Correct and those results are populations that are far and away better off.
Yeah I dunno if over 100 million dead counts as better off.
Topic: why socialism? (Read 7744 times)
Yeah I dunno if over 100 million dead counts as better off.
Correct and those results are populations that are far and away better off.
I don't know any socialist system where everyone earns the same nor do I know any socialist person who thinks everyone should earn the same. 'Socialism' as capitalists describe it doesn't work because its a strawman. You constantly complain about concepts no one supports.
"No one supports that" is just your comtard newspeak for "we are not responsible for the direct results of our ideology and actions because that is not what we wanted to happen." No one cares what you want, your intent is fucking utterly meaningless. The results are the problem, and no matter how much you deny it history does a very good job documenting the results of Socialism.
The idea was looking good and even I will like it. But it doesn't work, cause there were almost 100% employment and some people were just doing nothing and earning money. That meant, that people were lazier and they didn't even get a salary increase, only few times or when they got promoted.
Everything was public so CEOs didn't take it seriously and only made so much product as was planned. So there was minimal chance to make some business better.
I heard about some University professor whose students said, that socialism is better. So he said, that at the next exam he will give everyone averaged mark. At the 1st they got B - nerds were upset, cause they learned and they should have A and slobs were happy for it even they will get F. At the 2nd time, they got C, cause even some nerds have stopped learning, cause they understood, that slobs will not learn and at the 3rd time all of them got F, cause no one learned.
The worst thing was, that there was propaganda and you don't have basic freedoms. Think about it and never again vote for socialists
I don't know any socialist system where everyone earns the same nor do I know any socialist person who thinks everyone should earn the same. 'Socialism' as capitalists describe it doesn't work because its a strawman. You constantly complain about concepts no one supports. Everything was public so CEOs didn't take it seriously and only made so much product as was planned. So there was minimal chance to make some business better.
I heard about some University professor whose students said, that socialism is better. So he said, that at the next exam he will give everyone averaged mark. At the 1st they got B - nerds were upset, cause they learned and they should have A and slobs were happy for it even they will get F. At the 2nd time, they got C, cause even some nerds have stopped learning, cause they understood, that slobs will not learn and at the 3rd time all of them got F, cause no one learned.
The worst thing was, that there was propaganda and you don't have basic freedoms. Think about it and never again vote for socialists
Because admitting your own wrong is difficult
Why is the left pushing the idea of socialism/comunism so much even tho it showed that it doesn't work many times in the past?
if it involves the understanding that has been continuously indoctrinated in a person, then it is certain that they will be carried away with the understanding that they get. be it socialism or any ideology. if the understanding can not adjust to socialize correctly and can accept differences that might occur.so everything returns to humans themselves and can socializing in general with other communities. because all if it is understood that he is the most correct then all will be considered bad than himself. sometimes it will force yourself to be accepted what it does selflessly again.
Thats demonstrably false. In fact, you have it backwards. Home ownership is at 92% in vietnam, 90% in China and Cuba, and only 65% in the US. People own their homes but lease land for 50-100 years and renew when the lease is up. In the rare case the government needs to use the land for public good like building a power plant, they pay the people to relocate and lease somewhere else. Same as eminent domain. There is no property tax for owning a home in Vietnam. In Shanghai, its .4% of 70%of the value Compare that with the US where even though you "own" the land you are paying high amounts of state taxes (~3% per year) plus local taxes forever. Those taxes amount to much greater costs than the cost of land lease hence why so many more people own homes in countries with socialist land laws.
Typical left wing commie trying to convince people white is black and vise versa.You NEVER own your property in a commie country.The terms and conditions ensure you are NEVER the outright free holding owner with Inalienable/natural Rights.You only have legal rights that can be changed anytime by the state
Example:A citizen who possesses land through the right of inheritable possession may gratuitously lease it to another for a fixed term, but he is not permitted to sell or pledge the land or enter into any other transaction that involves the transfer of the land plot. By virtue of these restrictions, perpetual use and inheritable life possession interests do not constitute private ownership. Accordingly, they are not constitutionally protected against government actions that infringe upon them. Moreover, the rights can be terminated by the state without due process procedures.
Does communism work in practice? Next, we'll take a look at the father of communism.
Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the need for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.
Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen's personal choices -- including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.
Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top.
