How has this gone so long here? Education, and it’s oversight… That’s where we failed. Nearly everyone I’ve met in corporate America is too stupid to be where they are, seemingly on purpose. Capitalism was never the issue. It’s always the people, and their lazy greed. Capitalists need regulation. Not capitalism. As long as companies don’t get punished like the entities they fought to be, what change is to be expected?. How does a company get the benifits of a human, but not the detriment? Not everyone is meant to be out there changing the world with their gray matter. However, there are a shit load of unpolished gems out there that just never got taught boilerplate type stuff that they should have in school. Martial rule for a generation at the least. No one wants to begin at the beginning. It seems like the only option though. It’s too hard. Boo fucking hoo. Murder your darlings (like artists). Don’t hate me too hard for this. I’m not even trolling this time.
Capitalism is LITERALLY forcing other people to give away all of their belongings.
In capitalism, you just don’t have any remaining belongings to give away.
Google is a private entity known for problematic practices and associations.
This being said: a decade of underfunded education and propaganda-driven social media bubbles made many people unbelievably sociopathic in their worldview.
I mean the proof is in the pudding.
We can all see how the conservative “pull yourself up by your boostraps trickle down” ideology is working for the majority of our society, including the vast majority of conservatives.
I’m not some tree hugging ultra-lib. But the bottom line is capitalism simply isn’t sustainable. It causes rampant pollution and an ever-widening wealth gap between the haves and have nots. We haven’t even been utilizing capatlism that long in the big picture and it’s already absolutely catastrophic for our environment. It’s just not sustainable. It needs to be HEAVILY regulated if it keeps existing at all. And one thing I know for absolute certain is you get the opposite of regulation when you hire conservatives/regressives.
Wait, wait… Jesus Christ literally said that. No, seriously. It was something like, “if you want to follow me, surrender your Earthly possessions” and “A thief cannot rob your ephemeral wealth, unlike stuff in your house.” Paraphrased poorly, but that’s the gist of it.
Ask your average blue collar Republican voter what they hate about socialism and they will perfectly describe capitalism
Side note: Google is NOT your friend.
Yeah, that sentence aged like milk
Google’s my third biggest enemy.
How about you forego social security and Medicare if you hate socialism so much? No? Thats what I thought.
“Well if you hate Hitler’s genocide, we shouldn’t all have to collectively do something about it. Buy your own gun, get yourself to Germany, and start fighting Nazis yourself!”
That isn’t what socialism is, but it is however exactly what Jesus told people to do. And yet she - a Christian - seems to hold the idea in contempt. Curious.
I don’t love religion, but many churches do make some attempt to help the poor in the areas where they run.
There are a lot of churches that are closer to a mafia with intent and fees.
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism…
They’re just different names for the rich and powerful walking on the backs of the poor.
Even if you voted in Socialism here, it’d just be a new set of faces keeping you down while they drink champagne and fly around in private jets.
Scarcity exists for a reason under every “ism”.
They’re just different names for the rich and powerful walking on the backs of the poor.
No that’s literally the name of capitalism, as capitalism refers to a system where socioeconomic power is primarily concentrated in the hands of a capitalist class, what you call “the rich and powerful.” Their power stems from their richness, and their richness stems from their private control over the means of production, and thus the ability to extract surplus value from the labor of others. As Smith put it, wealth is ultimately the ability to “command” the labor of others.
Even if you voted in Socialism here, it’d just be a new set of faces keeping you down while they drink champagne and fly around in private jets.
I mean, if they did, that’s not the fault of “socialism” but of a charlatan opportunist pretending to be one to trick the workers to enriching themselves.
This would be an equivalent fallacy to claiming that republicanism is equivalent to monarchism because some republican did not actually overthrow the monarchy but kept it in power while benefiting from it. That doesn’t prove that republicanism is a lost cause or equivalent to monarchism, only that the specific republican was a traitor to the cause.
Scarcity exists for a reason under every “ism”.
The existence of scarcity doesn’t imply that your society must be ruled by unelected oligarchs who rule at the expense of everyday working people. Genuinely I have no idea how you make that logical leap.
Have you lived in a socialist or communist country? I have and my experience doesn’t even remotely compare to what you’ve written.
You can talk all day about “the people owning production”, but in the end it’s doublespeak for the government controlling everything - including you.
Have you lived in a socialist or communist country? I have
Which country and what year?
Betting you’re about to make it obvious to everyone that your “experience with socialism” is gonna be experience with post-socialist Neoliberal shock therapy.
The rich don’t give up power easily, but they do steal words and concepts in order to undermine them and keep doing what they’ve always done. Your society never got rid of the rich and powerful, and you called it socialism anyway. That’s your problem.
Yeah just like capitalism/merchant guilds didn’t actually boot out the aristocracy. It shook things up a bit, but they hung on by doing a rebrand.
Let me guess, you’re from Mexico and 15 years old, and want to tell me about the horrors of living under socialism.
Like after the French Revolution other people just became the rich ruling class.
But its not the “ism”, it’s the corrupt people that gain and warp the power to benefit of themselves.
That’s the whole problem with any system.
