that would require a great leador or sum shit, the fact remains if i started a socialist country right now, no one would take me serious, AND if i did somehow get it to work so that i ceded from my country, the government would be quite pissed

I mean, if you're really not just trying to rob the rich so you don't have to work, why don't you join or start a commune? Or some sort of socialist collective? And then you and everyone else in the collective can participate in a fully-functional socialist society.

If you really believe that socialism will work, from the ground-up, and that it's not just a quick cash-grab for the poor and lazy, why don't you quit trying to vote for it and just DO it? It's not that hard, I know people who live in communes. And here where I live (in Washington DC) there's actually a micro-famous anarchosocialist dog walking group. They all take an equal share of the money and all business decisions are made by unanimous vote, regardless of who works more hours or does more labor.

As far as I can tell, if you'd rather force socialism on those who don't want it, it's only because you want to steal their money. If you really believe socialism is a better system than capitalism, not only is there nothing stopping you from starting your own socialist group, but it'd actually be quicker and easier than trying to change the American government.

>>351657602
at least in America, you don't need to start your own country. Capitalism is perfectly fine with voluntary socialist organizations. This isn't McCarthyism anymore (thank god), nobody is going to tell you that you're not allowed to distribute your income among like-minded individuals.

>>351657745

Judging by your impeccable grammar, spelling, and articulation, you seem to fit the mold of the typical modern-day socialist.

We are truly fucked.

And it's not like you'll be at a loss to enforce your socialism. It's true that a government has the ability to throw your ass in prison if you don't pay your taxes, but you can use the American legal system to enforce socialism by way of contract.

Simply set up the income and labor distribution rules in a contract that all employees must sign, with the stipulation that provides for financial obligation and reimbursement. If someone fails to pay, you can take them to court for contract violation, evict them from your community AND force them to pay you every single penny they owe, even going so far as to repossess their property. All you'd have to do is bring a tape recorder to the signing meetings so that you had proof that they were well aware of, and agreed to, the income stipulations and punishments you laid out and could not claim ignorance.

Just about any court in America would force that person to pay back their debt based on their voluntary agreement to the contract.

>>351658011

Damnit, I meant this guy! >>351657602

>>351658011
capitalist, libertarian.

As such, I'm NOT a fan of forcing socialism on others, but I AM a fan of voluntary contractual association, and I applaud anyone with the pluck to start their own socialist group. If you really don't object, personally, to income distribution, and you voluntarily enter a system which has such, then good for you! I applaud you for living your life the way you want.

I just don't want you to force that on me.

In fact, I remember reading a Washington Post article about the socialist dog walkers and thinking "god damn, they're dog walkers and they have a better benefits package than most multinational corporations do for entry-level employees. I wish I could work there" but of course I'm a capitalist and they would never let me join.

In the mid-20th Century in the US, the tax rate for the uppermost bracket was 90%. Please explain to me why these were the most prosperous decades in our nation's history, and why the super rich didn't just stop working to enjoy the vast and incalculable benefits you seem to believe the poorest enjoy under such a system.

>>351658266
oh. whoops.

NO! SOCILISM ALWAY BAD! TV SAY SO!

>>351658564
Ignore the practicality of it. The way I see it, a person is entitled to the fruits of their labor, and taxes should be applied equally.

It doesn't matter what works out best for everyone, all that matters is that a person's rights are not infringed.

>>351658564
also, how precisely are you measuring prosperity? the GDP is higher now than it was back then.

>>351658673
Massively epic fail, thanks for playing.

>>351659021
you've completely lost the point of the thread.

I don't like socialism. You do. What I'm saying is, instead of forcing socialism on me, why don't you go start your own socialist group where you can be socialist, and leave me alone to be a capitalist?

Why do you insist on trying to tell me what I should want and what's best for me?

My department works harder than anyone else in the company; we spend all day sweating, aching, and bleeding for minimum wage, while the people near the top sit on their asses all day getting whatever they want and $200k per year doing one of the easiest jobs imaginable.

This is why I support socialism.

>start your own socialist business

are you fucking retarded.

>>351657355
why do you think socialism is communism?

>>351659134
>while the people near the top sit on their asses all day getting whatever they want and $200k per year doing one of the easiest jobs imaginable

They're not royalty. They weren't born into a management position. If their job is so easy to do, why don't you get your ass promoted and do their job instead?

Or better yet, why don't you have a good idea and start your OWN company? And then you can make it socialist, and all employees will get paid the same wage or participate in profit sharing or whatever you see fit.

You're basically admitting to the accusation I leveled in the OP, which is "you only support socialism because you want to rob those who are better off than you".

>>351659325
I'm not sure about the difference, to be honest. All I know about socialism is the people (or the government) control the means of production. So if you start your own company and allow all employees equal share in the company and equal profits, then they all "own the means of production" and it is socialism.

>>351659134
PROTIP:
the people at the top could do your retarded job
but you could not do theirs
the people at the top actually PRODUCE and GROW the company
you on the other hand are little more than a trained ape
this is why I support capitalism

>>351659195
how is that retarded?

>>351658673
>ignore practicality
Practicality is about what actually works, and should not be ignored.

>It doesn't matter what works best for everyone
Seriously? It doesn't?

>>351659346
Every single one of them was born into a rich family. I know this to be true. There are no promotions where I work.

I want to rob those who are better off than me because the system doesn't fucking work. You can't start at the bottom and work your way up: you start at the bottom, struggle forever, and then die. This is the plight of the poor.

>>351659639
FAGGOT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM

>>351659436
why start a thread like this, when you dont even know anything about the topic you are attacking? why not start a thread that would help you learn the meaning of socialism?

socialism is not about equal shares or equal profits, thats communism

OP

Actually those type of systems do exist. So do anarchist communities, communist communities, and even nudist communities.

They function rather well with in reason.

At the same time though, these communities usually receive a lot of flack from the local governments. I know several of these communities and a great majority have been placed on terrorist watch lists for the mere fact that they entertain either communist or socialist agendas.

I personally don't believe in a pure socialist government, and thusly don't live in one of these communities. I do believe in a strong social net for the impoverish. This can't be accomplished within a small community like you describe, and it isn't 'socialism', it's borrowing a few ideals of 'socialism'. Like we already have with police, firemen, libraries, schools, parks, national parks, etc.

>>351659575
No. Seriously, it doesn't.

Allow me to posit a hypothetical to explain why:

If you had the ability to kill EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET with AIDS, would you do it? Pretend for a second that we actually had the technology to make sure nobody escaped, there was no way for the virus to spread from the one or two dudes we missed.

If I handed you a button, and said "in that giant airplane hangar in front of you is every single person on the planet with AIDS. All you have to do is press this button and they will all be incinerated alive and the AIDS virus will be gone forever from the planet." would you do it? would you even CONSIDER committing mass murder for the "greater good"?

I would not. Because no matter what good it does for the planet it is simply wrong to kill innocent people.

>>351659458
PROTIP: The people at the top have come and tried to do my job when they decided we weren't working hard enough, to prove a point, and quit after three minutes because it was too tiring for them.
I could do their jobs in a heartbeat because it's incredibly simple.
The people at the job stagnate and bring down the company while if I go on break, the whole company freezes to a fucking halt.

Just take each socialist as they are, no need to stereotype them, you stupid American fag. Just like the rest of America - anti-anything you say. Retard.

>>351659639
>This is the plight of the poor.

Your menatility is the plight of the lazy.

>>351659850
because what precisely socialism is about is besides the point.

My point is, free-market capitalism allows you to voluntarily create whatever sub-economy you feel like creating through contracts, so instead of trying to force your economic policy on the rest of us, why don't you just do that?

If socialism is about the workers owning the means of production, then why don't you and a bunch of workers get together and own the means of production? Buy something, start a company. And make sure that ALL workers have a say in how it is used. Nobody is beholden to the whims of management. Whatever you think socialism is or means, start a group or a company and DO IT.

>>351659436
nope. social democrats abondoned marxist theories, at less in Europe, long time ago. otherwise, you would never have a socialist at the head of the IMF.

>>351659458
capitalism allows actors and athletes to make oodles of money because of the demand for their "talents"

its so cool when people aspire to be nothings rather than doctors and teachers and scientists

>>351659899
it's funny because I used to think that until I took a smoke break and came back to find the OWNERS of my company, the people who ran the establishment, doing my job because the morning shift had left and the evening shift was late. I thought they were lazy fucks with money but they were clearly capable of handling it.