10 essential tenets of communism, namely:
Central banking system
Government controlled education
Government controlled labor
Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles
Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
Total abolition of private property
Property rights confiscation
Heavy income tax on everyone
Elimination of rights of inheritance
Regional planning
#FILTHYMARXISTS
....Home ownership is at 92% in vietnam, 90% in China and Cuba, and only 65% in the US. People own their homes but lease land for 50-100 years and renew when the lease is up.....
There you go, lying as usual, but here contradicting your self and stumbling over your own lies. They don't own ANYTHING. They have a lease, and may or may not have the opportunity to renew. In fact, the nicer they make their home, the more likely it is for the local communist reps to take it away and give it to their favored son-in-law etc.
So really, the reason to favor socialism is if you want and like to take things away from other people, right?
...There is no property tax for owning a home in Vietnam. In Shanghai, its .4% of 70%of the value Compare that with the US where even though you "own" the land you are paying high amounts of state taxes (~3% per year) plus local taxes forever. Those taxes amount to much greater costs than the cost of land lease hence why so many more people own homes in countries with socialist land laws.
More lies. Many states in the US charge 0.5-1.0% per year of value for property taxes. Whether the charge is this low rate or perhaps 3% depends on whether the state collects income taxes or not.
...BTW, in socialism, all people are either sick or depressed. The idea itself is sick.
Has East Berlin ever recovered? That's a pretty empirical matter. Before, during and after communism...
Thats demonstrably false. In fact, you have it backwards. Home ownership is at 92% in vietnam, 90% in China and Cuba, and only 65% in the US. People own their homes but lease land for 50-100 years and renew when the lease is up. In the rare case the government needs to use the land for public good like building a power plant, they pay the people to relocate and lease somewhere else. Same as eminent domain. There is no property tax for owning a home in Vietnam. In Shanghai, its .4% of 70%of the value Compare that with the US where even though you "own" the land you are paying high amounts of state taxes (~3% per year) plus local taxes forever. Those taxes amount to much greater costs than the cost of land lease hence why so many more people own homes in countries with socialist land laws.
I am positive a 100% socialist system would not be welcome among libertarians especially true bitcoiners or even the average citizen.Consider the fact that in a 100% socialist system all the land is by default in state ownership and the marxists will only allow you to ever lease a property from the state so no matter how hard you work or innovate you will NEVER own your home or if you are a farmer you will NEVER own your land and will simply be a leaseholder (until you can no longer be a leaseholder because you cannot compete with industrial producers and pay the lease).
Socialism is NO DIFFERENT than any other hierarchical system like colonialism or fascism (corporatism) which the marxists hypocritically endorse.China would still a third world shit hole if it wasn't for western capitalist consumption of their products.The only reason they succeeded is due to horrendous working conditions and low wages making them competitive and attractive in an industrial slave factory system of output.Marxists ALWAYS sell lies (selling it to disadvantaged and disgruntled populations) to window dress whats actually whats really for sale on the shop floor.MARXISTS are the destroyers of all human civilization and the enemies of humanity.
Socialism is NO DIFFERENT than any other hierarchical system like colonialism or fascism (corporatism) which the marxists hypocritically endorse.China would still a third world shit hole if it wasn't for western capitalist consumption of their products.The only reason they succeeded is due to horrendous working conditions and low wages making them competitive and attractive in an industrial slave factory system of output.Marxists ALWAYS sell lies (selling it to disadvantaged and disgruntled populations) to window dress whats actually whats really for sale on the shop floor.MARXISTS are the destroyers of all human civilization and the enemies of humanity.
Quote
Being hungry (literally and figuratively) is motivating. If it is not motivating you, you have some mental issues.
Malnutrition in childhood impairs cognitive development and when you make statements about mental issues like this, it shows that you don't understand the effects of hunger. Poor children deal with PTSD and the cumulative negative health affects of stress throughout the rest of their lives. You also contradicted yourself. Having basic necessities does not make anyone rich. If watching rich people is what motivates poor people, they can still do it without being hungry.
and if you doubt what I'm saying, all you have to do is look at the US and the motivation of our poor then look at a country like Denmark where all of the basic necessities are free and compare the "motivation/laziness" of their bottom 10% to our bottom 10%
Good health and Education is the best motivation.
