I'm against socialism, apparently I'm an idiot. Ask me nothing.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.


socialism doesn't exist, WE don't own anything WE don't democratically control anything, we live in a capitalist Machevellian society, and WE just do as we are told. The quicker people realize this then the quicker we can get off our "fat arses" and do something about it.
Rant over!

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: DBCowboy
But please, for the love of all things holy, don't ever try to silence people who disagree with you.

Why not?

Although I am all for free speech I understand tht others may not be. That is their ideal. You can't just agree to disagree and go on.

Others who are not for free speech tend towards authoritarian views anyway.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Fishy

About that wage idea:

I wonder if a guaranteed wage is truly good when you weigh it out? I think that my position would look to an outsider like a staunch fiscal conservative but social liberal who is not a republican as i am a Libertarian, and IMHO think that some form of minimum wage seems reasonable.

Especially, when you consider the slaves in the Eastern Communist/Socialist/Democratic Socialist systems who must be in hell. But caution is needed as there is a breaking point. It happens when it becomes cheaper to replace your job with robots or immigrants who were slave labor in their former life or sweat shop victims seeking a better life. Then, we've priced ourselves out of the market's ability to justify paying us.

I think there's a misunderstanding. The basic income would not be up to your employer to pay, unless that employer were the state. It would be paid by the state, to everyone who is legally an adult. Even incarcerated felons, who would have the choice and ability to send that money to their spouses or kin.

Regardless whether they already make any money or not.

To pay for this basic / guaranteed income the required money would simply be issued ex nihilo. So it would be irrelevant whether or not some illegal or legal immigrant can do my job cheaper than me.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Fishy
Easy for me to see how all hell will break loose on you and I alike when robots take all our jobs because they are a one time fee with minimum expense to maintain.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Do you mean we should be ready to compete with / against robots and computers running software?

originally posted by: Kalixi
Weren't the Nazis socialists? NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers Party
The Socialists were the ones that invaded Australia and killed the Aboriginals because they didn't fit into the distopic Socialist society they envisioned.
Does Nth Korea still align itself under the socialist dear Leader?

In a perfect Socialist society everyone works and contributes. In a real society some people are lazy, some are sick, some are old and they can't work. The Nazis killed a lot of these people as well as the Jews.

I remember reading 1984 and being sh*t scared. It seems people today like to sit behind screens sending hate out to anyone they disagree with. They have become their own Thought Police.

I don't know anyone who walks into a supermarket and says "I disagree with Capitalism. There's just too much choice here!!"

There's an old adage "If you're a Conservative in your 20s you're heartless. If you're a Socialist in your 40s you're an idiot".

This objection (lazy people choosing not to contribute) is quickly becoming irrelevant, due to automation. Moreover, capitalism has always operated with an excess production.

I can prove to you mathematically that capitalism cannot afford to purchase its own production. Even if we were to take 19th or 18th century capitalism as a study example but all the more so today.

And because capitalism cannot afford to purchase its own production, the money supply has to keep growing perpetually to cover the purchasing power deficit. And, because of the law of diminishing returns, the growth must be geometrical rather than linear.

I tried discussing and explaining this to economics professors but their heads just explode.

Also, just because there are several different manufacturers making a kind or type of product does not automatically mean you're getting competition or real choice. The differences may be label deep.

And if you want competition in socialism all you need to do is to have two or more research, development and design bureaus for each and every single type of good you'd care to manufacture in your socialist society and make them compete with one another without letting the design bureau that loses the competition or even a bout of competitions go bankrupt. But give the employees of the other one prizes and bonuses.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Konduit

They are literally priming this country for Socialism.

Who is they?

I will offer that it is the Progressive/Communists who are. They were entrenched in the western world by the Soviet regime and there have been defectors who have shared the plans with the western world.

Here is one example of how these people have been mobilized against the citizens of free lands

www.nytimes.com...


There was a Russian spy who revealed that the plan has always been to undermine capitalism by using social upheaval to incrementally move the political middle from the center. From what i can tell from history they were doing this until the right of center was considered right wing nut job for those who followed the false narrative. Basically redefining reality as we see almost daily with the PC media.

What's simpler? Your explanation or the one that the corporations are just maximising their profit by any means they can?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Others who are not for free speech tend towards authoritarian views anyway.

