you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

soros a big time capitalist, does this for money. Conservadems focus on social issues to distract from things like leftwing economic policies and actual socialism.

If we fixed inequality in the economy with socialist economic polcies, black people wouldn't be so poor and they would commit less crimes and then white people wouldn't avoid them so much and then they would recognize their common enemy, the rich.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (23 children)

SOCALISIM IS STUPID. WE WOULD BE ALL DED

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

You are confusing socialism with communism. There has been a huge psyop to conflate these two opposite words.

If they were the same, why did the National Socialists fight the Communists in World War II? Anybody with a few working neurons would realize it doesn't make sense to equate or even relate the two.

SOCIALISM is intrinsically tied to CAPITALISM. SOCIALISM is what keeps CAPITALISM civilized. Not enough of it and you have the USA. Too much of it and you have Sweden. Canada used to be a role model for middle-of-the-road socialism.

COMMUNISM is a completely different system, it is devoid of both socialism and capitalism, WHICH GO HAND IN HAND. And yes, it is a stupid, destructive system. Calling out stupidity is fine, but it is much better to do so from an educated perspective.

You've been fed disinfo, sorry.

[–][deleted]  (21 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

    Socialism IS good. I have EXTENSIVELY reported on the VAST psy-op to confuse Americans with regard to these matters. You have been disinformed. You think the definition of socialism is the definition of COMMUNISM. Yes, a huge psyop. For about a century.

    By the way, taxes don't pay for things. Taxes exist for one reason only: to keep the people down. Also, joke's on you, I have worked as an economist for over 20 years.

    [–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

    You can't have Socialism AND a free society. It's not possible. You are advocating for a Totalitarian nightmare. There is no conspiracy, there is just badly informed people who are emotional and think socialism will help the poor. Thinking you can take care of poor people is patronizing and will only help elect evil people that want to take advantage of the control. We're seeing this literally right now. Look at Oregon segregating black people already because of these socialist thinking bullshit.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

    Once again, you use the word "socialism" when "Marxist", "Leninist" or "Communist" would be appropriate. What can I tell you, you believe an untrue definition of the word.

    Actual socialism does help the poor. Look at Sweden for most of the XXth century: extremely generous welfare, free healthcare and education, as well as very low unemployment. Look at Canada up until the XXIst century: similar deal. OF COURSE systems break down under corruption. Nobody is denying this. And I am not denying that everything related to Marxism, Leninism, and Communism are absolutely evil. Socialism simply is not any of these things.

    You are using an Orwellian newspeak definition for that word. The enemies of mankind work very hard at changing language in order to change and disable thought processes. Please do not help them by using their words of choice.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    All of these labels come with an ideology and a history associated with it which taints discussion. I personally look at it without the baggage of any label. In my opinion, it is best to learn from the full scope of history and culture. In my opinion, regardless of what label you put on it, people should have a proportional equity over the ownership of the means of production depending on their contribution. State capitalism is a failure, that is basically what "communism" means and I'm not in favor of giving people handouts or stealing from them (i.e. taxes). Ideally, it would be nice if you owned a portion of the company you worked for depending on your contribution instead of going to work for a monopoly so you can pay taxes for your safety net. In the latter, your labor is always devalued. If you're paid $15/hr, someone makes at least more than that. In the former, you take responsibility for the success or failure of the company and you can consequently form safety nets within a community of your choice. I don't know if that is socialism or capitalism but that is what I think would be right. If I had a company, that is how I would run it.

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

    I think that would fall under "contributionism". It's a little talked-about system, but it gave us things such as Linux, which is better than both Windows and MacOS, to name only those. And I agree, it's the best system, because it combines the best of capitalism and socialism. The main problem with it is, our economies force greed upon us, and developing main economic activities (i.e. "earning a living") based on such a system is fraught with difficulties.

    You'd have to start a civilization from a blank slate to achieve it. Ultimately, degenerates show up and try to steal other people's earnings.

    [–][deleted]  (12 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

      NO. I am talking about that word as it was used BEFORE COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA. Hitler never spoke of socialism as a means to communism, he knew about this whole psy op, disinfo, propaganda. And communist USSR people believed they were under socialism? Makes sense. Do you not know how much the commies used propaganda?

      Capitalism DOES NOT MEAN FREE MARKETS. There are no free markets. That's capitalist propaganda to try and make you swallow the sorry state of western society. This is hugely important. You are trying to defend the results of propaganda designed to enslave you and turn the West communist. You don't even realize how close the USA are to becoming all-out communist, do you?

      No, it should be called SOCIALISM because absent drones like you who repeat communist propaganda, THE TERM HAS ALWAYS MEANT THE SAME THING.

      [–][deleted]  (10 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Many of the early Socialists were in fact Anarchists and Libertarians. Here, have a read:

        https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/man-paradox-pierre-joseph-proudhon

        [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        No, that is why there are different words for each. Anarchism is orthogonal to both. Libertarians and socialist are almost opposing concepts. One is individual freedom the other is top down decision making and centralization of power.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        No. Libertarianism and YOUR psy-op originating, communist-propaganda co-opted definition of the term are almost opposing concepts. Can't you see?