Back in the day, workers in the USA captured 25% of GDP. Now we capture less than 7%, and that number is dwindling. Even with dual incomes we’re still getting less than a single paycheck did a generation or two ago.
It’s always the greed. And sadly, some people actually say “greed is good” and mean it.
“Google is your friend.”
It might be her friend but it isn’t ours!
It’s not “ignorance.” They know better. They pretend not to.
Trust me, most people actually not know how socialism or communism work, i tried to ask to many and everyone (except maybe 2 people) do not know what either of them are
Most people have a vague “the government tells you what to do in every aspect of life” sense of communism, and think socialism is like decaffeinated that.
If you come at it without using the words, and the audience is labor, you can usually get them on board. “If your boss doesn’t even go into the office and makes seven figures off your work, and you make five, how does that feel?”
Of course, some people are so conservative they’re happy to stay in their lower tier of the hierarchy.
Most people have a vague “the government tells you what to do in every aspect of life” sense of communism, and think socialism is like decaffeinated
Yet they are completely oblivious to the fact that this government is telling everyone else what to and not to do in every aspect of their life…while robbing taxpayers blind
It’s like the old “every conservative accusation is a confession” thing.
When they say “the communists want to make you work in a factory for 12 hours a day with no pay”, that’s what they want to do.
I genuinely believe that most of the people who argue against socialism/communism like this have absolutely no idea what they actually are. Anything that isn’t the status quo is immediately labeled socialism (communism if it’s really different) and that means it’s bad.
I have a “Libertarian” brother who likes to talk politics all the time but we can’t get even a basic conversation going because he labels “socialism” onto any government action or even innocuous things he doesn’t. Modern China - socialist; Nazi Germany - socialist; Mitt Romney - socialist; bike lanes - socialism; DEI - socialism; Federal Reserve Bank - socialist; electric cars - socialism; flock cameras - socialism; flouridating water - socialism; daylight savings - socialist; Popeyes chicken sandwiches - socialist; sourdough bread - socialist; you get the idea.
I’ve gone through multiple times patiently explaining that words have meaning and you can use these however you want with your little right wing group, but if you want people outside that group to understand you then you need to understand what other people use that word to mean. Everytime I think I got through and start the discussion and suddenly he’ll say fiat currency or the Clean Air Act is socialist so we move on to non-political topics.
By all means, keep giving the worst people on the planet the benefit of the doubt
I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I’m calling them out as uneducated. They’re victims of American propoganda.
Que?
You’re getting the people who make the propaganda confused with the people who are targeted by the propaganda
If they are fuckwits on THAT level and the rest of you can’t manage to stop or outmaneuver them, that doesn’t really reflect well on “the resistance,” such as it is.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I don’t see any lesson here. If you aren’t willing to spend your own resources on welfare of others, why would you support government spending your resources on welfare? It’s a valid argument.
Because you and the person in the post have the same misconception of what socialism is.
Welfare state =/= socialism.
The government already takes our money. We want our money to be used to benefit working-class people, not used to build child rape islands, bomb half the globe, and carry out industrial-scale holocausts in our name.
We want our money to be used to benefit working-class people
No. Most people want their tax money to be spent on things that benefit everyone. Like infrastructure, police, legal framework, defence, research ect. Socialist style welfare specifically takes away from the working class and funds everyone else.
It’s basically the same as any other rule: if everyone follows the rule, you get a better result than when the thing is voluntary.
Imagine there are no taxes and no welfare programs. Spending resources on the welfare of others is entirely voluntary.
Let’s say 20% of the population does this. What happens? The 20% of the population which is the most altruistic has fewer resources, some of which was given to the 80% least altruistic people.
If you do this repeatedly, what happens? The least altruistic people end up with the vast majority of resources. This is bad.
What do we do instead? We establish a governmental welfare program, and we make everyone contribute to it, regardless of whether they’re altruistic or not.
Or
The workers actually own the means of production directly and welfare is made largely unnecessary, excepting disability, then you abolish the useless state.
No state, who enforces this?
deleted by creator
It’s not even about “spending your own resources on others”. Its about where the government spends YOUR money.
If I pay $100 dollars in income tax (for example), is the government spending that $100 dollars on MY healthcare, MY roads, MY sewage and water lines, MY roads.
Or is the government handing my $100 dollars off to private contracts who are then profit motivated to spend only $20 dollars providing those services so that they can keep as much of it as possible?
Socialism isn’t “free stuff” or directly paying for other peoples stuff. It’s about making sure the tax dollars are spent on US. When that happens, a surplus results that allows us to help others who are struggling.
Because the government won’t let you die. Say that person that said “I’m opting out” loses their job and maybe gets a chronic sickness. Now they have no disability, no food stamps, no medical. They’re literally dead if they don’t have someone they know willing to support them.
Say one family member works and the other is a stay at home spouce and they have 2 kids. Same thing happens, except they’re all fucked. Can’t use the resources because “you opted out of that stupid shit”.
Everyone wants to not pay into it until they need it. I’m not saying it’s handled the best, not it keeps people from dying.
Economy of scale.
