Topic: It's time for EUROPE to become SOCIALIST (Read 684 times)

I agree with you, we shouldn't force countries into socialsm. In my opinion most of the people don't want a socialst state and would never vote for it. Politicians maybe have some leniency to adjust policies in their own will but once the next election comes they probably will be removed from power. 

Seems like I managed to get an entire thread deleted with a post.  It was about America --to-->Communist, but it's basically the same thing.  Lemme see if I can get this thread nuked too

Israel Premier David Ben-Gurion in a statement published in the current issue of Look magazine
https://www.jta.org/1962/01/04/archive/ben-gurion-foresees-gradual-democratization-of-the-soviet-union:

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy.

“Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.

“In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India, And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.”

http://www.whale.to/b/hate_q.html


And for some context/defense of the quote from a very appreciated informant for me, committed kabbalahist Doreen Dotan:

https://doreendotansarchive.blogspot.com/2009/11/

Its time for socialist to move to a socialist place and get away from normal humans.

BTW, what are you doing on bitcoin forum.

That is not quite correct. The UK didn't leave because they don't want immigration. They left because they don't want unelected and unaccountable outside bureaucrats to decide their immigeation (and everything else) for them.

And what's wrong with each sovereign country deciding their own policies anyway?

The EU supposedly started as an economic alliance with mist everyone under the same currency to faciliate commerce. Now it has turned into a gigantic bureaucracy that thinks it should control everyone.

Just right now we can see again that Europe is very far from being a socialist union. A lot of immigrants stranded in Greece needs to be resettled but there is no unity. The European Union lags a general approach towards immigration. The member states are very divided. You have Greece, Italy and Spain who want help in managing the large numbers of immigrants. You have countries like Germany and France who are willing to help out but are looking for a unified approach. And then you have countries who are against immigration. UK for example left EU because of this. Then there is the far right of Poland, Hungary, Sweden, Austria who are vetoing any common approach. This will be the downfall of the EU eventually.

Why is your State having military operations abroad in the first place? Yes the "free market" warfare was traditionally called mercenaries, today they use the "civil contractors" or a similar euphemism.

In "true" communism there is no State and no military, everyone is armed and willing to defend their home, not invade others to forcibly seize the means of production "liberate" the workers from the "shackles of capitalism".

Socialism is about a bigger State, the State owning the means of production, because that is somehow more fair. The larger the State you make, the less willing to go it is. Also, the individual freedoms get in the way of the almighty State, so those need to go.

In paper it sounds "beautiful", in practice its a never ending, self feeding corruption machine that makes everything much worse than people's pursue of wealth for selfish reasons, for some reason socialists cannot comprehend, and yet it always happens.

Socialists do not understand human nature. To try their theories, they need those pesky humans to be less human and more robots. Some even theorize the perfect ruler to be some AI, but this AI would quickly find the humans unreliable...

The social construct of money and the whole system of the market, capitalism, yadda, with all its "faults" its still better than anything else tried to this day anywhere. And it happens to solve many things peacefully and efficiently.

With socialism you are forced to enforce your new rules, because people don't like being told what to do. Unfortunately this doesn't escalate very well, and you get more bureaucracy to make sure those new rules are enforced and more to watch over those that watch them being enforced...

Conveniently, everything grinds into a halt, unless you somehow can make those officials move in your favor. In the name of Socialism, those with more wealth (the means of bribe) are the only ones that can make things done, certainly not the even more impoverished masses.

Humans don't always want to share, and you are pointing a gun at them so they "share". And then those in power form an elite doing, surprise, surprise, the same decadent egoistical things again: Not sharing.

So as long as you maintain a State, you maintain a caste of parasites "not sharing". Doesn't matter if they proclaim themselves as "socialists" and give charismatic speeches and wave red flags. Its all the same, the filth repeats over and over again.

In the end, socialism attempts to end poverty, by making everyone poorer, give freedom, by seizing it, etc, etc...

You need to read the Communist manifesto by Carl Marx. Socialism doesn't mean something I disagree with. Socialism and communism have very clean definitions completely unrelated to my wishes.
When the government controls, finances, or owns the education system, that is socialism. I'm not saying this, Carl Marx said it.
Now maybe you like socialist education, maybe the entire world (except me) likes socialist education. And maybe the entire world can decide to rename it 'public education'. But it's still socialism. It has nothing to do with me and you approving of it or not.

So be honest with yourself. You may decide that you like government financed and government controlled education. But that doesn't make it any less socialist, just because you like it, or just because most people like it. It's still socialism.

Most socialists are hell bent on renaming it 'public education' to hide the true mechanism of it. Don't be a hypocrit like the rest of them.
 

Not sure who you were addressing your post to. But I'll assume it was me.


I'm not a big fan of 'public opinion' and what most people want or believe. The undertone is that this is what most people think and there is something wrong with you if you don't follow most people. Perhaps you are not a team player?

I am a grown ass man for crying out loud, not a sheep who blindly follows most people.


I would never claim, nor would I care if my ideas were popular or not. There is something very wrong with saying that your position is popular. As if pupolarity could lend legitimacy to anything.


Socislism is not absolute. You don't wake up one morning and your newscast suddenly announces that today is tge first day of socislism. Socialism is most often a process, incidious, deceptive, and gradual.

And to simply put it, the USA has very strong elements of socialism. You might try to tell me that is what must people want, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the USA has very strong elements of socialism, and it's getting gradually worst.

The textbook definition of socialism is government either controlling or owning the means of production.

Does your government control, own, or finances health care and education? If so, you would be more accurate to call it socialist education and socialist health care instead of public education and single payer health care.

Socialists know that most people don't like socialism. So they rename everything in a more palatable and easier way to swallow.

Public education sounds so much better than socialist education, doesn't it?

And single payer health care also sounds so much better than socialist health care, no?

But they are the same thing.


Government controlling and financing the education system is the textbook definition of socialist education. It's not dependent on my opinion of it. It doesn't matter if 99.999% of the population like it or not, it's still socialism.

So at least be honest with yourself and call it what it is: socialist education, not 'public education'.


I have no idea what that means. You don't need to use public services to make money.

If you use public services, you are not making money, you are costing money to the tax payers.


Wake the fuck up already. The millitary industrial complex already catters to corporations and special interest. In fact one could argue it's already controlled by special interest.

The constitution only allows the government to raise a millitary in times of emergency, in times of war. It doesn't allow for a perpetual standing army.

“Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
 George Washinton, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Chandler Price, February 28, 1807

“War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances...that no human wisdom can calculate the end. It has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes.”
Thomas Paine, Prospects on the Rubicon, 1787

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787

And the fact and the matter is, the USA doesn't really need an army at all. Just allow every citizen to be armed as he pleases without arbitrary restrictions. And nobody will ever dare to attack the USA.

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to unknown recipient, February 25, 1803

Don't base everything off of the people you know.  Most people support public healthcare and education which is why almost every industrialized nation have both.  Have your opinion but at least be honest about the fact that you are in the minority.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-education/2020/02/03/new-poll-finds-majority-of-voters-support-public-education-784977

What makes the country socialist?  Is it the moment things you don't agree on being funded collectively become collectively funded, the nation is socialist? So socialist just means you not getting your way? 

Money is social construct.  "making money" is an arbitrary metric that depends on use of public services.  Who would lose out if we let the free market control our military operations abroad?

What I'd add to that is socialists want lazy socialism with the government helping them to survive and they want their inability to make money be compensated by the rich, who already made money, or inherited it because their parents or grandparents knew how to make money.
Paying for military from taxes is not socialism. Some things can be agreed upon and financed collectively, which doesn't make the country socialist.
I'm a libertarian, but I know a lot of people with different political views and most of them oppose social security and believe healthcare, education and savings should be in the private sector and compete in a free market system.

That is to say despite being a socialist state they were as liberal towards the political and economic positions of the western countries as they were ideologically aligned with the countries of the soviet union and eastern europe. Politically the division between eastern europe and western europe was drawn on the basis of the socialist structure that existed in various european countries until the nineties especially in eastern european countries.

In the end it amounts to having a strong State tell people what to do, than letting them freely choose in a free market economy. Its no wonder some people advocate for getting rid of the State and having them govern themselves.

In any case Europe is pretty much socialist, so demanding more socialism just means having the State confiscate even more freedoms from individuals.

There are varying degrees of socialism. But the textbook definition is government either owning or controlling the means of production. So the government doesn't need to own it or finance it for it to be called socialism. If a government legislates it to the tits, it's socialism.

Do you know any area of your life that isn't legulated/permitted/licenced/taxed/regulated/subsidized by government?

Look up the 10 planks of communism. You will find they are all present to varying degrees within the USA.

You probably could make the arguement that other countries are more socialist than the USA. And that would probably be true for all nations outside North Korea. But make no mistakes about it, the USA is a socialist state.


Fuck that! There is no acceptable 'balance' of socialism anymore than there is an acceptable 'balance' of Nazism. Down with all forms of socialism.

I am with you on this one socialism is not the answer to all our economic problems. We have seen many countries in the past trying socialism and fail. Its just no long term solution because it will make a country and its economy less competitive in the long run. Which doesn't mean that all form of socialism is bad. Having a universal unemployment insurance or health insurance or retirement plans is a hood thing for a country. We need to balance socialism with capitalism.

I'm not promoting socialism. I am the furthest thing away from socialism.
I oppose socialism. This is why I am telling you the USA has strong socialist elements and becoming more socialist increasingly over the years.

And a free market can not be regulated. Else it's no longer a free market.
Government will always point to problems real or percieved within a certain area of life, than claim that they must interveed or else the bogeyman will get us all.

You can also pretend as if every socialist country hasn't turned into a dystopian hell hole. Socialism is a pure economic system that ceases private enterprise and turns over all means of production to the government with communal ownership. It is impossible to have private enterprise in a socialist nation and the U.S. has all sorts of private entities, so no, not socialist at all.

Nice try though


You probably don't know this, but did you know that any capitalistic society is regulated to ensure a free and fair market, aka no monopoly? Regulation exists in every capitalistic society. Doesn't make it socialism.

You can say that having socislist programs doesn't make a country socialist. But it's as meaningless as saying I ate a ceasar salad, therefore I am vegan/vegetarian.

Progressive and aggreisive taxation (meaning the tax rate increases as you make more money) is 100% a socialist concept. That we should tax the most productive people to give to the least productive ones is also 100% a socialist concept right out of the communist manifesto. You can try to tell yourself all you want that the USA is not a socialist system. But the USA has adopted strong socialist tendencies. Call it what you want - partial socialism, hidden socialism, whatever. But those are still socialism programs.

Please, give me one activity you can do in the USA without government taxing/permitting/licensing/subsidizing/regulating/standardizing it.

Wanna talk dirty to your girlfriend on the phone? Government is listening and saving your conversation. They are also regulating your phone and your cell network up to.the tits too.

"So it's a stupid cop out to say "socialist programs don't make a country socialist"." You literally contradict yourself here. If adopting a public library system doesn't make a country socialist, how the hell is what I said a cop out?

By your definition of "social programs = socialist", by this logic, tax rates, free market regulations, are all "socialist". In any free market system, regulations exist to ensure a fair free market. That isn't socialist at all. In the same note, public utilities does not mean socialism. The U.S. has social security and medicare, two "socialist" programs, doesn't make the U.S. socialist.


Nah, I'm good. Not like socialism/communism has led every nation that has tried it to utter failure and dictatorship.



Having "socialist" programs does not make a nation socialist which is my entire point. You can argue all you want about the labeling of what type of program it is. A socialist nation presumably would have commerce, yes? Does that make a socialist nation capitalist? Nope.

Of course a country adopting a public library system or public water works doesn't make the country instantaniously a socialist system..But a public library is a socialist program and public education is a sociaoist program.

In my country today, right now, we have socialized road system, socialized libraries, socialized post office, socialized welfare system, socialized retorement, socialized health care, socialized gun control, socialized pretty much everything.
You can't point to a single thing you can do in my country without government taxing it, regulating it, permitting it, licensing it, subsidizing it, and legislating it.

So it's a stupid cop out to say "socialist programs don't make a country socialist".

I suggest you read the communist manifesto by Carl Marx. In it you will find the 10 planks of communism, or if you prefer the 10 items needed to implement communism. Virtually every western country has slready implemented those 10 planks to varying degress.

So you'd be hard pressed to claim you are not at sll living in a socialist country.


But of course capitalism and socialist programs are at odds woth each other.
Capitalism is essencially free market and socialist programs are about forcing everyone into paying for the government programs. They are directly at odds with each other.

A socialist program like public libraries doesn't turn a country suddenly into a socialist state anymore than me eating kale makes me a vegetarian. But socialist public libraries and centralized government armies are socialist programs none the less. And they run counter to capitalism and the principal of free market.

You can't point a gun at my head to force me to pay for your socialist programs and keep pretending you are not implementing a socialist system.

try to note that recently Europe is experiencing a fairly large demo. The main indicator is that left-wing activists are trying to provoke an incident. so for me it is still too far if Europe becomes socialist if problems are not resolved and anticipated. Moreover, this concerns ethnicity, especially ethnic minorities

Conflicts will continue in the world until we learn to live like People, helping each other, without splitting into groups.

Capitalists are not socialists. This is like saying because there are exchanges in a socialist society for commerce, that means socialists are capitalists. You can't have it both ways.

Social programs doesn't make a country socialist. This is the whataboutism argument that socialists will make -- they'll say look at Nordic countries as an example of socialist when the reality is they have heavy social programs fitted among a culturally homogeneous nation. They're still capitalistic, despite a high effective tax rate. There's still private commerce, business ownership, ect.

Just because the U.S. might have the military or local PD funded by tax payer money doesn't mean it's a socialist system they support. Public utilities and capitalism aren't at odds.

Socialists keep finding problems everywhere, wither real or perceived. And their only solution to these problems is always more government. Some people have more money than others? Get government involved. Pollution, global warming, viruses, banks failing, you name it, more government is always the socialist solution.

Never mind that wherever you are, your government is operating under a crushing dept that is so large it can never be repaid. This goes to show how inneffictive and wasteful government programs are.


When you claim something should be handled by government, what you are basically saying is that you want it, or you need it, so you think governme t should steal from other people via taxation to give to you.


You obviously don't understand who capitslism means. Capiralism is eseencially free market. But as a socialist you don't really understand the idea of free market. To a socialist, if government doesn't legislate it, tax it, regulate it, permit it, license it, or subsidize it, it becomes not free market, but black market.



Again, you don't understand what capitalism means.


What's with the bootlicking stuff and you? Libertarians just want to be left alone. If they are not hurting anyone else, they want government out of their lives.

What's that got to do with licking boots?

Still never met a socialist who thinks EVERYTHING should be controled by the government but that is the strawman of choice amongst bootlickers.  Most of us believe necessities should be controled by the government and there is a lot of diversity about what constitutes a necessity and if control means funding or production.  

Capitalists already are socialists because they almost unanimously believe the government should fund their security via the military, their risk via bailouts, their overhead via public infrastructure, and their employee benefit costs via social security.

So at the end of the day, socialists want socialism, capitalists want socialism, and its really just bootlicking libertarians who want pure captialism.

That is an absurd statement. You don't get nothing for free. What happens is that government forces other peopke to pay taxes so that you can get your meds bought and paid for by people who are more productive than you are. In other words, you stole those meds from people who have more money than yourself, or rather, you used government to steal from them.

And that is the very essence of socialism; to punish people who are more productive with heavy taxes, and to reward people who are less productive with free shit paid for by the productive ones.

Ir's not too hard to see where that eventually ends up. Now all your manufacturers and employers have left. You don't have anything not made in China or Taiwan anymore.

But you just keep bitching about thise who have more than yourself. See how much deeper that will get ya.

That is very typical of socialists: to demonize and vilify anyone who has more than themselves to push for more government control of everything.

When covid first started out a guy made the news on the internet in my country. He bought $20k of toilet paper, enought to fill up his basement and garage.
And within a week, there was a big shortage of toilet paper all over the country. For some odd reason, people were rushing out to buy not food, not masks, not vitamins, but toilet paper. For about two weeks my family had to use old rags to wipe our bums.

The thing is, that guy saw that there would be a demand in toilet paper. And he banked on it. Unfortunately for him, the TP shortage only lasted a couple of weeks. And so he was stuck with a house full of TP and no buyers.

In the states, after a big hurricane in Florida, one guy loaded his truck with generators and proceeded to head to Florida where he was going to sell them at a premium. But the feds stopped him, accused him of hoarding and price gouging, and prevented him from selling his very needed generators.

So basically, people in Florida were denied access to generators because socialists wanted to demonize people who want to offer a service for profit.

This is how a healthy economy works: people identify where a a need or a want arises, and act in a manner to fill that need.

And in a way, many of you on here are just the same with Bitcoin. You are hoarding Bitcoin right now in the hopes that someone at a later time will be desperate enough to buy it from you at x time the price you paid. Now, aren't you the evil capitalist here?

Just this summer, a neigboring town suffered a big hail. Over 3000 homes with broken windows and over 6000 cars with hail damage. That's good for me, I sell and install windows. So I headed on over to that town and I worked for very profitable contracts. People left and right were throwing money at me, begging me to install windows on their homes. I worked for at least 3x more money than I usually get fir about 3 months. I just came back home last week. What exactly would you want me to do? To sell my windows to the lowest bidder? Someone here doesn't understand how to run a business.

very charitable, wasn't she?

except for giving away what wasn't hers...

I do agree with you about how it's a bad thing that the UK is run by the Eton/Oxbridge elite, and how they are entitled to run the country not on merit, not on talent, but on happening to be born to wealthy parents from 'elite' establishment families. This is a huge problem (and I think largely because we didn't have a 'French-style' revolution).

But we seem to have differing opinions on the EU. It's not perfect, but I see it as a restraining mechanism that acts to thwart some of the worst ambitions of the Eton/Oxbridge set. The Tories who are most rabidly fervent about leaving are the ultra-right who are desperate to free themselves from EU oversight so that they can dismantle workers' (and human) rights, and further entrench their own privileges. Leaving the EU delivers us even further into their grasp than we are already.

you should not mix socialism and communism, China is hardly having socialism, which is perfectly nurtured in Scandinavian countries, where state is providing socially responsible actions and freedom
China is an example of mixed communism and capitalism, where is normal to work 50+ hours a week, which Scandinavians are trying to reduce their week to 30 hours, a real progress in life conditions

and most of Europe is near to socialism, where social-democratic parties are in the lead, expect some Eastern European countries, where social-nationalist parties are in the lead

Actually it isn't. The arch-Oxford globalist, Margaret Thatcher and successors gave it to housing associations, and they are morphing into property development companies. She also gave a lot of out national assets to the City of London bankers.

Yes its also considered as a socialist because they are also serving for their nation and working to be a great Netherland.

We can't say about all European countries, but about the united kingdom is on the path on socialism because the British government-owned the largest manufacturing in such industries as autos and steel. Much of the housing is government-owned. And they also work in a good education for their citizens.

Though they don't use that word, most of the European nations are socialist for quite a time now. The concept of socialism were founded and nurtured in Europe.
Some European would win over China if there were any rankings for socialist nations.

The elite was always around, in any form of government. If you look at communism, socialism, capitslism, they all have a wealthy group controlling everything. In my opinion it's all the same in the end. In USA we have corporate billionaires, in russia we have the oligarch and in China we have the communist party. In the end it's just people who hold the power and want to stay in power. It's the same ideas behind everything, controlling the average joe and keep him busy with his little problems while the few elitist keep getting richer.

great american dream is the illusion

because you cant get your dream unless your asleep in bed


maybe the 'great american life' should be the slogan. atleast thats more attainable and actually based in real physical life and not imagination/hopes/memory/thought

when people talk aboutdreams and hopes they are not talking about plans and projects
this is why even 57 years on MLK's dream is still not fully reality
because its been 57 years of dreamers

hopes and dreams should be plans and actions
but if people started talking about plans instead of hopes it would upset the elitists, so the elitists want people to only have hopes and dreams.


its like democracy
saying people deserve the right to vote. is like saying people deserve the right to choose their slave owner
no where does it say people deserve the right to control

elistists dont want competition. they dont want people controlling who the leaders are. they want people to vote in middlemen and have the middlemen choose the elitests
where the middle men only get voted in if they have well funded campaigns to get noticed enough to be voted in

MP's are not the elitist but they get paid by elitists so while they pass on sugestiions of peoples dreams they are not the actual power to action those dreams. that comes from the higher up tier

When the game is rigged it's time to change the game so yeah no matter what my past is , my Political views stays the same ...
How poisoned modern society with the "Great  American  Dream" ... ?
It's time to say to the so called American Dream go f..uk your self  back to America and your Hollywood h,...s Europe does not need you ..we can build our own nukes to protect our self..
Like communism the "american dream" is just stupid propaganda ...

 

  

economics

socialism :- treasury money given to the average
capitalism:-treasury money given to the elite
authoritarianism:- treasury money spent on the rich political leaders
libertarianism:- survival of the fittest no help from treasury no input into treasury you keep what you earn

It's hard to get rich these days but socialism is usually for the rich. Therefore we work hard to eliminate all these we will be free from corruption and socialism in Europe will be eliminated. Socialist ownership of the means of production is its economic basis. Socialism overthrows private ownership and eliminates human exploitation economic crisis and unemployment opening up the desert for the planned development of the productive forces and the full development of relations of production. The aim of social production during the period of socialism was to increase the prosperity of the people and to bring about the overall development of every member of the society.

I'm not surprised you want other people's money as you're broke:


I bet if you had a lot of money you wouldn't be saying the same.

I'm sorry for you man, but socialist societies are not those paradises that those who defend them imagine. When some sort of socialism works it is because it is mixed with a certain degree of freedom in the economy, so there  is a competitive private sector and also some redistribution of wealth to the disadvantaged. But most of this redistribution goes from the middle class to the poor class and not from "the rich" to the poor class, as is often sold.

in europe people dont buy medical treatment. people get it through the NHS for FREE

i know your stupidly reading american conspiracy scripts. especially when you use the american currency.
but try to have an independant thought about the realities of actual UK

your starting to get too obvious your thoughts are coming from fiction sites not factual sites


.....

anyway
yes eurupe has strong ties to the capitalist tax havens where by most of the tax income into treasury is from the working classes not the uber rich.

however socialism is not just about who pays in.. but also what the funds are used for
if europe took away the military offense(invading other countries) and only funded military defense(within its borders)
that would free up alot of funds
if europe stopped supporting other continents 'relief donations' and instead kept the money for its on citizens then the lifestyle of its citizens would increase

yes using tax money to fund raising the living standards of the working class and not funding R&D grants for 'for profit' corporations would help
but thinking that europes healthcare systems are 'for profit' where people have to buy healthcare with their credit card.. just shows you have not got out the house and seen the real world in the UK where you live. and instead just taking some american conspiracy script as your reality

It's difficult to have a daughter-of-federal-reserve-banker mother who is in the same 'fraternal organization' as the president of IBM and who can ask said president to buy your son's operating system and bundle it with their new 8088-based personal computer platform.  Especially if said son doesn't actually have an OS to sell.  If one achieves that, one still has to come up with an operating system.  Just have to come up with $80k to buy 'Quick-n-Dirty OS', itself a knock-off of Gary Kindell's CP/M, from the computer shop down the street.  And re-name it something like MSDOS.

As far as I can see Gates was coddled and bailed out of his own stupid mistakes (e.g., Microsoft's reaction to 'the internent') numerous times and had a lot of help at various junctures in order to 'become rich'.  He also seems to be of 'pure-breed stock' so to speak.  It's possible that these two things are related.  Indeed, it seems unlikely that they are not.

Actually a fair number of today's ultra-wealthy seem to have a similar lineage profile when one digs down into it.

What do you mean by Europe? Russia and Great Britain are European countries, but they are not members of the EU.

Is that mask any worse than pharma and banking billionaires paying over $1 billion for a yacht. Especially as the money is made from debt slavery, or selling over priced poisons through the medical services.

I'm not sure you understand that the only way for socialism programs to be present in a country is through a large amount of tax revenue, which would mean you'd rely on businesses, rich people, middle class, and poor people to provide the proper revenue for these programs.

That's disregarding for a moment that most European nations are socialist. Not sure what exactly here you're fighting for, but I see that you don't really understand how hard it is to become rich.

Jeff Bezos isn't some guy who was rich  (see link)and even if he was -- he's turned it into 130B worth of assets. Not sure what you're fighting for here.

Stop being jealous man. Why do you care that he bought something like that? He has probably contributed more to the society than you could ever do in your whole life. He used his brain to get those money. He worked harder than you did.

According to your quote which for some reason can't be linked to the original poster, there's nothing wrong with it and in fact, he actually helped workers get job, distributed fiat currency, and made jealous people like you rage. lol

I can sense truth in this but very impossible for socialism, how about combining socialism with capitalism. Mixed economy has been the best, and it is being practiced in European and North American countries. For the goverment to carry all the whole burden can not do the economy good in this time of 21st century.

Normally, the world can not be balanced, there are shits, a world that favour the rich, and are getting richer but not favouring the poor, and the poor becoming poorer. More insight into this, individuals may not be blamed but the governments which are affecting the well circulation of wealths.

Also, many people in the world now, instead helping people, they are more for fame, that is why someone can buy a cap as expensive as that.

Cry me a river ...yeah any rich guy that buys a 1.5 million  USD face mask is a asshole ... you fuckers didn't earn shit ... you just got lucky or you bribed or you got contracts via nepotism...that's how you fuckers get rich ...not by "hard work" , or a high IQ ...  so stop giving morals to us that your hard working folks ,that your  victims and crap like that ... you are not . You get rich by becoming corrupt.

If's time for the 90% to take back all we allowed you to take ... it's time for SOCIALISM.