My boss as much as acknowledges that she can't do my job. She's a Novell tech with fifteen years of network experience who went through a management training program. I'm a certified expert in Linux and Java with ten years of experience debugging distributed systems. I don't begrudge her for being less technically competent and getting promoted to management; but it disproves your point.

My dream is to start a restraunt, and if its sucessful enough pay my employies as much as I can while making a decent living for myself.

>>351657355
>>351657355
capitalists don't work in a "free market", they only throw the word around when they don't want to pay. But when it comes to protecting their assets, they want government to be there for them. That's not "free market" dipshits.

>>351659856
fuck any local government that tries to interfere with those groups. I'm a capitalist but I'll punch those fucking pigs in the head for trying to brand socialists "terrorists" just for living their lives as they see fit. Just want to be clear that I don't approve of that, and those cops are fucking retarded.

As for the safety net, well, you could certainly achieve it. All you'd need to do is to have people agree to share a portion of their income to opt-in to some sort of safety net insurance type plan. Make it a policy of your homeowner's association or something, that additional dues will be used to cover the mortgage and medical bills of a person who loses their job for 6 months or something. It only takes like 40 votes to make that happen, that's a damn sight easier than 217 Congressmen and 60 senators (and a President).

>>351659113
>>351659113
>>351659113
People have tried what you're talking about, there are may examples in history, but it always fails because of Capitalism.

Capitalism is a totalising system, it won't let us alone. Capitalism has an inherent tendency to expansion, wherever it isn't it will try and get itself into usually at the point of a gun Also, if we learned nothing else in the last hundred years its that socialism can't exist in one country.

>>351659868
>Implying I wouldn't
Seriously though, you have to resort to such absurd hyperbole to make a point. This is nonsensical. There's a moral distinction between mass murder and applying higher tax rates to wealthy individuals. Try something a little closer to reality.

>>351660459
Don't lump me in with them. I was SCREAMING for the president to let the fucking banks, and General Motors, and everyone else go straight to hell and fail.

I don't believe the government should protect assets. I think we should overhaul the FDIC so that when a bank loses your money, they are forced to declare bankruptcy to pay it back (after the government has stepped in to temporarily restore your losses). Anyone who wants the government to protect their money or their assets is not a capitalist and can suck my cock.

>>351660165

Capitalism rewards the top 0.1% of actors and athletes, while the rest usually need to find another line of work to make ends meet. Anyway, it isn't really "capitalism" itself that rewards those people, it's everyday people who pay for sports tickets, go to movies, and watch Monday Night Football who allow those salaries to get so high.

>>351660745
are you a capitalist?
do you believe that it is acceptable to make drugs illegal?
do you believe in patent laws? trademarks?

>>351660660
not the way I see it. I mean yes, murder is a worse infringement of rights than theft, but I still don't believe it's justified ethically to steal from people just because they have more.

Is it morally acceptable to break into upper-middle class houses and steal televisions just because you're poor?

To all those who think there is a point to this thread or anything on /b/ - troll'd. Hard.

>>351660745


"civil government, so far as it is instituted for the defence of private property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor , or of those who have some property against those who have none at all" - Adam Smith

"few tricks of the unsophisticated intellect are more curious than the naive psychology of the business man, who ascribes his achievements to his own efforts, in bland unconsciousness of a social order without whose continuous support and vigilant protection he would be as a lamb bleating in the desert."
"That individualist complex owes part of its self-assurance to the suggestion of Puritan moralists, that practical success is at once the sign and the reward of ethical superiority." -R.H. Tawney

>>351660071

Where are you going to get the land? Who are you going to buy all of the materials from? It's stupid to claim that you can make a socialist society within a capitalist society when capitalism envelops everything within its grasp. And companies don't just spring up by some spontaneous gathering of people with similar ideas. They slowly develop over time, gradually eating up resources. You can't just say, "Hey, lets start a shoe factory and make all decisions as a collective." You need a ton of resources/wealth. Individuals don't have it, even when they pool their personal resources together. What you need is mass investment from impersonal investors. That is why socialism is a government model, not a grassroots event. That's stupid. Capitalism isn't a grassroots event either. All of these economic models develop on societal scales. Any other scale is unworkable

>>351661088

>Claim to hate socialism
>Have no problem with public education

Fucking hypocrite.

>>351659856

cont'd

Here is the problem, we have a large group of people at the bottom that aren't capable of taking care of themselves. May they be ill, retarded, handicapped, mentally disturbed, or just plain uneducated.

Yes uneducated. Education in this country is had through a socialist program, that being the public school system. It's also a system that is imperfect and is not accessible to all people. And sometimes people are just really fucking stupid, keep in mind, for every genius, there's fuckin' jack-ass.

There's also those who have these type of people as dependents. They were handed a shit deal. Their spouse died after the birth of 2 or 3 children, their towns economy collapse due to free-market waves that took the jobs elsewhere.

Now what do we do with these people? Their mere existence is a drain on society. We can't kill them, it's against the law, and it's morally fucked up. We could leave them in the streets to suffer and die, but then watch this, and they'll find ways... thieve, kill, and generally commit other acts we consider crimes. They're struggling, they need sustenance, they aren't lazy... they just have to fight really fucking hard for their food and clothes.

This drains our society, harms us as a whole. It's like dragging around a dying limb on your body. What do you do with said dying limb? Do you amputate? Because that's what we already proved is illegal (killing these people), or do we attempt to cure it... that's social nets, its us trying to save our own fucking ass. Cause sorry dude, we are a group, we are a country, we are a whole.

>>351661007
>are you a capitalist?
Yes.
>do you believe that it is acceptable to make drugs illegal?
Absolutely not. No fucking way.
>do you believe in patent laws?
Yes, provided they have a time limit. BUT (and I feel this way with copyright laws too), I think that after, say, 3 years of exclusivity, a patent holder should be obligated to allow his patent to be used as long as a statutory royalty or usage fee is paid.
Ideas are not property, and as such don't deserve total protection. The person who came up with the idea deserves compensation and credit, but not the unlimited right to hold on to his idea and prevent others from using it.
>trademarks?
Yes, I believe in trademarks. Actually I think US Trademark law, unlike patent and copyright law, is pretty good.

>>351661007

Any true libertarian is against the criminalization of any substance.

Remember, it was the Democrats in California who destroyed Prop 19.

>mfw a politics thread on /b/ does not become a shithole of trolls

>>351660507

Yes you disapprove of governments interfering like that. But its not YOUR ideals that make the world... it's a group effort. Sorry, we are a society, and a society is fickle minded. And our society demonizes socialism in favour of capitalism. And thusly that type of situation forms. This is why socialists fight for the respect of their political views... otherwise things like McCarthyism propogate.

>>351661137
A shoe factory, sure. But I call bullshit on "it's impossible" since, as I pointed out with the dog walkers, it's ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Pick something simpler. Open a restaurant. Or even better, do service-based work like graphic design or webpage coding or something. Start a website. I don't care. There are plenty of ways to start a business with little more than a good idea.

ITT: Capitalists still clinging to the American dream while everything crumbles around them.

>>351661290
bailouts acceptable?
stock market acceptable?
do you promote monopolies?
should competition be monitored?

>>351661202

It's called private charity, and it was never more widespread than during the heyday of American capitalism.

People will do good things for others without totalitarian wannabees like yourself trying to force them to.

I live in socialist Norway.
And we have it better than any of you capitalist swine can dream of!

>>351661469
And yet, if the system WORKS, and living there is good, then you won't have issues. Americans scream bloody murder over Obama's health care law but not one of them complains about working for a corporation with an inclusive health care policy. In fact many of them specifically SEEK jobs with good (socialist/communist style) benefits packages.

If living in your community is good, people will want to join.

because too many people have voted against it


but sweden and germany are doing well

>>351661689
>implying that Norway isn't capitalist.

>>351661586

We have ANYTHING BUT true capitalism in America. Call it Crony Capitalism, Corporatism, whatever. But it isn't true capitalism, which is nothing more than the private ownership of capital based on property rights.

I know your type. You probably support the wars in the Middle East now that your guy is in charge. Typical braindead, intellectually dishonest liberal.

American here. My personal belief is that we should have a lot more socialist aspects but not become totally socialist.