Says the person telling people what to do.

Your point?

a reply to: daskakik

My point?

I don't particularly like people trying to tell me not to express my opinion.

The only thing I'm "telling" people to do is to kiss my ass if they don't like it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't particularly like people trying to tell me not to express my opinion.

The only thing I'm "telling" people to do is to kiss my ass if they don't like it.

No, you said "But please, for the love of all things holy, don't ever try to silence people who disagree with you."

They may not agree with you. It's a catch 22.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok, you win. Silence people who disagree with you.

SMH

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Ok, you win. Silence people who disagree with you.

SMH

What are you shaking your head about? I said that I am for free speech. I'm not trying to silence anyone but there are those who don't agree with you and feel you should be silenced.

Asking them "pretty please with sugar on top don't be like that" isn't going to change anything and thinking that it would is naive.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Comendable. If only everyone were so enterprising.

Though the issue still stands, there are far too many who don't have access to the same opportunities. In regards to investments you need money to make money, which most people just don't have these days. The few jobs that are available only provide enough to maintain a basic standard of living rather than provide savings for the future.

I think socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders is advocating is to make the wealthy 1% pay their fair share of taxes. That doesn't mean they get charged the same tax rate, but more than the average Joe. Someone who rakes in billions a year can afford to lose a few million more than usual, at least. Whereas someone who barley rakes in $50,000 should not be required to forfeit nearly a third of their income if not more.

Equality is despairingly unbalaced in the US and needs to be addressed immediately lest your entire infrastructure collapse, which will surely affect the rest of us...

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I think socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders is advocating is to make the wealthy 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

What's fair about it?

a reply to: TheTory

Not exactly sure what your query is... the point is they're not paying their fair share.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I think socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders is advocating is to make the wealthy 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

What's fair about it?

Wealth is created by the entire population, hence the entire population should have a fair share of that wealth.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I think socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders is advocating is to make the wealthy 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

What's fair about it?

Wealth is created by the entire population,

No it isn't.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Whew.

The last few days has been intense here. Not like the usual fun. people have been private messaging me to not post anymore. Apparently my view on socialism is taboo.

I disagree with it.

Look, people have different views, and we can all disagree, but good gravy, to silence me? I'm just a fat old man on the internet doing something to pass the time while I transition into retirement.

And I get hate mail? hahahahahahahahaha

I'm a nobody.

I'm nothing. Just a fart in a tornado.

If you guys want socialism, then suppress your neighborhood and go for it!
Tax your dog 500%!
Beat your neighbor, but do it for the state so you can get extra cheese next time you're in line.

But kiss my fat hairy ass if you want me to accept it.

Really.

Kiss it.

Use gloss.

Rant over, but I hope I was able to convey my feelings without harming anyone's safe space.

Lol - use gloss/priceless! Thanks for the laugh

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Wealth is created by the entire population,

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. Even the bum in the street consumes and therefore enriches others. And the fact that he or she does not work is irrelevant: nor does the multi-millionaire.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I think socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders is advocating is to make the wealthy 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

What's fair about it?

Wealth is created by the entire population, hence the entire population should have a fair share of that wealth.

This^

That's is why there are no rich men on deserted atolls or uncharted islands.

Money has no intrinsic value. It only has value in and because of society.

Leave Trump stranded in the desert with umpteen millions of dollars in cash in briefcases but don't let anyone know he's there or leave him any means of calling for help then check back in a week and see if he's still alive, let alone wealthy.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I think socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders is advocating is to make the wealthy 1% pay their fair share of taxes.

What's fair about it?

Wealth is created by the entire population,

No it isn't.

His general point stands. No one grows rich by themselves. It takes a lot of people's work to give value to Trumps money or to build his physical fortune / properties.

Rich people accrued their wealth. They do not create it themselves, despite fairytales to the contrary.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

It's not commendable. It's self reliance. It's a shame when something so simple, something that used to be done practically everywhere, is so rare now.

And if you think that an advent of socialism will only tax a few billionaires, then you are very misguided.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Wealth is created by the entire population, hence the entire population should have a fair share of that wealth.

I don't see how that is possible, neither logically nor empirically. Simply being a part of a population does not generate more wealth. If that was the case, having a child would bring wealth to any given society.