General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 60

lol come on. Yes many Hillary voters are ignorant of basic economics but this stuff is much more likely to come from the GOP camp. AMERICA GREAT CAPITALISM GREAT WHITE GREAT>

 

Shoot for the stars. If you miss it's not because of a glass ceiling or anything. You just didn't try hard enough. Everyone has the same opportunities, loser!

 

lol we're not setting your house on fire or anything because you disagree with socialism.

 

lol tbf i was only half serious but falling for ignorant ass anticommunist tropes is definitely a trend in both of those camps

 

santa is a capitalist, slave driving fuck #waronchristmas

 

Yes I do.. but I don't know if it will ever be. Do I think we will ever get world peace and world sharing? No. Do I think in theory socialism sounds nice. Sure. DId it work in practice.. no. Can the stronger country always take from the weaker one. Yes, if not through capitalism, then through force. At least it's not force anymore.

 

Well, to be fair, you're operating from a very narrow US-dogma-style vantage point when it comes to the issue. I think the majority of posters here are similarly "radical" in the end goals of their policy recommendations: it's the means that differ. However, it seems fairly clear to me that the failures of socialism in world history were not fundamental nor doctrinal in the least. To say so is to give weight to a spurious argument. Capitalism is necessary to predate socialism and many, including myself, are of the thought that socialism will become more and more a (beneficial) reality in the west. Frankly, what is holding it back is racism being attached to greedy exploitative policy rhetoric. Hell, look at France and Denmark.

 

I'm actually for capitalism, but only with PoC profiting while white people suffer.

Sorry white folks. You had a good run.

 

capitalism is better than world wars I guess yeah sure

 

I'm not saying educate yourself on capitalism. I'm saying educate yourself on socialism (which you hysterically said you won't do) because your definitions are off. USSR=/=socialism. Cuba=/=socialism. All of these cases, as Dom pointed out, faced the full weight of corrupting influences from colonial and capitalist powers before they could pursue anything resembling a socialist agenda. Furthermore, you need to get this right now: socialism=/=dictatorship. Socialism is not about a strong central government/figure at the center of the government, it is about workers gaining control over their productivity and working / living conditions. Until you get that, you are not engaging in substance but rather a false narrative.

This is a construct. The flipside to your "land of opportunity" delusion is that someone somewhere else -- typically not white, typically in another country -- has their opportunities stripped away to afford you that. Your comfort and "better life" has virtually a one-to-one ratio with making someone else's life shit. That isn't your fault, but it is our responsibility upon recognizing it to give a shit and realize that things don't need to be that way. It's not "human nature" to screw over others for our benefit. It's not "creating wealth" to deprive others of basic human rights. It is, simply put, an illegitimate system.

 

What this guy is saying is considerably left of what I generally hear from Clinton supporters. And more cogent.

You greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average Democrat partisan.

 

yeah because if you support clinton clearly you're just not enlightened

 

Yes.

 

You're making it sound as though within a capitalist structure, equality can be attained, we're just missing something in our society to allow for it. By definition, you require class and partitioning of people within capitalism. Therefore, there will be those who have greatness and those who do not. To get equality we need a substantial removal of this system, both domestically and globally.

 

I said many times I'm ok moving towards those models. I was told those are not socialism and are failing. That was followed up with a bunch of points about how actual socialism works, which it doesn't, at least if you want to have anywhere near the quality of life you have now. Like I said the good "socialist countries" are afforded that quality of life by resources and some capitalism to bring in more money, and give people proper incentive to work hard and gain skills. So I wouldn't say my view is as narrow as you are saying, I'm open to looking at some socialist programs. Full socialist, no.

 

And you said before that American capitalism should take a step back to adopt said socialist ways. I think that that's a great start. Seriously.

 

Just to make sure I'm fielding properly, what do you mean by "full socialist"?

 

You need a strong central government to tell people they can't profit off of their work and what they have to sell things for. You need to force everyone to not ever try and get ahead of anyone else. When there is enough to go around it's easy. When there is not, you need to force people stay. Socialism ends up being a huge government, it always has. Show me proof of a time it didn't.

 

How does the country get all this money to guarantee a high quality of life. What is a high quality of life to you? House, food, and clothes?

 

Also, there is certainly truth to the assertion that one, presuming they are a well-off American, would not be afforded the same level of decadency in a socialist society. But certain byproducts of capitalism that would be similarly expunged would be worth it: not only inequity or expoitation, but anti-commons, food waste, depletion of resources/needless harming of the environment, etc.

 

I think he's referring to my perspective, which is the elimination of capitalism, and it's replacement with economic democracy in the form of workers councils, for example.

 

Incentive being a structural thing is hugely overblown. There's a reason worker participation correlates positively with unemployment benefits.

Also, for however much you despise "full on" socialists, I urge you to read The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin. It actually answers a lot of the misconceptions you have about the implementation of socialism.

 

Country/collective controls the means of production. People don't sell things for profit. They get a little money for working, and most things a subsidized by the government to make them cheap. There are no classes, so you can't improve apon the quality of life the government provides.

 

I, for one, haven't seen an overabundance of basic economic understanding from any political base.

This is largely because of how little focus is put on economic theory in our schools, imo, but I digress.

 

I can look into, although I'll prob get mad lol. Found an interesting quote by him that brings up an earlier point I made. You need to be capitalist on the global market to insure quality of life. He know that.

"Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable."

My biggest point is socialism in one country is very hard to pull off. You need to produce enough of everything for everyone, have an army that can protect them, and watch over everyone to keep them in line. You need money from other countries to be able to provide any sort of today's standard of living. Until every country decides to be socialist and share their resources, it will be hard to pull off socialism.