Topic: why socialism? - page 4. (Read 7744 times)

That's marxist theory, not a fact. One of the problems with something like "socialism" is that there can be different forms and degrees but people jump to assuming the extremes. The thing that's always struck me as odd though, is that the US for example already has some socialism and there's no way the majority would want to get rid of any of it and yet "socialism bad" is the mantra. The reality though is that it's not a question of having it, it's simply of how far to take it. I suppose the issue really comes down to culture. Which culture will win out in the end. The one that wants to put people first, or the one that wants to put money first. I don't rally want to see either side "win" but instead reach a balance that works far better than it currently is.

Exactly, and it turned out that this experiment failed in every state where they tried to apply it.
USSR, Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania etc.
In China, they also had to embrace capitalism,also in Cuba, and Venezuela went bankrupt after its failed experiment with socialism.
Socialism simply has a systemic fault in its philosophy and can't succeed.
Also, socialism is responsible for a large number of people killed and the most horrific crimes in human history, as the crimes of Stalin in the USSR or Mao in the cultural revolution in China.
People are just not equal and they never will be.
A fair system should give everyone an equal chance and be socially righteous.

Socialism is just the earliest stages of communism. The ideologies are indistinguishable and are only different in a matter of degree.

In my opinion the philosophy of socialism does not work,we are not all the same and we must not all earn equal but based on our own skills and competency (capitalism)

This thread is a freakin train wreck. The majority don't know the difference between socialism, socialist and communism. Wow.

Now you are just repeating yourself. Any claims of self defense are asinine and just an attempt at disguising the wide spread prevalence of violent terrorist inclinations of Socialists.

Then the only possible answer to the poll is "yes, sometimes violence is justified against rich people".

Because you can be attacked by rich people. Then you have to defend yourself.

You godmotherfucking Americans should know this better than anyone. Great depression, legal slavery of the poors, private polices of mining companies actually shooting at workers who tried to protest? No? Doesn't ring a bell?

So yeah, the answer is clearly yes. Answering anything else is stupid and only show how you bend yourself and spread your ass for your masters. Or how you have no clue anything happened before 1980.

because the left is powerless, socialism and communism will always exist except we return to preurban and preindustrial barbarism.

There is no "reading between the lines", this is self evident. If you are under violent attack, you don't stop to check the assailant's wallet first before defending yourself, thus your premise of self defense is totally asinine. Additionally Socialists and Communists LOVE redefining words to suit their purposes at any given time, such as words being "violence" or "hoarding wealth" being "violence".

For example:


There is no mystery here. This poll demonstrates Socialists are proponents of proactive violence based on their warped ideology and mental illness. This is literally indistinguishable from terrorism, and falls well within the federal legal definition of terrorism.

Because those who do not learn from history's mistakes are bound to repeat them

well if you look at brexit uk that is being pushed by the right winger captialism/nationalism/exploitation, you see that it also doesnt work.

How do you know that 100% of the liberals eat babies? Oh, yeah: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-13-aoc-nods-in-agreement-people-eat-their-babies.html and https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-06-impossible-to-tell-difference-real-leftists-fake-plants.html.

Thanks.

Oh so you have to read between the lines in a poll? That tells a lot of the quality of the poll.

So in fact when the question is, as stated in your source, "is the use of violence against rich people justified?" the real question is "is the use of PROACTIVE violence and not in a case of seld defense against rich people justified?"

Ok great, there is no way that such a shitty question can change the results of course.

I have an idea, why bothering with questions? Next time juste say "on a poll of myself, 100% liberals eat babies for breakfast".

It will be easier.

maybe not

re: 1. They can seek opportunities in their own country or immigrate to other countries where there are more opportunities for them.  Learning foreign languages is always very important.  Free resources are available on the Internet.
re: 2. Banks give student loans
re: 3. noodles and crackers for few years, basically subsisting.
re: 4. Give up their kids for adoption, they should not have had kids to begin with.  It was very irresponsible for them to have kids, to begin with.
re: 5. You change the job. Or quit altogether and find a part-time job while attending school full time.
re: 6. The state and the loans from the banks.
re: 7. Wow, before you can compete with large corporations, you need to upgrade your intangible capital, your skills.  BTW, the profit margins of large corporations are dismal, as a small service business, you can undercut them price-wise very easily.
re: 8. They have to get better, then continue when they get better.

I jumped through all of these hoops except for the #4, all without the Internet.

Whatever you say terrorist. Enjoy the kulak hunt. Too bad this time the kulaks are armed to the teeth.

^Its not proactive.  Excessive wealth and hoarding is already a form of violence.  Mitigating that is defense of said violence.
1.Well thats just cute but what about people who can't get into the country?

2. What about the people in the country who can't afford to pay rent without working, even if their tuition is paid for by a grant, where will they live?

3. How will they eat?

4. who will take care of their kids?

5. What about the people whose bosses won't give them flexible hours to attend classes and study?

and then when they graduate they are back working a (slightly better) job where their labor value is still being stolen and they are paid a higher wage.  Starting your own company in an established industry (the kind you are taught about in college) requires an immense amount of capital.  W

6. Where will this capital come from?  

7. How will they compete with huge corporations that offer more competitive prices because they have the advantage of stealing labor value from thousands of workers?

8. What if they get sick at any point in the process?

If you can magically jump through those eight hurdles, there are definitely opportunities in the market that some poor people can rise into and fill but this is an extremely competitive path and only the most outstanding individuals will earn their way to freedom.  That is the exception not the rule.  Most of the poor are stuck poor regardless of what they choose.

If you say so. The leftist French are especially retarded, so I wouldn't be surprised but I have my doubts. So do you ask for a pay stub before defending yourself from attackers? The correct answer is to defend yourself, period. We all know the left advocates proactive violence though, and that's what this survey is asking, so your cute little word games are irrelevant.

10 seconds google search:

https://www.affordablecolleges.com/rankings/community-colleges/

Most offer state grants. Welding, electrician, plumbing professions are way better than some 'wage' jobs at retail or a fast food joint.

For those more ambitious, accounting, business administration, followed by scholarships to universities. 

Don't tell me you cannot find a solution.  Tell me you don't want to look, that I will believe you.

You suggest good alternatives to being a wage worker but wage workers don't have access to these alternatives because they don't have the money or time to make the change. 

Wage workers depend on their wages.  They can't just stop working to start their own business because they depend on that wage to get their next meal and make their next rent payment. In the labor market, there is always a greater supply than demand so wages are constantly suppressed and there is no free time to do the things you are mentioning.

How can someone get education when education is not free and their wage is their only source of income.   Avoiding starvation and homelessness is not irrational. 

*Ignoring soviet strawman*