The biggest problem is all the bullshit that most anti-socialists believe. We all ready employ socialism in many aspects of our country....Police, Fire departments, and schools, to name a few. The idea being that it's for the greater good that these are available to everyone. In a country of the people, by the people and for the people, this makes sense. What also would make sense is that health care should likewise be available to everyone. The "middleman" of the insurance companies is an unnecessarily wasteful practice by which the equation of patient and doctor has to go through an added expense in order to add nothing and hinder the health care that is needed. It's as blatantly retarded as many things that came out of the Nixon administration.

Opponents of most socialist ideas tend to be fooled by the "big lie" and truly believe that they can also get wealthy. The economy doesn't work that way and also I might add at this time that most of the top 1% did NOT get there through hard work and them that did didn't get there without a lot of advantages they had due to their families positions paving the way for greater opportunities. It's just the way the system works in this country and living in denial of it will not increase anyones chances of success.

>>351661675

bullshit

>>351661584

"dog walkers" That's not a product. That's a service. It only takes time and a person. That is nowhere near the energy and resources required to make any kind of product.

"Open a restaurant"

Where do you get the machines to make the food? Where do you get the food? Where do you grow the food? On private property? I don't know of any public property where you can grow your food and then sell it as a consumer good (the government would then tax you).

"graphic design or webpage coding or something"

Yet again, requiring tons of resources. These don't happen from some grassroots level.

"Start a website"

Everything that makes a website possible is based on huge sums of investment.

>>351662041

/thread

>>351661675

Oh your rose coloured glasses of the past. Do you not know the stories of the quarreling private firemen who would have gang fights in the street over who 'owned' what territory for the right to protect it.

Do you not know of the times that these same organizations wouldn't assist those who haven't their dues.

This plagued all sorts of needs. Medical, policing, education, foster care, etc.

Private donation helps, but it to is not perfect either. And comes with a lot of caveats as well. Most private assistance expects to be able to capitalize on a scenario. We still do it today, look at the afterward of any natural disaster and the contracting nightmares that appear.

Socialism makes for a better economy because less money will be sitting still, as rich people don't spend a high enough amount of their money.
Eat shit.

>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355
>>351657355

Well, let's look at this example OP, England is both a capitalist country as well as a socialist one. We provide free universal healthcare, education, social services and more to anyone in need. We also are the centre for one of the largest financial centers in the world, are one of the most rich (per capita) and powerful countries in the world.

How can you tell me that the two of them can't go together?

Furthermore, think of it from a more common view. 3,000,000,000 people in the world do not have clean running water, and 2,000,000,000 people do not have daily access to enough food. Let's assume we taxed everyone in america (since that's who I'm assuming op is) who earnt over $20,000 a year by 50%, you would be able to cure starvation and all water-related diseases overnight. Hundreds of millions of lives would be saved in under a month. You however still remain the rich country with vastly superior amounts of money.

It's not the case in socialism that there are two people, exactly the same, in capability, physical and mental ability and so on. If that was the case, then yes, it would be wrong for one to pay for the other when he can (assuming he can) get work. This isn't the case in REAL LIFE though (it's not WoW you stupid twat). By your logic we should steralise or execute all the disabled/mental/prisoners/orphans/elderly/people geographically situated where they are unable to work. Really op..?

Please reply to ALL of my points if you bother to at all, I won't reply unless you do.

>>351662273

I see you've conceded the argument.

>>351662013

"You probably support the wars in the Middle East now that your guy is in charge."

Your a fucking idiot.

>>351662041
you're a fucking idiot.

>>351661792

Yes, and people do. If your thing is liked, it will attract people.

Also if your thing is liked, others are bound to hate. And they'll demonize it, and they'll attack it.

That's the entire basis of theological war. Wars of religion, war of politics, war of beliefs.

For fuck sake dude, the KKK attracts people. The KKK is also largely hated by people.

Question to all the "socialists" in this thread:

Do you support Obama's 7 wars in the Middle East? Do you think we should bring the troops home?

Do you support Obama's escalation of the War on Drugs?

Do you support the TSA and their porno-scanners?

LISTEN UP FAGS:

Did not read 1 post but let me give you a fact:
a social democratic model (like in Scandic countries) will result in higher social cohesion and lower unemployment rates.

tl;dr: esping-anders' social democratic model = scandic countries = most succesful (empirical fact)

problem?

>>351661602
>bailouts acceptable?
Not as such, no. The only time I support "bailouts" are in a situation where someone is defrauded (selling subprime mortgages as AAA securities by lying about their nature, for example), then the people who BOUGHT the fraudulent product should be reimbursed... and then the expense of reimbursement should be collected from the defrauding party.
>stock market acceptable?
Yep, if a company elects to be traded publicly.
>do you promote monopolies?
I don't PROMOTE them, no, but I see no legal reason why they shouldn't exist. But if you support the little guy and don't want to give your business to the Wal Mart or whatever, hey, it's your money, more power to you.
>should competition be monitored?
No.

>>351662420

"You're", not "your". lrn2grammar

>>351662613

Your statement was basically, 'let the better system win'.

Well that's what socialists are trying to do. They believe their system is better, they promote their system just as capitalists promote their own (that's what you're doing here... your thread acts to promote capitalism and discredit socialism).

Through promotion both groups attract followers. It's basic thrological systems working here.

All socialism is trying to do... it's trying to win. And you're complaining about having competition. When your system is all about promoting COMPETITION.

>>351657355
why don't you just start your own socialist economy?
it was tried, remember the war against communism all over central and south america, aisa, the soviet union and it's satialite countries? carpet bombing mass destruction mass murder in the name of freedom? kinda like your new war on terror

>>351662737
>none of it has anything to do with socialism
>hurr durr i watch fox news

I like the idea of socialism, but I understnad it will never work.

Most of my economy teachers have used this example: a professor has a class full of socialists, so he decides to redistribute the grade wealth, and average everyone's scores. Everyone in the class has a C, and by the end of the semester everyone is failing, because the slackers who would've failed anyway continue to ride on the rest of the class, and the kids who earned As stop trying to stick to the freeloaders.

The underlying message is that people are greedy, and only do what suits themselves, rather than the general populus. This is why socialism fails.
HOWEVER, some people, like myself, would study extra hard, tutor other kids, etc. because I want everyone to do well, and I would hope that if I pick up the slack and Ace a few tests, then maybe when I have an off day and would've gotten a B or C someone else will cover my ass.

TL;DR: Socialism only works if you're not an ass.

>>351662301
>Where do you get the machines to make the food? Where do you get the food? Where do you grow the food? On private property? I don't know of any public property where you can grow your food and then sell it as a consumer good (the government would then tax you).

Oh wow. So now we have the SOCIALIST bitching that government taxation hurts his ability to start a business. And yet, you support using the laws to INCREASE FUCKING TAXES, and you wonder why capitalists are mad?

>Everything that makes a website possible is based on huge sums of investment.
Yeah, I hear YouTube and newt gingrich got started by some heavy, HEAVY backing.

Wait...

>>351663161

all of your points can be used to explain why capitalism would fail to.

People are greedy, so thusly they will abuse free-market systems to take from the poor and line their own wallets.

>>351662737

"Do you support Obama's 7 wars in the Middle East? Do you think we should bring the troops home?"

First off, Obama isn't socialist. The healthcare legislation was basically a subsidy to insurance, though it did have some good protections such as banning insurers from dropping clients for having preexisting conditions. But no, I don't support these wars. The "troops" are part of a socialistic enterprise. If you're against anything socialistic, then you should be against the military.

"Do you support Obama's escalation of the War on Drugs?"

No. But he did originally call for the DEA to stop going after states that decriminalized marijuana.

"Do you support the TSA and their porno-scanners?"

No. And, what?

>>351662613
>For fuck sake dude, the KKK attracts people. The KKK is also largely hated by people.

But our country still allows them to exist, doesn't it? FFS the Supreme Court has upheld their right to be as hateful as they want.

NOBODY likes Westboro Baptist Church and they're still around.

>>351663054

Here's the difference. Us libertarians just want to be left alone. In a free-enterprise system, violence and force are illegitimate except for in self-defense. Peace and voluntary trade is what it's all about.

In contrast, with Socialism, violence and coercion are part of the package. What will you do when you try to implement socialism and people don't want to go along with your plans?

>>351662558
Why you mad bro? Did the truth hurt? In another place and time I would bury you in proofs that everything I said was true. No point in it here. You have the internet...Use it. True story bro!

>>351657355
how about you keep your little capitalist haven and let everyone else see if they can live without you?