Socialism doesn't stop anyone from doing better than everyone else. the people who are motivated by watching poor people suffer are psychopaths or themselves sick and depressed due to alienation. It manifests itself in many ways but this attitude that "If no one can suffer, then theres no motivation of me doing anything great" is sad.
You are motivated by watching what rich people do and listening to what they say.
Watching poor people is depressing and demotivating.
Life is a struggle, no matter how rich or poor you are.
Giving stuff for free is demotivating.
Being hungry (literally and figuratively) is motivating. If it is not motivating you, you have some mental issues.
People who advocate socialism and/or communism are mentally retarded and lazy as fuck, IMHO.
Socialism doesn't stop anyone from doing better than everyone else. the people who are motivated by watching poor people suffer are psychopaths or themselves sick and depressed due to alienation. It manifests itself in many ways but this attitude that "If no one can suffer, then theres no motivation of me doing anything great" is sad.
people are not lazy. they are sick and depressed from alienation.
Socialism is not appealing to ambitious and motivated people who want to do better than everyone else.
You draw your conclusions.
BTW, in socialism, all people are either sick or depressed.
The idea itself is sick.
people are not lazy. they are sick and depressed from alienation.
Perhaps you should read bookchin or at least get a basic understanding about how some of these places operate or their philosophy before coming to those blanket conclusions. Purely democratic states do not involve rules or a state. Just groups of people agreeing to do things together with voluntary participation.
You are forgetting about one thing. 95% of people are complete idiots.
In a true democracy, you would not be able to agree which leaves to use to wipe your ass.
Never mind running a complex society.
No matter the political system, you need leaders, you need a ruling class.
Socialism makes almost everyone as poor as a church mouse.
We need meritocracy, not socialism.
But people are lazy, we have seen it in so many societies in the past. Once wealth (i.e. land, resources, other forms of power) is accumulated it will always be easier for the following generations just ot live off that wealth and redistritubte it. Socialism sounds so nice for most of the people, why not increase your standard of living without actually doing anything? Wouldn't it be nice to get a lot of benefits for free?
Of course socialism will fail in the long run, but this might be after your time. So why bother? In Europe socialism is spread everywhere - it's so sad =/
Perhaps you should read bookchin or at least get a basic understanding about how some of these places operate or their philosophy before coming to those blanket conclusions. Purely democratic states do not involve rules or a state. Just groups of people agreeing to do things together with voluntary participation.
You are forgetting about one thing. 95% of people are complete idiots.
In a true democracy, you would not be able to agree which leaves to use to wipe your ass.
Never mind running a complex society.
No matter the political system, you need leaders, you need a ruling class.
Socialism makes almost everyone as poor as a church mouse.
We need meritocracy, not socialism.
Perhaps you should read bookchin or at least get a basic understanding about how some of these places operate or their philosophy before coming to those blanket conclusions. Purely democratic states do not involve rules or a state. Just groups of people agreeing to do things together with voluntary participation.
You are forgetting about one thing. 95% of people are complete idiots.
In a true democracy, you would not be able to agree which leaves to use to wipe your ass.
Never mind running a complex society.
No matter the political system, you need leaders, you need a ruling class.
Socialism makes almost everyone as poor as a church mouse.
We need meritocracy, not socialism.
Most likely this is a blind faith in utopia
Its why you insist on keeping the discussion general by oversimplifying everything to "socialism vs capitalism". By avoiding talking about actual policies, you're able to perpetuate the strawman that people are supporting failed policies of the past. When our policies are actually laid out for you, you always say "no thats capitalism" which is evidence that you know no one is pushing for the policies you're referring to when you talk about socialism.
Everything that doesn't involve the state is capitalism.
It's because your policies involve coercion, which capitalists aren't very fond of.
We believe in individual liberties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Somalia_from_1991_to_2006
The problem with your equation, is that many of the stateless societies are on the left. You have Zapatistas in Mexico and Rojava in Kurdistan both with left-leaning economies. More famously, you had the Paris commune which was established by anarcho-socialists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Mass_societies
Anarchy loving capitalists should go live in Somalia because its probably the closest country to being aligned with your values.
Anarcho-socialism is just another word for communism.
How can you be stateless with public education and taxes?
The Paris commune had taxes as well and Rojava has public education financed by those taxes.
Somalia is also a state where many statists fight to be the only dictator.
Here's the Somali law
Wow, such anarchy
Jump to: