Taking Wealth From Those Who Work Hard

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You're right, if you stick with the lie that the definition of socialism is what socialism is. Like I said before, your definition is just the way it is sold. The reality is that worker owned business is possible, and arguably only possible, under capitalism. Anyone trying to convert a capitalist society into a socialist one has only redistribution on their agenda. They don't want the workers to own their own businesses, they want the workers to revolt against the government so the socialist can seize power. The useful idiots are sold this plan by being told that they will be GIVEN SOMEONE ELSES' BUISNESS. The entire scheme is based on redistribution, which is exactly what bailouts are except the money flows in the other direction.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

A worker owned business is socialism; it probably cannot exist under communism or Fascism but could under anarchy, a Christian monarchy and Capitalism.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Under anarchy the small will be eaten by the big. The worker owned will be out competed, and destroyed by the top down run competition because it is far more efficient. Under monarchy it is whatever the king wants. If you have a good king you are golden, but if you have shit king it is the same as communism. The king and his court own everything, it differs from communism only in name and propaganda. Capitalism is the only way.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Anarchy implies no state corporation. Anarchy can work if Christ and his principals are met. Any ism can work under Christ accept Marxist Leninism w/ Militant Atheism.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Anarchy is an unstable power vacuum. The strong will always conquer the weak. Anarchists want to twist their system into something that approximates democracy, but they don't want to call it democracy because they want to pretend they invented something new.

What anarchy actually means is that there is no law that I have to follow if I don't want to follow it. It relies on voluntary cooperation. As soon as you bring up all the ways in which people can benefit by not cooperating the non aggression principal goes out the window and suddenly they invent some kind of pseudo government to take care of the problem. But because it is a "democratic" government that makes it different. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There are at this moment unincorporated towns in the US doing quote well... even using their own local currency. There is indeed an absence of the state corporation.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And I'm sure they are over 90% white and very small. The whole thing collapses when you get people trying to take advantage.

Why do you think all the "disenfranchised" people suffering under capitalism aren't flocking over there? Why should anyone who doesn't want to go live over there be forced to live like that?

No one has a problem with you making wild claims about your system if all you want is to go live your own way on your own land. But you on the other hand have a problem with me wanting to live my own way on mine. So much for non aggression. There is a reason capitalist cities don't exist in Venezuela. There is a reason Hong Kong is the wealthiest, most desirable place to live in all of China and why the Communist party will destroy it just as soon as the treaty expires.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

redistribution on their agenda.

That's fine, considering the biggest billionaires are subsidized and welfare queens anyway. As long as it is done non-violently and by Christian means. But Catholics know that such can only occur when the FED notes with interest cease to exist. A system where the government prints its own money free of interest where their subjects (citizenry) are used as collateral is when the standard of living will increase for all.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's not a lie. Sure, if you want to go right-wing lexicon Zionism, then yes... socialism is the devil incarnate but not if we export it as communism to goyim.

Like I said... Using the state through violence.... that IS COMMUNISM. Voluntary Christian socialism is another form that sticks to its true definition.

We all know Anti-Semitism was hijacked by Zionists and now it means anti-Jew. The problem is Arabs and Palestinians are Semitic so they literally stole this word and made it their own.

I talked to a Zionist Jew at a Uni awhile back and he literally said socialism is inherently bad because the state redistributes the wealth to the poor.

Now that is not really socialism in its definition but the Zionist thinks so. That is simply redistribution of wealth and they might not even be workers.