>>351663473

We're not talking about if the government allows it. You said that:

"And yet, if the system WORKS, and living there is good, then you won't have issues."

And I was saying, no, even if it works... you can still have issues. Flack from the others around you who hate your way of life.

See back to my other post:

>>351663054

>>351663054
Yes, but my objection is to forcing someone to join.

The thing is, if you have a free market, and the government DOESN'T take your money, you can then elect to say "I'd like to take my money and redistribute it." If you have an instituted socialism, and the government DOES take your money, you don't have the opportunity to say "no thanks, I'd rather keep it".

Socialism can properly exist inside of a capitalist system, but capitalism cannot properly exist inside of a socialist system, because capitalism is about the freedom to spend your money as you see fit, be it on yourself and your business OR on making sure your workers/neighbors are properly cared for or whatever.

That's my point. if 51% of America wants socialism, they shouldn't get it at the expense of the rights of the other 49%. But if 51% of America wants capitalism, the other 49% are free to practice socialism by voluntary (rather than coerced) participation.

>>351663464

Sir, open your eyes. You are proving exactly the point I am trying to make. We have a growing police state, endless wars in the middle east, and losing our freedoms daily, yet YOU STILL SUPPORT THE GUY IN CHARGE because you *like* him.

>>351663385
But in a capitalist market, people cheat each other to make cheaper, better products, so they can earn more money. It essentially tricks humans into helping each other; it channels that "fuck you" mentality.

>>351662383
>By your logic we should steralise or execute all the disabled/mental/prisoners/orphans/elderly/people geographically situated where they are unable to work. Really op..?

Where in the FUCK did I say anything of the sort?

>>351663272


"Oh wow. So now we have the SOCIALIST bitching that government taxation hurts his ability to start a business."

never said that.

"Yeah, I hear YouTube and newt gingrich got started by some heavy, HEAVY backing."

You obviously don't understand a word that I've said. Youtube is only made possible by an existing web of a shit ton of resources (power lines/ huge telecoms etc). Youtube only makes money so long as there are advertisers paying to use their site. It's all based on private property. Jesus christ, you're an idiot.

>>351663161

socialism works because the students who cheat and get an A would be brought back down to a C.

getting an A or being succesful doesn't always come through hard work or playing fair.

>>351663654

That's all we're asking for! Just leave us alone so we can work hard and enjoy the fruits of our labor. We're sick of your collectivist, bee-hive mentality.

>>351663272

"you support using the laws to INCREASE FUCKING TAXES, and you wonder why capitalists are mad?"

Never said that. Capitalists don't give two shits about anything. They're rich, and you are their slave.

>>351663765
ah. Well, I suppose that could be a problem. But fact of the matter is, on ideological principle *I* wouldn't join no matter how nice it is.

But then there are clearly enough socialists for it to work. And if they harass or threaten you, or harm you, they're breaking the law, and you can sue them and take their capitalist blood money. And use it to better your righteous socialist community. And you'd see me and every other true libertarian applauding your commitment to principle and belief in voluntary association, while mocking the moral majority fuckwits who think that you don't have a right to live your life as you see fit when it doesn't harm anyone.

>>351663143

Not directly, but it is intricately tied in to Statism. Which is the more accurate, all-encompassing term for Socialists, Fascists, Communists, and anyone else who worships at the altar of Government.

>>351663995
Well sure, it's impossible to exist entirely off the capitalist grid. But fuck, that's true ANYWAY, because we live in a world of international trade, and even if America was 100% socialist tomorrow it'd still be dependent on product and profit from capitalist countries around the world.

You'll never be truly free of capitalism, but that doesn't mean that you can make socialist the things you're able to control. So what if capitalists control your power lines or web server? You can still make sure your company is handled in a socialist manner.

>>351663851

Here's a thing though, we technically aren't a 'capitalist nation' on paper. We act in a capitalist manner. We are a Democracy, a Democracy is about populous vote and the majority opinion about how the government should be ran.

So I can say the very same thing to you. Just because you don't believe in a social net, and do believe in allowing the free-market do its thing... why should I allow you to force said system on me?

And no, your system isn't some fruitful that magically allows these other systems to coexist in it.

Just like the statement goes, socialism and/or communism work on paper, but not in practice. Well your ideal that a socialist community can still exist inside of your image of a capitalist free-market society. Yeah... on paper... but this is the real world baby, and the real world... just like your promotes... is ready and waiting to kick your ass.

>>351663161
Most of MY economics professors didn't know shit (though it took the real world to prove that to me) They speak in ideal situations and make little account for the psychologies of the people who move the economic wheels of the world. Take what they tell you with a grain of salt or you're in for a whole lot of disappointment. One quick example is the law of "supply and demand"...Total bullshit. Works on paper but not in reality. Just look at the diamond industry as one example.

If she's old enough to Pee
http://www.livestream.com/minky8
http://www.livestream.com/minky8
http://www.livestream.com/minky8
She is good enough for Me ! ascy

>>351664383
>They're rich, and you are their slave.
I'm a capitalist and I work as a dishwasher, /b/ro. Try harder.

>>351663488

why must socialist transformation always be equated with violence? arbenez, lumumba and allende both achieved socialist triumph through direct democracy, only to have the intelligence agency of the most un-libertarian nation on earth overthrow their legitimate positions of power.

personally, i think libertarian socialism is where its at, direct democracy and workers councils controlling means of production without the omnipotent state to prevent them from doing so

pic related, noam chomsky agrees

>>351664116
but your lying , you can never allow another system to survive or yours would collapse. you have never let others live in peace and you never will. you need to be wiped off the planet like shit from the ass after a nasty dump

Socialist fags vote for enforced socialism paid for by the rich. If it was their own money they wouldn't even consider it. Face it socialist fags: if you were the rich man who earned his way up (btw 250,000 a year isn't that hard to make, that is NOT private jet owner status) and someone wanted 40% of your paycheck, you'd hate lazy socialist fags too. Go get a fucking education pricks.

>>351664606
>We are a Democracy, a Democracy is about populous vote and the majority opinion about how the government should be ran.

Except we're NOT a democracy. We're a democratic republic, and what's more we're a democratic republic with a Constitution, meaning codified rights.

That's why even if 90% of America would like to force me to stop saying that Jesus Christ is a manslut and I fucked him in the ass, they can't pass a law forcing me to be quiet, because of my rights.

America is NOT a democracy, democracy is mob rule with a meeting place. America is a nation where rights are sacrosanct.

I'm talking about socialism being an infringement on my RIGHT to property. The fact that a majority wants to deprive me of my rights does not mean they should be allowed to do so.

>>351664606
Sure is a lot of fail in this thread...Assuming you are talking about the good ol' US of A, we are NOT a democracy, we are a rebublic

>>351659113
wait telling me what to do? what is best for me? sounds like america
>captcha related senators, steelin

Cooperative business work IRL but you can't make fuckloads of money with it.
It's as simple as that.

Socialism, in many cases mentioned in this thread, is pretty much the same as what people call 'social democracy'.

It has benefits (look at Scandic countries, and don't give me that "in 30y bullshit.").
However I think that, like capitalism (here I mean neo-liberalism-- in European terms), it has flaws that should be worked on.

Bottomline:
An ideology may seem like a coherent system of ideas, in reality it is not.
Why do you have national differences (German socialism, Spanish socialism, etc) and why do you have 100's of sub-ideologies if it is, in fact, coherent?

>>351664658
>One quick example is the law of "supply and demand"...Total bullshit. Works on paper but not in reality. Just look at the diamond industry as one example.

The law of supply and demand has been subverted by contemporary obsession with Veblen Goods. Your economics professors should probably have touched on this fact.

>>351664840

I love certain aspects of Chomsky's ideology. But still, you haven't answered my most crucial question:

In a socialist society, what do the Benevolent Leaders do in the event that their subjects do not behave in the manner that they want them to?

>>351664588

"You can still make sure your company is handled in a socialist manner."

You wouldn't have a company to begin with. It probably would have started through some other enterprise that was private, and it would probably continue to maintain private proceeds. It'd probably be some rich mans experiment. We're talking about something that exists entirely from the ground up.

>>351664109
nigga never been to sweden.

>>351664606

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you socialism is right. I'm not this ideal socialist you're looking for. I believe in capitalism, I like capitalism, shit I LOVE capitalism and reap its benefits every day. I also believe in a social net to assist the poor.

