its not possible" is completely moronic, it is fully possible if people become smart and support it, unfortunately the right exists.
7 replies
It doesn't matter if the people support it or not. If you put a person in a position of absolute power, he will always become corrupted. Even if he does or does not, there will always be those ambitious enough to eventually make your country a shithole for personal gain. It's not about rightism, it's about us.
3 replies
i never advocated for totalitarianism.
2 replies
That's a foundation of socialism though. If you meant democratic socialism, then i agree.
1 reply
im not a socialist i am a Marxist
see #271
1 reply
Liberals are rightists btw.
you reference a "perfect world" here but in all models where socialism could actually work, there has to be "perfect world" conditions.
Honestly, the foundational problem with socialism is it fundamentally misunderstands human nature. It projects what "could be" by aligning all these best-case scenarios together, such as: a non-corruptible government, selfless humans, a workforce motivated by the common good...
None of these things exist, can exist, or will exist.
Capitalism + moderate regulation provide a back-stop against humans who are generally selfish and motivated by personal gain.
4 replies
Okay, knowing what we know about governments and humans in general, how would/will socialism do away with this?
3 replies
2 replies
Oh then I agree generally, though there is some basic level of government required to regulate the market and enforce the laws.
1 reply
yeah ofcourse. point was that too much regulation breeds monopolies, because small businesses dont have the manpower or the legal team to navigate through all the regulations and paperwork. plus in america, politicians are owned by the big businesses, so they'll get regulation passed through which benefits them.
1 reply
my brother my friend
22 replies
if you are smart why would you want a system of exploitation when you dont need to worry about your place in society anyway, being an intellectual and all
21 replies
because green paper = good and equality and 0 exploitation with benefit for everyone = bad
20 replies
but why. we could be on mars by now and have cured cancer and alzheimers if we didnt suppress billions of people
19 replies
i know i was joking im a marxist
17 replies
i know you were joking i just rly dont get it. even jeff bezos could be objectively richer if we just made the world a couple percent better. just redistribute a little bit and then if everybody benefits do it again.
16 replies
fuck the rich people i hate billionaires they are worse than murderers
15 replies
the only way it makes sense is if they are literally comic book villain evil sociopaths and dont give a fuck about anyone below them
14 replies
thats exactly what they are bud
13 replies
but its not even beneficial to themselves to be this evil lol
12 replies
they don't care and are extremely dumb and abusive people. all they care about is keeping the proletariat poor and weak and the bourgeois rich and strong
11 replies
but its so dumb like i cant even
10 replies
these are the same people that have so much money that they literally couldn't spend it all if they tried, they are so stupid it is unimaginable.
9 replies
but why even go to the effort of talking to people and clicking mouse buttons to buy stocks when you already have infinite money
8 replies
because they are greedy beyond your wildest dreams
if they could they would take every last thing from every other human on the planet just to satiate their own greed and lust, all they care about is themselves and being better than everyone else because the numbers in their bank accounts are bigger
7 replies
but its not rational. what if they get sick with something that couldve been cured 20 years ago
6 replies
then they get to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the best doctors in the world and experimental treatments that normal humans don't even know about
5 replies
but they could still die early and miss out on a lot of other cool shit we couldve had
4 replies
well they are fucking stupid I honestly don't know what goes through their brains to be that shitty of a person
3 replies
its just weird that its that kind of person that floats to the top
2 replies
they do that because they exploit other people for their own gain, they wouldn't even see me and you as the same as them, they see actual human beings as tools to use in their machine of greed.
1 reply
but that doesnt result in the greatest utility for them
I doubt you will get the irony of the comment you made.
Socialism is taking peoples property (money) and then a few selected people can spend them as they please and see fit. Socialism is in its core immoral, it is theft in daylight.
Socialism breeds losers, because a lot of people realize they can leech on the system for their own benefits. Remember its always the working man's money you steal from when you hand out money.
One example that just show how rotten socialism is: When government close down small businesses so they cant earn a living. Then you hand them money so they get depended on the government. And the money they are giving are practically their own money paid through taxes. And all this to prevent a natural flue that is dangerous for about 1% of the population.
Socialism is a disease that make people slaves of their masters.
Free the market. Remove restrictions. Give back the power to the people. We don't need to be baby sit.
Peace
31 replies
oh and the capitalists dont leech on people in the current system?
28 replies
no never, ofc not
give some examples maybe?
16 replies
your flag?
15 replies
what about it?
14 replies
its a symbol of exploitation
13 replies
how exactly?
12 replies
do you remember iraq?
11 replies
and what does iraq have to do with the capitalism/socialism discussion?
10 replies
that the usa invaded iraq because of economic (capitalist) interests? and killed more than a million people?
9 replies
no, the US invaded Iraq because our intelligence thought that Iraq had WMD's, which they didn't, it was a mistake.
6 replies
no the cia made that up and the government and the UN knew they made it up before you invaded and everyone just went along
it just had to happen
4 replies
can you prove that CIA "made that up"?
3 replies
2 replies
The video in that link is not showing up for me, but even if you are right, saying that invasion of Iraq was capitalism's fault is just dumb. Communist/socialist nations invaded other countries for resources, was it socialism's fault?
1 reply
yes?
the iraq war was a war for israel.
9 replies
the people provide labor for the market. they are exploited by the capitalists, because their wages are lower than the value of their labor.
8 replies
7 replies
if you as a worker get paid what your labor is worth, there is no profit left. hence, no one who is not self-employed gets what they are worth.
this is just basic marxist theory, i suggest you read it, it may be quite interesting for you
6 replies
The profit goes to the owner. He put everything at risk for the operations. First of all he makes it possible to the worker to even have a job.
If the firm goes belly up the worker can leave without any damage, while the owners life may be in ruins.
Tell me 1 country that ever had succes with communism...
5 replies
he risks capital which should not be his private property in the first place
4 replies
2 replies
none of these countries are actually socialist. maybe cuba is but other than that?
1 reply
thats my favorite comrade excuse "waaah they never ACTUALLY tried REAL socialism/communism... thats why it didnt work, they actually never did it right!" xDDDDDDDDDDDD
free market doesnt exist, never did, and will never exist
the public owns the means of production under socialism
what you described sound more capitalist than socialist
1 reply
Youre right.
I will still make a case that there are grades of socialism/totalitarianism.
What I like to think is a fair society, is a society based on basic rights to do as you want as long as you don't hurt others in the process. A decentralized society 'governed' by the market it self and the people engaged in the market.
Its called "Anarcho-capitalism" and have never existed as far as I know.
The ideal situation would be somewhere in between. Personally I identify towards socialism simply because rampant capitalism creates the mess that America is in, where basic healthcare isn't a right, education costs an alarmingly high amount compared to Europe and political parties can spend billions on an election (here in the UK they can spend up to I believe £20 million total).
I'm from the UK so the idea that breaking a bone can cost someone their lifesavings (if they're lucky enough to even have them) is insane, and so is the idea that a lot of americans must rely on the company they work for for healthcare, just being able to walk in to a GP's without needing to worry about being charged is why I can't see myself ever moving to America. Also the cost of drugs in America is far higher than here in the UK (and for most drugs, we aren't actually even charged).
Socialism puts in place a safety net system for those who need it, which given we're in a global pandemic with over 100,000 dead and many workplaces closed we have 100% needed these safety nets (we have furlough from the government to cover 80% of people's wages as well as Universal Credit which is a flawed system in place to help people survive while they're unemployed).
Yeah the UK isn't a fully socialist country but we have socialist policies in place such as free education up until 18, healthcare paid for with taxes and a safety net system for when someone is unemployed.
6 replies
4 replies
+1
+1 bratan
1 reply
i mean its just factually true.. i'm not saying its completely fucked, but since market crash in 1929 the government has been fully involved in the market and introduces more and more regulations all the time
funnily enough ever since they began to fuck around with the market it takes way longer for the economy to recover..
The UK is maybe one tick below the USA on the capitalism/socialism scale. Though you say you lean toward socialism, you're not describing socialism.
PS Everything you claimed to like about 'socialism' exists in the US except national healthcare, unless you're retired and you then get medicare/medicaid which is national healthcare.
National Socialism
The world is at the edge of economical crisis already because of capitalism, so...
Any other *ism won't help though, we need something new.
14 replies
13 replies
If you say so...
12 replies
11 replies
Nah, "pandemic" just nailed it and is a good excuse.
10 replies
9 replies
Nope, there was no economical growth in any country during last years.
You're just too dumb and know shit about economy (probably flag checks out), read this and educate yourself: amazon.com/Crisis-capital-effectiveness-..
Then come talk to me.
7 replies
5 replies
4 replies
3 replies
I don't care about arguments, not gonna argue or prove you anything, read the book and educate yourself or don't waste my time, ty.
2 replies
1 reply
Ok, read the book and then come say your opinion.
ReAd ThEoRy
Take a look at this liberation.neocities.org/site/socialism...
capitalism
whatever we have in denmark it works pretty well
3 replies
a mix of both are good. too much socialism leads to communism tho and only lazy people and people with no jobs think thats a good idea. same with pure capitalism, it only helps the people with alot of wealth while the working class gets fucked over.
6 replies
5 replies
yes you can atleast parts of both
4 replies
3 replies
gotta love hltv
2 replies
1 reply
private property and none private property isnt the only thing though. you can mix the good parts of both ideologys, like having a free market with socialist ideas implemented. ofcourse you cant have both capitalism and socialism together in its pure form, but you can mix and mash and create a system that actually benefits most people
"if you are not socialist at 20 you have no heart, if you still socialist at 40 you have no brain".
21 replies
20 replies
19 replies
what? have you heard about "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs"?
socialism tries to redistribute the wealth and take away stuff from people that have more and give it to people that have less without even figuring out why some people have more and others have less
under capitalism people get what they bargained for willingly.. no one forces them to give up anything. All the decisions are up to you and the price of your labor is up to you and whatever others are willing to pay for it
18 replies
1.
I do not think you have a big enough understanding of marxism to know what that statement means.
2. No that is not what socialism does. what is does, is it lets the worker class get the full value of their labor.
3.
No you could not be more wrong. You have to submit your labor to a capitalist or you will die. You do not have any choice to work with what you want, since the capitalist will do everything they can to keep the lower class poor. Look at the southern countries, where capitalist exploit most of the value.
17 replies
16 replies
15 replies
you literally dont know what socialism is
you also think that just because in some countries where there is complete lawlessness, where socialism was the reason why people remained poor it means capitalism is somehow at fault LMAO
funny how capitalism is so bad, yet capitalism and free markets are the only thing that can create wealth and lift people out of poverty
7 replies
6 replies
when was Africa ever a stable continent with stable regimes? never
also capitalism doesnt fix dumb.. and it helped plenty of eastern european countries to become much better than they were under socialism.. just because people in certain countries are unable to take advantage of something doesnt make it bad
also most eastern european countries arent free market countries and have basically authoritarian governments..
5 replies
People want socialism you dumb fuck look at Libya after gaddafi. How can you deny the fact that a large part of Africa has always been capitalist and yet they live like shit? Because they are black or what? Fucking open your eyes and see: only western countries actually live good lives. Look at China the country you probably hate. They have lifted every citizen in china out of absolute poverty. How is it going in USA. Which country did best against Covid-19 it is pretty obvious which countries are doing the best.
4 replies
oh yeah, i mean ofc fucking Lybians want there to be any kind of government compared to no government at all, you dimwit
also not a single sane person wants USSR back in Russia, but also lets not pretend that current Russia is a free country lmao
also China is a fucking nightmare to live in lol and people in China are poor by western standards and are actually exploited
also ofc countries with topdown government control will "do" better when it comes to COVID.. they will restrict freedom of their citizens and also lie about their statistics
oh and just gonna add that China economy only boomed because they opened their market to foreign countries in the late 70s.. now in mid 00s they essentially closed it again(tho not to the point it was before they opened it) and their economy doesnt grow anymore
also the reason why economies of the west stalled over the last half a century or more is because the government is increasingly involved in it
3 replies
1. Yes, they want socialism. USA destroyed the country? what is your point?.
2. Google 66% russia.
3. Yes China are poor, because they are over 200 years behind western countries. They also do not live of imperalism and the global south.
4. No it is because the citizens know how not to act like fucking dumbfucks. And if they do not, it is okay the government locks them in.
5. Simply not true.
6. No it is because the capitalist are hoarding the money. Look at graphs how much money workers are getting and how they productive they are.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for..
The government actually helps people, the rich does not.
2 replies
youtube.com/watch?v=yTou0ViHOXM&ab_chann..
Here is a video with actual sources.
Japan was behind every country until 1800 living under isolationist regime, yet they're among the wealthiest countries in the world now, despite being an island country with all kinds of problems
also it is true that Chinese economy started booming in the late 1970s, or more precisely when they started reforming it in 1978. They got rid of central planning etc, dismantled commune system etc. and opened it to foreign trade.
oh and i dont even want to talk about your 6th point, its so stupid its pointless to say anything
6 replies
5 replies
3 replies
You do realise the poorest countries in the world are all capitalist?
Your argument literally means nothing. You're comparing a system to another, one with a sample size of roughly 190, and one with sample size of 4.
1 reply
"Your argument literally means nothing"
capatalism_81_developed_countries_communism/socialism_0
and no an economic system isn't supposed to make every country rich, a lot of these countries were in no position to ever be first world regardless of economic system and what are you talking about "sample size of four" you do realize that eastern Europe was also communist and had far worse living standards than its western counterparts
I agree with #147
I think it has a healthy balancing effect to have a democracy, where a moderate version of the 2 sides takes turns being in power.
But that balance has been disturbed in many countries by populist/nationalist movements with no real cohesive plan for the society, except "everything was better in the old days, before immigration and the European Union". One clear result of those movements is that the interest of the middle class & working class (social equality) is being forgotten, because many of those people jump ship and vote for the populists. The result being a widening gap between those classes and the wealthy.
This widening gap is happening all over the western world and in eastern europe.
Also in other parts of the world, but for different reasons.
I don't have enough knowledge of the english language to form a proper statment about either socialism or capitalism, not aleast the way I'd like to. But I think at the end of the day they both have flaws, and they will end up falling into the claws of human greed.
Sometimes I wonder about Anarchism, but I don't have enough knowledge about it, I just think we need to review a lot of our actions, especially the way we deal with nature. Working on the rural field makes you rethink a lot of the aspects of life and how things are being managed and dealt with.
2 replies
We don't really need to speculate about what effect "working on the rural fields" would have; go to any third world country and see for yourself. They live in poverty but I don't discount some of the valuable life lessons this can bring about what is most important in life, differences between needs and wants, etc.
1 reply
I agree with you, I mentioned that cuz it was what showed me the other world who people who live in urban areas spend their lifes without seeing (myself included), but thats in my particular universe, any kind of situation in your life can bring valuable life lessons, i think you just need to be willing to see it.
19 replies
dumbo
equality is a joke
everyone is born different idiot
13 replies
6 replies
if you are not baiting here is genuine answer
you are an idiot because nature says we are born different, every human is unique, different talent, different attitude, different race, etc
follow natures rules. Equality will never happen
5 replies
4 replies
shut up look at my flag idiot.
I dont argue that i am poor than you, and you have might have better genes than me, its all natures work. Instead of whining about equaliy n sheitttttttttttttttttt you should improve your self and others and work hard to improve the values that you suck at.
also women are inferior to men in most things like lifting things, running, etc. It is natures work. Women are happy when they are mothers. They are the preservers of our race. Also every race is a different. for examples black have lower iq average than whites but they have bigger d1c|< than whites. Wow i guess natures and science is sexist and racist. you must abide by natures rules.
bu-bu-but its unfair!!!!!
improve race. how to do that? national socialism
3 replies
And?
5 replies
it means equality will never exist dumbass
4 replies
Omg that's ret*rded
Well yes equality might not ever exist because brain-dead people like you are still alive
3 replies
1 reply
Yes true
lol you are not following the laws of nature
you are the one more retarded
everyone knows equality is a pipe dream, and it will never come true, and it will only bring destruction to humanity because piece of shit like you exists. just take a look at diversity at america and see
you are retarded german. hitler is ashamed on you
2 replies
Lazy!
Socialism has never worked. But you need to take care of the weak in a capitalist system.
4 replies
Denmark is a very socialist country, so yes, it does work...
And socialism and capitalism doesn't cancel out each other
Nordic countries, best countries
youtube.com/watch?v=A9UmdY0E8hU
3 replies
Denmark is not well, it's a pig with lipstick
i prefer dictatorship
Socialism, actual true socialism.
Capitalism is OK but it has glaring issues. True socialism has never been tried on its own. Nordic countries and some other countries like New Zealand, the Netherlands etc. also utilize socialist principles the right way and it is no wonder that these nations are among the happiest in the world while the most capitalist country, the USA, is relatively unhappy and has huge social issues ranging from poverty and unreal costs for basic human needs.
2 replies
"True socialism has never been tried on its own. Nordic countries and some other countries like New Zealand, the Netherlands etc"
lmao these countries are essentially just capitalism with more welfare, in more ways some of these countries are more capitalist than the US
"while the most capitalist country, the USA, is relatively unhappy and has huge social issues ranging from poverty and unreal costs for basic human needs"
The US literally ranks higher than the majority of the developed world in the world happiness report
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Re..
and proceeds to outclass many of these countries in many different metrics
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankin..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_..
The US also has a lower poverty rate than many other developed countries such as Italy, Greece, the UK, France, and Belgium and has a lower homeless rate than many other developed countries such as Canada, the UK, and France
china's model is the ideal for me in modern society
china's model is the ideal for me in modern society
5 replies
LOL
doutrinado
4 replies
China is much more stable and is evolving faster than any country
#provemewrong
3 replies
you are not wrong on the last part. but at what cost?
about being stable, imo china is starting to deal too much with stuff to control their population. To me that is a sign of instability. above that, XI JINPING, their leader, will stay in power for whatever time he wants, like a dictator. that is good if everything he does is good for you, and bad if not.
that's why you have to accept antagony as a part of your self-regulatory means, or else you have to accept whatever they decide for you.
2 replies
Not even socrates, plato and solon liked democracy, i should i like it? to me i rather live in a efficient dictatorship than a failed democracy. tbh, most of the people is OK if the status quo, people just want a good life, stability, a job, money to buy things, security etc...
1 reply
but you cant turn back on that.
Capitalism is the only way. I identify as a libertarian so the less government the better. Let the market control itself through supply and demand.
13 replies
the problem with capitalism is that one person/company can decide the supply and here by pick the price.
12 replies
Wrong because if someone is not willing to pay a price then the person/company cannot sell it for that price. That's exactly what supply and demand means. If I buy something for X amount that is up to me and myself for paying that amount. If we collectively refuse to buy something at X amount that company will need to lower their price.
5 replies
Sure but what for a necessity good? What if thanks to capitalism I own all watercompanies? What would stop me from charging $100 a bottle?
4 replies
That's a great question however there are common-sense laws against monopolies. Also water is too abundant it would be impossible to own all of the water market. Same as food you can grow your own food or buy from a local market or farmer. Food and shelter is impossible to own the whole market. There will always be competing companies in those markets local small businesses, etc...
3 replies
I wouldn't say it is impossible, but yes it would be very hard.
you say there are common-sense laws, but if you want capitalism there would be no laws against monopolies.
2 replies
It's still entirely possible to have the market controlled by supply and demand and still have in place a laws that would prevent a company from harvesting all of a necessity product due to territory and private property. Like if a company tried to own all of the potatoes, but they couldn't because another company owned 10,000 acres of land and grew potatoes.
1 reply
But capitalism would have no laws.
I agree that capitalism with some laws and regulations would be best and maybe some socialism to help those who need it.
You just summed up socialism, except it isn't a company that decides everything, it would be the government.
The exact opposite of what you said is true. Capitalism breeds competition which breeds options. btw, monopolies (which is what you're talking about) kill capitalism. If monopolies take over, you essentially have socialism.
Sometimes I think people who say they're for socialism actually just want a properly functioning capitalism but haven't figured out the difference.
5 replies
In capitalism monopolies can be created. There is a need for regulations, something that in laissez-faire capitalism is nonexistent.
A monopoly in socialism wouldn't be as bad, because everyone who contributes to the production would get a share of it and it would benefit all.
3 replies
Yes - capitalism will trend toward monopolies but it must be regulated against otherwise all the benefits of capitalism (innovation, competition, creative destruction, balance of supply/demand, etc) get wiped out. Capitalism and monopolies can't coexist.
1 reply
I agree with that monopolies are bad for capitalism, but capitalism gives the opertunity for monopolies.
It is kinda like soviet russia being marxism. The ideology would never want to become soviet russia, but it gave the opertunity.
But yeah not capitalism or socialism that is doing the wrong, it is greed that fucks it up.
modern american dystopia!!!
centrist libertarian
2 replies
name actually checks out
1 reply
Good. I am glad it does.
Both on it‘s own are bad but I think communism is worse.
both can work well hand in hand, but capitalism does not require socialism to be a great economic solution, socialism alone destroyes an economy.
3 replies
+1
best principles.
aka feudalism kkkkk
State Capitalism. I think it is better as Singapore always been a state capitalist country. It is actually better than US crony capitalism where you can't be bigger than corporation/old companies.
Singapore's large holdings of government-linked companies and the state's close cooperation with business are defining aspects of the economy of Singapore. Singapore's government owns controlling shares in many government-linked companies and directs investment through sovereign wealth funds, an arrangement commonly cited as state capitalism.
4 replies
3 replies
u said moron. i report you
2 replies
it doesnt matter, post-corona will be a dictatorship with communism.
both bad
national socialism all the way!!!
1 reply
holy based
Capitalism because it gives you more freedom, makes the society healthier and creates a competition, which is not just entertaining, but actually profitable for the economy. And yeah, socialism had been destroying my country for 70 years, brought deaths and misery to my family members, and is the reason why Russia is still not a first world country, we don’t even have something you can call capitalism yet.
2 replies
For the ones who don’t know, Russian Empire had a bright future on the line. Our economy was actually booming, we were richer than Norway, Japan and Denmark at that time, but sadly, the lack of work with society (insufficient attention to the revolutionary gangs, etc., the serfdom should’ve also been abolished war earlier than 1861) had led to the USSR.
1 reply
Honestly can't believe how many people still think communism is a good thing. Von Mises in 1920 proved that communism won't work (Economic calculation problem) and predicted that all countries whoose tried it would result in totalitarism and dictatorship which is real socialism. The idea of communism should have ended there.
2 replies
the purpose of communism is a totalitarian and dictatorship. never been a workers paradise. It wants world domination (comintern).
1 reply
I prefer reasonable social policies in a capitalist system AKA social democracy. No having a public healthcare option and social security is not socialism reddit. It's social democracy.
4 replies
3 replies
wat?
2 replies
1 reply
+1
democratize the workplace, there are many individual successful worker co-ops.
Strong Unions and Worker Co-ops can only be good for American workers
"Please don't have a war"
LOL
it is not realistic to say that. socialists are absolutists and do not tolerate antagony.
they HAVE to fight you "its the only way."
obama
2 replies
2 replies
I wonder hmmmm
1 reply
both aspects should be combined (70/30 for capitalism)
pure Capitalism is shit and pure Socialism is also shit
def not socialism I actually got hopes that I someday will become succesful with my own company or just a very nice job. i dont want to pay like 40-50% taxes. I feel like people that want socialism already gave up and know they are gonna have a shitty job.
17 replies
16 replies
exploit people in what way? xd
15 replies
14 replies
well who says im gonna give them a shitty pay? lots of good companies pays their employees well lol
13 replies
12 replies
in what way xd? you want everyone to work for the goverment? expected from swedish communist
11 replies
10 replies
so you want everyone to work for the goverment and everyone has equal pay?
7 replies
6 replies
You seem like you've never worked before
5 replies
4 replies
And now you just sit at home exploiting tax payers while getting money from your goverment or what, or are you still being "exploited" by companies axaxaxa
3 replies
Democratic socialism
5 replies
name doesn't check out
3 replies
not democratic socialism
i mean social democracy
im drunk
1 reply
1 reply
baesed
5 replies
So you support pure capitalism where rich get richer, poor get poorer, where the rich lead an idle life, humiliate the poor, and the state turn a blind eye to the "holodomor" among the poor
Do you think that even the poorest person has the right to life and respect for his rights?
3 replies
you are retarded russian
if somebody doesnt support communism it does not mean they are pure capitalist supporters
goddamn it man
also holodomor was caused by MR genius Stalin by his collective policy, where they took away all the food and tools from the people
1 reply
National socialism > all
1 reply
+1
totalitarism will win soon
1 reply
GIGACHAD
wow this thread got so huge i thought it was just a meme so i never replied. anyways automation/technological advancements eventually create unemployment on such a large scale that its impossible for governments to not adopt socialist stances. either that or big tech takes over nations and its a socialist corprocracy/technocracy. Either way socialist policies will be needed regardless if you "like" it or not as jobs decrease by a LOT and population stays the same/grows
5 replies
Automation is a problem, it creates income inequality, as the attainment of education doesn't proportionally increase as the reward for qualification in terms of bigger salaries
However, most economists agree that redistribution of income is a temporary fix, and it's not adressing the main problem.
It wasn't a meme, I was curious about people's opinions on the subject.
4 replies
automation doesnt just create income equality it physically reduces the maximum employed population number significantly. in a capitalistic society its also pretty unstoppable.
idk if most economists agree socialist policies is a temporary fix since theres not much you can do to address the main problem beyond banning automation? regressing technology? how is it a temporary fix anyways. if you have robots to make food/ do medicine/ education, whatever the required processes are then why is that a temporary fix to just allocate income to the general people.
THAT BEING SAID obviously we don't live in such a society yet today and im not in support of most socialist policies today im fairly mainline keynesian in a lot of respects
3 replies
2 replies
sorry i might notve written my comment clearly. the only possible actions you can take to address the direct problem (of automation) is by banning it outright in different industries or by regressing technology to a state where automative technology is not useful. what is your pure capitalistic proposal to address this issue. also automation isnt even entirely bad, you can obviously have greater economic output and still maintain a pseudocapitalist structure if you implement some sort of socialist widespread program
1 reply
The automation itself isn't really a problem here, the problem is that people's skills become obsolete.
In this case better access to education would be the best bet, as improved qualification has been able to keep up with automation some decades ago.
That means cheaper college, courses that teach specific skills and are shorter. The companies are already making some progress, although universities aren't yet.
wsj.com/articles/is-this-the-end-of-coll..
neither of them, they both have too many downsides
Capitalism went too far.
social democracy with strong unions and worker co-ops
Capitalism.
> Business family.
6 replies
Well, Chinese growth relies on massive exploitation of the people.
Life isn't about showing big numbers, what's your massive GDP for if your population lives in hell?
Thanksfully a lot of chinese people have been taken out of poverty this last decade, but seems like now they're "cleaning" the social structure...
If you really are portuguese you would understand that quality of life isn't entirely correlated with economy/GDP. Portugal is a lively country, with a thriving social life, amazing culture, good gastronomy, it's overall a nice place to live, even with little money.
4 replies
The average wages in China have been climbing exponentially in the last 10 years.
Is that exploitation? i wish I was exploited like that here in Portugal.
Everything you saying about Portugal, from what I've seen on social media they have all that: good culture, good gastronomy, nice place to live with little money.
The have all the social benefits you expect from a rich country: free health care, free education, amazing infrastructure, public safety, free markets, investment on the poor states, international cooperation.
Your idea of 2021 China seems a bit dated.
3 replies
"Overtime hours also decreased, however, because of this, workers did not earn enough to sustain their livelihood which forced workers to have no choice but to resign. Factories have also been hiring more temporary workers and dispatch workers, instead of regular workers. "
"The majority of workers in the manufacturing industry are still earning the minimum wage, and can only rely on working long hours to sustain their basic livelihood. They must also be apart from their hometowns and family. "
"They only have one day of rest per month"
Source: chinalaborwatch.org/newscast/683
+ Social credit
+ Concentration camp
+ No freedom
China is closer to a distopia everyday. I have Portuguese friends, I visited them there and trust me, it's a lovely place to live even if it's not an economical giant
2 replies
They are soo far behind, ofc they cant live with western standards atm. You cant just make a rich country in 70 years. What china are doing is insane, and they have lifted every person in China out of absolute poverty. They are fightning to make life better. When you look at China, you must remember that some places like hong kong where people are extremly exploaited, it is because it is not under fully chinese control.
1 reply
Blink twice if CCP threatens you to throw your family in prison if you don't spread propaganda for them.
1 reply
I love Ron, but put aside the joke and the meme, it couuldn't be more wrong. Still one of the best character ever created :D
Both are not good enough
capitalism is objectively the best system it is possible to have. i'm not against welfare and stuff, but that can exist in capitalism. socialism just cannot create wealth for everyone like capitalism can, and it cannot make people actually work hard because there is no incentive to, so it will never work. also, scandinavian countries are still capitalist, so don't use them as an example of good socialist countries.
1 reply
+1
Capitalism, 1000%. Numerous flaws to market socialism, the largest obviously being the structural unemployment it will bring.
2 replies
1 reply
Market socialism will always create structural unemployment, though. If market socialism (essentially workers owning the means of production) were to exist, businesses would be significantly smaller on an individual level and those who are employed would be paid higher salaries and be less likely to be fired (since firing an employee would mean you'd have to pay the worker's equity in the company out), as well as having higher stakes in decision making. In addition to the plethora of conflicts this would bring about in a lot of businesses, there would also be significant social implications to hiring a new employee, as well as costs (every current employee's equity and salary being reduced) that would create a significant reduction in employment. It's simply not an efficient model, and would inevitably lead to reduced output efficiency, translating into lower GDP.
Be thankful for the system we have here in the Nordic countries - it's capitalism but with democratic structures and worker unions in place, which explains our higher wages, more flexible working hours and without the associated structural unemployment and reduced GDP that socialism would bring.