You have your ideals as well. And I am happy you feel so strong about them. Go dude, enjoy it, promote it, lavish in the greatness that is your political point of view.

My point though is that, your actions here are to discredit, or even demonize socialism. And you complain that socialists are trying to force something on you, when all they are doing is acting in the very same arena you are, following the same democratic your system follows, to win a competition you are joined in. And the icing on the top is that your system is the one who celebrates healthy competition... well you have it... socialists have thrown their chip into the ring, they're ready to compete, do you have the gonads to stick in the game? Or are you going to cry and say "wahhh, it's not fair, they shouldn't get to play in this game we call democracy!"

>>351658673
Not sure which country you live in but the system doesn't work the way you describe. The top 1% get rich off the fruit of other peoples labors and them doing the labor do not. That is your capitalism as far as how it works in the USA

>>351665111

Just leave us humble, productive, hard-working people alone, you degenerate parasite.

>>351657355
Done. I work for a cooperativist software enigeering company. Everybody put money to raise the buisness and everynewt gingrich, even the maid, shares profits at the end of the month (that is equal profits), this policy applies to any people we hire. If someone gets mad and wants more of the pie, we fire him.

>>351664109
>demographics are lineair
>sandnigra's aren't a >5% minority in most European countries

>>351664825

"I'm a capitalist and I work as a dishwasher, /b/ro. Try harder."

Um, no. You're a person that believes in capitalism's tenets. You are not a capitalists yourself. You don't own a factory. You wash dishes and make very little money and have little choice where you work because of private property. You either work for them or you die, or you try to work for yourself (good luck with that one). You are a slave.

>>351665197

Awww yes, your interpretation of government. Tell you what... lets have anarchy. You have all the rights you want to your property... well those that you can defend.

>>351657355
OP, I kiss you.

Everyone else please see: Walden 2 and the Twin Oaks community. If that is what you want, do it. They exist. Twin Oaks is taking members most of the time. If you want something smaller scale just look for a commune in your area, there are usually communes in and around larger towns. If this is your passion please go to it.

>>351665372
why not, though?

Why can't you? I don't think you even want to try.

Fact, is there ARE socialist corporations that do not act in a capitalist manner. They do business with capitalists, sure, everyone has to, but all company income and policy are handled in a socialist way. Depending on where you live, it's not even that UNCOMMON to see something like a community co-op grocery store or something, where people who believe in socialism voluntarily practice it and participate in it on their own terms and with their own property and money.

You don't HAVE to force it on other people for it to be socialism.

>>351665686

Call it what it is. It's CRONY CAPITALISM. Or CORPORATISM.

Not Capitalism, friend. Read Ludwig von Mises.

>>351665851
>You are not a capitalists yourself. You don't own a factory.

>implying capitalism is a financial situation and not an ideology

really? REALLY? If you're not a CEO, you can't possibly be a capitalist?

Also,
>You're a person that believes in capitalism's tenets
Yeah, fuckstick. That's called "being a capitalist".

>>351658673

>Labour

That's the problem - our system is based on the fruits of Capital, not Labour.

Scientists are paid an average of one tenth of executives.
Their societal benefit index is up to eight times higher.
Who's getting screwed here?

Is it honestly your belief that a socialist system can be built within a capitalist system? That we should pay taxes to the government and get little or nothing in return, while connected fat cats get bailouts and big-money contracts?

As to your hidden contention that America is becoming more socialist, that's just bullshit fear and paranoia and hysteria which has entered your consciousness, perhaps due to your fear of a black president, despite the fact that he's an elite bastard like the rest of them.

In terms of socialism, there must be laws making sure that workers receive the fair value of their work, and that they will not starve in the future. National health programs save TONS of money compared to smaller inefficient corporate bureaucracy which is STILL BUREAUCRACY, still a bunch of idiots sitting in an office answering phones and pushing paper about this or that. And in terms of unemployment, all economists of any caliber admit that there will always be structural unemployment, meaning many of the non-working are not working because there aren't jobs, not because they're lazy.

tl;dr OP is semi-educated retard

>>351665778
Nice!

>>351665851

I'm sure you envision a world where the hapless plebians look to you for guidance as you benevolently organize society. Then, they'd no longer be "slaves".

The dishwasher guy is only a slave to the Federal Government, who has the ability to send him to war, put him in jail, and steal his savings via taxation and inflation. Stuff that is probably over your head.

> redistribute the ill-gotten gains of the rich

How do you know they're all ill-gotten? That is why people fucking hate redistribution. It assumes that the people who have it doen't deserve it in some way. Fuck you. We already have a progressive income tax that penalizes prosperity.

>>351665516
I am not trying to demonize socialism. I am trying to demonize INSTITUTIONALIZED socialism. Big difference.

I am saying "you do yours and I'ma do mine". I don't want to stop socialists from being socialists. I want to stop socialists from trying to make ME a socialist. If they don't want to be capitalist, I'm fine with that. I'm not gonna stop giving money to their business or try to encourage people to leave their group. They can do them, and (as I've said), I APPLAUD that.

I am a libertarian and I believe the government should not be used to infringe on rights, period. Nobody should be allowed to say "you MUST give up your money for this person's betterment", that's bullshit. But if a person DECIDES, voluntarily, to give up their money for someone's betterment, then I think they're a fantastic human being and I applaud their charity. Shit, it'd probably make me want to give them MORE business... the same way I give huge amounts of business to Chipotle because, even though they're more expensive, I love the fact that they run the company on their own terms, with organic produce and shit. I don't even CARE about organic produce but I am in love with the fact that they took it on their own hands to make a change without forcing others to. Lead by example, I think that's boss.

>>351665934

"all company income and policy are handled in a socialist way"

Show me one of these places that isn't run by some guy that doesn't have money coming from other sources, where they have a substantial workforce that have no personal ties to the author of the project. I highly doubt that it isn't some group of rich yippies that pooled their resources together. How can that be said to be socialistic? It's like saying that when my friends and I go bowling and we share the costs of going bowling that we're socialists. That's a pretty weak definition of socialism.

Please would one of you capitalists that think hard work will make you wealthy, could any of you tell me the last time someone made it wealthy from hard work WITHOUT connections?...Someone like the average Joe...Someone who worked hard from a blue collar background with no friends or family in powerful circles enabling them.

>>351666242
nothing wrong with paying based on the fruits of capital, though. A scientist does more work, but an investor has more to OFFER. No matter how hard a scientist works, he cannot make an MRI machine appear out of thin air. An investor can.

Congratulations Op, you've missed the most important point...

Too far on the extreme on either side is going to lead to horrible results.

1. Too far to the free market side you'll end up with robber barons, a two level society of rich people and economic serfs, and eventually a rebellion where tons of people die on both sides (probably resulting in a poorly structured communist government that will fail in just under a generation.)

2. Too far to socialism, and the derelicts of society will bleed the middle class dry, while the upper class still finds a way to be assholes and be "more equal" and keep their money and position.


A proper system has to both provide opportunities for exceptional individuals to excel, while providing opportunities for average individuals to advance themselves in their own fashion and live in a fashion where they are content with their general allotment in life. This comes through education, a soft social net to provide opportunities, but not handouts in times of need, and it has to be provided by an impartial neutral body. Private charities do no work, because they only help specifically targeted groups, so the groups that most need the help never get it. As well as a system for making people earn that help rather than just giving it away.

Better off average people = safer world for rich people, and better overall employees and customers for them to take advantage of.

direct democracy does not equal anarchy in the chaotic sense.
If that is your idea, then please pick up a book about political science.

What I think people want and understand under direct democracy is a system with plenty of referenda and with workers councils (etc) like the time just before Franco took over in Spain.

Representative democracy is a failure because not 1 country has 50/50 women/men ratio (=not even close to).
Not 1 country has the lower-class citizen ratio that should reflect the society.

REPRESENTATION is supposed to be a REFLECTION of society.

Question:
Is it irl?

>>351665215
So a republic is promoting democracy in the world... That sounds to me like a contradiction.

So... what happens when all labor is automated and the people running the mines and farms don't have to employ anyone anymore? And the factories are automated too... how are you capitalist workers going to get money? Don't believe me? RIO Tinto already has an automated mine, and I know a shit load of guys working on automated farming tech. Foxconn just sacked 100,000 workers and installed 1 million robots to do their jobs. The writing is on the wall for the "worker class". What happens when there are no jobs left, just 1% with 95% of everything?

>>351666479

"The dishwasher guy is only a slave to the Federal Government"

"I'm sure you envision a world where the hapless plebians look to you for guidance as you benevolently organize society."

Nope.

Ok. I never said I had any love for the Federal government.

"Stuff that is probably over your head."

Wow, you're very tough over the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

I'll just leave this here.

>>351666877
No, an Investor can't. He doesn't know how.
And he can only offer more because the playing field isn't level in the first place. And without an initial level playing field the free market doesn't work.

here's an idea,if socialism is doomed to falure why not just sit back and let it fail? you won't bankrupt your selves carpet bombing women and children ( I'm sure it was all an accident) and when we fail and starve you can have my bike and everything

By American standards, the entire western world except for them are socialists.

Unemployment in my "socialist' country is %5. Our debt (as a % of GDP) is a fraction of that currently being enjoyed by the US or UK.

While your economy is stagnating and flirting with a double dip recession, mine is growing at 3% and 4%.

When your banks went down and needed to be bailed out due to lack of regulation, our have thrived. They're literally the most profitable banks in the word over the past 2 years.

If you want to learn about socialism, don't listen to Americans. It's like asking a catholic priest for sex advice.

>>351666990
Doesn't it though?
Don't change the fact that the USA IS a republic and not a democracy.

>>351660397

Have fun being ass raped.

People are little more than apes who adhere to an established hierarchy. If, or when, that hierarchy appears to be dissolute there will always be those who seek to establish one, or abuse their privileges.

>>351665934
This...
Western history also teaches us that cooperatives brought a higher quality of good, at a lower price, without using cheap tricks or mass-production.
This was especially succesful when we look at bakers & clothing-stores.

Concerning politics, any lineair thought (capitalism=bad; socialism=bad) just reflects a persons stupidity.

Let me say it again: ANY LINEAIR THOUGHT (concerning politics and ideology) REFLECTS THE PERSONS STUPIDITY...

It's kind of like saying: I can only understand issues with the lowest level of complexity.

>>351666468
>Is it honestly your belief that a socialist system can be built within a capitalist system? That we should pay taxes to the government and get little or nothing in return, while connected fat cats get bailouts and big-money contracts?
Well now, hang on. I ALSO believe that the tax code is fucked, that it needs to be rewritten as a flat tax and that we need MAJOR reductions in government spending.

>As to your hidden contention that America is becoming more socialist, that's just bullshit fear and paranoia and hysteria which has entered your consciousness, perhaps due to your fear of a black president, despite the fact that he's an elite bastard like the rest of them.
I'm not afraid of a black president. My hatred from Obama stems from his signing of the PATRIOT Act extension, and pretty much that alone. And I'm not afraid of socialism. Not my thing, but I don't care if ALL of America is socialist except me and a small pocket of capitalists. I'm a Libertarian, I'm used to being in a minority political group. All I care about is being allowed to live my life as I see fit. If you want to distribute your income and let the workers own the production, go ahead. I really, truly hope you succeed. but don't force it on me. I, in return, will not force capitalism on you.

>>351667343

exactly, wait until one of these ultra Capitalists loses their job and has to support a family on minimum wage. Then we'll see how fast they change their tune.

>>351667608
cont.
>In terms of socialism, there must be laws making sure that workers receive the fair value of their work, and that they will not starve in the future.
You don't need laws. Contracts will do fine. Business contracts, homeowners' contracts, etc. Congress is not the only group capable of enforcing a rule, you know.

>National health programs save TONS of money compared to smaller inefficient corporate bureaucracy which is STILL BUREAUCRACY
Actually healthcare is a separate thing entirely, that problem can be fixed by patent law overhaul. And to be frank, I have no objection to a public OPTION for healthcare, I really don't. If I opt in to government insurance, I get it. If I choose a private provider, I don't have to pay for it. It's perfect capitalism, but with government oversight for those who ELECT to be a part of that. Why does it have to be all private or all public?

>>351666110

>You are not a capitalists yourself. You don't own a factory.

>implying capitalism is a financial situation and not an ideology

Capitalism is a physical circumstance of private property. Nothing else, nothing more.

really? REALLY? If you're not a CEO, you can't possibly be a capitalist?

Yeah. You BELIEVE in the positive aspects of capitalism. YOU do not own a FACTORY.

Also,
>You're a person that believes in capitalism's tenets
Yeah, fuckstick. That's called "being a capitalist".

Yet again. A capitalist is a person that owns mass production. You are not that. You're a fucking dish washer who BELIEVES IN CAPITALISM. You are making an argument out of something quite simple and boring.

>>351658622
if you're making fun of americans the news, any tv show ever, anything ever put on TV has never said socialism is bad, ever. stop being ignorant

>>351667074
Bingo! But we don't have to wait that long in the USA...Nafta has paved the way for American businesses to exploit 3rd world people with a little bribery to their local governments. In this way more and more jobs are leaving without having to wait for automation.

>>351667156
That would be "Slave to the Banks" You have to follow the money to get it.

OP needs moar strawmen.

>>351667696

What is an ultra-capitalist?

socialism != to communism

>If you tell a socialist that socialism will never yield anything good because people won't work hard if the fruits of their labor are going to be stolen, they'll cry bullshit.

And they would be right, under capitalism it is not the workers or innovators of industry that reap the rewards (profit), it's the large share holders and the board (people who control the capital).

>>351668136
>>351668136
Such a crappy phrase and you ask "what is ultra-capitalist?"...
Damn son, you asking to get trawled.

>>351666754
going bowling is not the same as making a living.

Okay, here's an example. Pretend you share an apartment with 3 roommates. You all split the bill equally for all utilities, even though Fred uses 3x the water everyone else does and you use 6x the electricity. And if Fred can't make his share of the rent payment this month because he got laid off, you and Bill say "don't worry Fred, we got you this month" because you have a little extra put away.

That's socialism, to me. You're all sharing in the responsibility evenly, even if you don't all expend or gain equally in all cases. And you know what? I'm cool with that.

Well now, let's say you and Fred and Bill have this idea one night while drinking that you could make a fucking fantastic strip club. So you rent the property in the right district and you take out a couple bank loans, and you all sign them so you're all in equal debt. And then you open this club, and you all make decisions equally. But you need bartenders, so you hire a couple, and dancing girls. But you decide that rather than just pay these guys a wage and boss them around, they should ALL be paid an even share of the businesses profits, like you. Because a bartender is as important as an owner to keeping a club running. So after the profits are siphoned off to pay off the dues on the debt and bills, what's left gets distributed to everyone on staff, including the girls, who also share their tips. And all decisions are made by the group; if the bartenders say "hey, we need to stop selling X because it's too hard to make it quickly" then you listen, and don't just tell them to fuck off because you're the boss.

Not only is this socialism, you'd have every bartender in town (and a good deal of the better strippers) clamoring to work for you because of your excellent management style and good pay. throw in an employee health plan and flexible paid sick leave and you've got the makings of a nice little socialist corporation there.

>>351668010
3rd world exploitation is just stage 1. Those jobs are NEVER coming back. China is already beginning to automate those jobs as we see at the Foxconn factory which is in mainland China. China is now the largest buyer of Automated manufacturing machinery in the world. Think your service job is safe? There are already restaurants that are 100% automated.

>>351668010

The big Wall Street banks have no bigger ally than Washington politicians. Democrat politicians are even more guilty than Republicans on this issue. Who were the prime movers behind the bank bailouts? Who donated record amounts to Obama's presidential campaign?

>>351667806
From Merriam-Webster

cap·i·tal·ist noun \-ist\

Definition of CAPITALIST

1
: a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat

2
: a person who favors capitalism

I guess you're using definition 1? I'm using definition 2. We're both correct.

>>351667696
Well that day is almost here for most of them. Unfortunately then they will be (like most Americans) too busy worrying about how they are going to survive to educate them selves as to the problems, much less be of any help for a change. THAT is if they even do realize they were conned all along...You KNOW people hate to admit they were wrong...More so when they have spent most of their lives being wrong.

>>351668438

It's called the Socratic Method. lrn2debate

>>351668789
I know what the Socratic method is...
Just wondered why you even replied to it.
Oh, nvm wtf am I doing....

What?

Oh, wait. I get it. Out of pure spite for your political dissidents, you classified so many confusing ideas as "socialism" that it is now just a big cloud of incoherent bullshit in your head, and you want liberals and social-democrats to sort it out for you.

Well though luck. There is no such thing as a "socialist business".

Socialism requires rich people. Of course your version of things dramatizes the concept such as there'd be no rich people. But it isn't so.

>use the law to rob people who actually work for their money so he doesn't have to find a job,
In your words, socialism would be more like
>use the law to rob people who have extravagantly convenient production means a higher part of their money so that they don't have to put a mortgage on their healthcare bill

Socialism still leaves rich people rich, businesspeople with their business, and people with the obligation of working. If you think all of your political opponents are advocating free money, you are really really really stupid and full of shit. Because you've managed to do the mental gymnastics to figure that around half of your compatriots are complete retards because they disagree with you. Congrats

>>351669258

Fair point. I do like to think that even the most brainwashed, market-hating, authority-worshiping dolts like him have the potential to wake up to reality. Maybe I'm too generous.

>>351668647

You're using the dictionary to prove your point. O lord. I don't give a flying fuck what a dictionary says a capitalist is. People often misuse words over the years and it gradually becomes excepted that it can be used a certain way. Well, I'm going to say fuck that, and stick with the proper use of the word. Most isms are something you can actually do (pacifism/ agnosticism etc) it seems to me to be stupid to say you're something that you actually don't do.

>>351669551
Most isms are an abstract school of thought.
...u better be trolling.

A socialist is someone who has replaced the traditional gods (Jesus, Muhammad, whatever) with the God of Government. That's why I have to laugh when I see internet "atheists" fawn over Obama's latest expansion of government.

>>351668615
LOL, You'll get no argument from me there. Though the Republicans AND the Democrats are just as responsible... not to worry though, there is enough blame to go around. They are all bought and paid for and the top of the pyramid is the FED. Then the corporations with their rights of individuals and the responsibilities of no one.

For sure the USA has proven that capitalism may work great for awhile but in that money IS power and people ARE greedy to the point of using that power to gain more power at the expense of everyone else, I think we can safely say that capitalism is ultimately a fail. At least if you want to say your country is a country "of the people, by the people and for the people.

Socialism allows for more transparency and more control in the hands of all people. Capitalism puts the power and control in the select few. Do you like the idea of corporate dictatorship? In pure free market capitalism it's survival of the fitist there is nothing stopping conglomerates from owning entire industries or economies.

>>351669981
>>351669981
Shouldn't you be driving in your pick-up-truck with the 'confederaceh' flag in the backwindow?

"DEY TUK R JERBS!!!"

>>351668441
>>you and Bill say "don't worry Fred, we got you this month" because you have a little extra put away.

Nope, that's charity. Bill pulling out a gun and taking my money to pay Fred's rent (and a beer or two for himself), THAT'S socialism.

>>you've got the makings of a nice little socialist corporation there.

That explains all those socialist bars I see everywhere.

> people won't work hard if the fruits of their labor are going to be stolen

people in capitalism work hard and the products they made are not owned by them. still they work ! magic, this capitalism thingy

>>351669787

Most isms are an abstract school of thought.
...u better be trolling.

Which means you can do them, which fits with my definition. I don't see what you are arguing about. CapitalISM is a propaganda. CapitalISTS are owners of factories. See the difference now? jesus.

Socialism is like feeding starving roody-poos in roody-poo Africa.

They just create more niglets and the problem gets worse.

Feeding the roody-poos makes them more reliant on you too. Instead of doing shit for themselves they look for hand-outs.

The ones that are most self-sufficient and resourceful would normally be the ones to survive but in this case it's the ones who are the biggest parasites, the ones that turn out niglet after niglet, that survive the best.

It doesn't help that they prioritize in this order: pregnant women > babies > girls > women > boys > men > old people

If we didn't feed the roody-poos in one generation the problem would self-correct as the population goes back to a sustainable level.

>>351657355


DERP.

Foxtard doesn't know what SOCIALISM is. Guess what, fucknuts- AMERICDUH is already a socialist country. Just like every other democracy on the planet.

If you truly advocated Capitalism, every road you drove on would be a toll road, the police and ambulances would probably ask for a credit card before dispatching to save your sorry ass when you got in an accident on it, and you'd pay to use the toilet during your hospital stay.

tl;dr dipshit doesn't know the difference between Socialism and MARXIST COMMUNISM.

>>351669551
I see. So since there are no countries in the world which are truly socialist, you must not be a socialist, amirite? the fact that you ascribe to the belief that socialism is the best system and you espouse it's merits, you aren't a socialist. You're just a person who believes in socialism.

I see.

So instead of saying "I'm a capitalist", "I'm a socialist", even though EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT IS MEANT, we should go through the hassle of saying "I'm a person who believes in capitalism" and "I'm a person who believes in socialism".

Wow.

>>351670209

Nice try. I'm an atheist from New York.

>>351669981

" "atheists" fawn over Obama's latest expansion of government."

Where are these people? I never see them. Last time I heard, liberals are getting pretty pissed off at Obama.

>>351670179
Socialism does [insert action here].

This is bullshit.
You don't know what socialism does because you have no fucking clue how it will manifest itself in a certain society.

This whole thread is cancer.
Wannabepoliticalscientists

>>351670156
I see. So even though capitalism means the government does not have any ownership of the means of production... once the government starts getting involved giving money to private organizations, owning companies, and just generally doing things that are straight up not capitalist, we blame capitalism for the failings?

>>351670567

LOL at the idea that liberals are generous... with the money earned by hard-working conservatives.

because the rich people have all the money, and none of them will volunteer to join a socialist country

I detect a made they call Ghost in this thread.

>>351670491

"we should go through the hassle of saying"

That's a hassle for you? Jesus christ, you sound really slow. You can call me an asspie if you like, I don't mind, but that just sounds really lazy thinking. But yeah, I've never been involved in any kind of socialistic enterprise. I've never worked in a factory that made collective decision making about how to work. Sorry if that annoys you. It just sounds stupid to say you're anything when you haven't done anything remotely akin to what you're talking about.

>>351670481
>If you truly advocated Capitalism, every road you drove on would be a toll road, the police and ambulances would probably ask for a credit card before dispatching to save your sorry ass when you got in an accident on it, and you'd pay to use the toilet during your hospital stay.

Socialism vs Capitalism refers to who owns and controls the means of production. Just because the government performs a service doesn't mean HURR DERR SOCIALISM.

By your logic since taxes are collected to pay Congressional salaries, we're DORR FURR SOCIALISM ALREADY HURRUUUUUUUUUR

The government pays private companies to create roads, and those roads are paid for by taxes which are taken from gasoline sales, meaning that those who drive them the most pay the most for them, and those who don't drive at all don't pay for them. The government providing a public service is NOT socialism.

>>351670614
It's a pretty fuckin simple idea. Would still have a Democracy and have a Socialist economy. We had have all the benifits of democracy voting, petitioning, transparency, the right ask where our money is being spent. With a Capitalism you don't have that those rights. When companies get very large you are at there mercy especially if they control basic necessities.

>>351670348
Okay so you aren't trolling.
Pacifist --> pacifism = the believe of not resorting to violence etc
Capitalist --> capitalism = system that believes the invisible hand of the free market will make everything like rainbows and sunshine

It defines thought, not action.
It can, in the case of capitalism, be used in such a way.

But that doesn't change the fact that most isms are abstract.

communist --> someone who owns communes? -- WRONG
communist --> someone who practices communism? -- WRONG..
communist --> someone who believes communism is the right way to organise a society

... Please understand now ... (btw, I'm a different person than you were discussing first.. I won't post again after this one)

>>351670551

I suppose it's died down in the last few months, though it was strong for at least his first two years in office. They never said a word when he reneged on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. They remained silent when he invaded Libya with no legal or moral authority to do so. They have said nothing of the fact that the police state, the drug war, and the surveillance apparatus have grown exponentially under his watch.

The only reason they're getting pissed at Him, from what I can tell, is because He is cow-towing to Republicans, whatever that means.

>>351658266
>>351658566
double 66 dubs

>>351671091
except not only is the meaning of "capitalist" I'm using one that is in common usage, it's ALSO THE ONE IN THE FUCKING DICTIONARY.

You're being an assjacket over a culturally AND technically correct use of the word, for (as far as I can discern) no other reason than to be a pompous fuck.

>>351671220
>benefits of democracy
There aren't many of those.

>>351671220
>representative democracy has transparancy

Oh what is this? Wikileaks?

OPs picture shows the red states stealing from the blue states.

>>351670375

Stop watching fox you ignorant shit. Socialism is about much more than just welfare. If you don't like welfare try to make the requirements more difficulty. Socialism at it's heart is about putting the Government which is ruled by the people in charge of certain key services and industries so that we can all benefit. It's not about taking money from me and giving it to someone else, it's about taking a little money from everyone so that we can all live better. The bigger the pool of people the smaller burden on each individual.

>>351670909
>>351670909
Most liberals work. Do you actually think your welfare and food stamps services are that generous?

Okay, I admit it. As a liberal, it's true. All of us liberals are one welfare and the only reason we elect democrats is in hope they'll raise our benefits.

>>351670765
Not a bit of it, but I can see where you went wrong. The failure of capitalism is evident in that for the past 30 years every bill was written by a lobbyist for a special interest. Capitalism failed when it took the country away from the people. When the politicians started ignoring the peoples wishes and favored the special interests. Oh it may have failed sooner but it has become evident that the people of this country are not all equal. That the people who wield the most money/power have far more rights than everyone else. When control of the government went from the hands of the people to the boardrooms and banks. That's where it failed. Just because you still believe the big lie is no reason for you to stop trying to learn what is really going on.

>>351671398

"technically correct use of the word"

Cause anything that's written in a dictionary is automatically correct. Right.

"I'm using one that is in common usage"

So?

"a culturally AND technically correct use of the word"

What makes something culturally correct? It seems to me that cultures are neither correct or wrong. They either exist or don't, regardless of how well they work. I've seen many cultures that don't seem to work according to the way that I'd like them to go, but I'm sure to their users they seem just peachy.

>>351671843
> it's about taking a little money from everyone so that we can all live better

But also, the people whose standard of living improves the most are those who pay the least, and the people who pay the most see the least improvement (if not a decrease) in standard of living.

Don't forget that part.

>>351671843
>Stop watching fox
I don't even know what Fox looks like, what channel it is, or anything about it really other than that it is a false news channel in America. I hardly even watch television at all.

>>351671681

Yes it does actually, Freedom of information act the right to vote people in or out who can change laws. The government is far more transparent then corporations are. You are free to look up the salary of any government employee, you can see all members of congess's voting records etc...

Can I ask FASCIST /b/tards (particularly if they're American or live in some other socialist society)?

If you accuse a CORPORATION of being a lazy asshole who just wants to use the law to rob people who actually work for their money so it doesn't have to find a job, it'll usually get mad. And say something about how THE FREE MARKET is about justice and caring for the less-fortunate and that it has nothing to do with wanting free money and everything to do with wanting to redistribute the ill-gotten gains of the middle class so that everyone is indebted for life.

If you tell a FASCIST that CAPITALISM will never yield anything good because incumbents always gerrymander the process, they'll cry bullshit.

So, let me ask you something, FASCISTS: instead of ADVOCATING Capitalism, why don't you just start your own capitalist economy or business?

>>351672023
Jesus Christ.

There are two standards by which one can decide if a word was used "correctly".

First: the word is used in a way that reflects its common usage in the language today, even if that meaning is not "technically" correct. Because language evolves and words get (mis)used.

You aren't happy with this usage, insisting that even if the word is being commonly used in this manner, that's not what it ACTUALLY means.

Second: you can use a dictionary, which provides the actual, literal definition of the word (sometimes common usage that is "incorrect" is marked with "slang", to indicate that the word is used this way but does not mean this). I provide a dictionary definition which is in keeping with the common definition AND does not have a "slang" marker on it, but you refuse to accept this definition either.

So you don't care about what the word means in everyday usage, and you don't care about how the word is officially defined.

It seems to me, you've just decided that however you personally want the word to be used is the only correct way and that anyone who disagrees with your unilateral assessment of the situation must be an idiot.

Therefore, I feel comfortable in completely disregarding your opinion as you are obviously a total shitbrain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

The Story of Your Enslavement

I'm glad I'm from Murrica, where I can enjoy so much taxcuts, that we live in a regressive tax system.
Fuck poorfags, let them pay my mansion.
I don't care, I am smart so I invested in a bank and sold all my stock 2 years before the financial crash.

All libtard-fags should learn how to play the capitalist game, or Get Teh Fudge Out.

>>351671929

It's a matter of percentage. Yes, most liberals work (though disproportionally for government and government-influenced industries like academia, rather than the private sector).

But for those chronically on welfare and food stamps, it's pretty clear what party they'll support.

As a corollary, a hard-working entrepreneurial self-starter will generally be less inclined to having half of his earnings redistributed.

By the way, I was a liberal until I finished college, started working full time, and began studying economics and political issues in earnest. This is pretty common.

(And I'm still anti-war, pro-gay marriage, etc).

Socialism is about coming together as a society to take care of the problems that are too big to tackle on our own, like social security, health care, and so on.

Capitalism is about every man for himself with as few impediments to his freedom to make money as possible.

Therefore, if anything, it is you capitalists who should go off into a compound somewhere to eat each other alive, and leave the rest of us to run the country.

Hey right wing Amerifags,
Does it bother you when Europeans get on the internet and tell you how fucked your country is because of something they saw on TV, even though they've never been there, and if they have, never saw enough of the place to pass any kind of fair judgment?

That is exactly what YOU do when you talk about socialism.

I'll just leave this here http://JustJB.com/1D10QO

>>351672618
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO HUMANITY TO PUT US WHERE WE ARE

>>351672022
>Capitalism failed when it took the country away from the people. When the politicians started ignoring the peoples wishes and favored the special interests.

Not the fault of capitalism, that's the fault of a democratically-elected government which is beholden to a populace that doesn't give a shit.

Congress has a 96% incumbency rate. Nobody making laws is worried about pissing off their constituency. THAT is the problem, not capitalism. The fact is, when corporations attempt to buy special treatment from the government, that's not capitalist either, that's statist fascist bullshit, since a government should not give favorable treatment to ANYONE, and ALL people and groups should be treated blindly with equal consideration and application of the laws.

The fact that this is not what has happened doesn't indicate a failure of capitalism, it indicates a failure of our government to uphold the principles of capitalism.

>>351672026

That is pure bullshit. The vast majority of those on welfare are not living some luxurious life. They are struggling to survive. So if you mean that because they get $400 a month to feed their kids with food stamps their standard of living is somehow drastically improved then you don't know what your talking about. The reason people are rich is because this country allowed them too via laws, school, having the infrastructure I.E. roads to deliver there products, university to teach them. It's not like they live in a vacuum the rich reap the benefits of our tax dollars.

>>351672221
It's more transparant, but certainly not transparant enough to be called transparant.
But ofcourse, that is only my opinion.
You can choose to give a shit.

I, however, wouldn't want to live in the illusion that the freedom of information act (in every country different, btw) is your way to transparancy.

Backroom-politics is factum.

>>351672679
I'm not passing judgment on the realities of socialism, but the ideals.

Even if you've never come to America, you can feel free to judge the Constitution all you fucking like. I only object to your judgment when you say "all Americans are fat" and you've never been here.

I'm not saying "all socialists are ugly roody-poos", I'm judging the SYSTEM of socialism, as it is defined. I don't have to go to a socialist country to do that.

>>351657355
Get in here!
tcap.dyndns.tv - To Catch A Predator

>>351672433

That's alright. You can just go on reading whatever is in some book and automatically agree with it simply because it's in front of your eyes. That's cool. That isn't unilateral, no. That's having faith in Merriam Webster. Could you tell me how they come about writing their definitions? Right. You can't. Ok then. Bye. You're just as inflexible as me. The only difference is is that you use a book to back up what you say, rather than just reasoning about it.

Capitalism is justice. If all people that complain actually worked hard and shared their gains with the less fortunate there would be no poor people in this world, but the ones that complain are actually lazy, dumb or untalented and therefore their opinion should just be ignored as if they were smart enough to have an opinion they would be smart enough to have a good job.

The Story of Your Enslavement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

>>351672026
Not so, higher general standard of living for the lower section = less crime, and better trained and behaved employees. People who believe that their lives have a chance to get better are less likely to do destructive things simply out of spite against those who are better off.

That is why any modern government seeking an improvement in their countries standard of living needs a WEAK socialist system within a WEAK BUT EFFECTIVELY regulated capitalist economy.

>>351672930
>So if you mean that because they get $400 a month to feed their kids with food stamps their standard of living is somehow drastically improved then you don't know what your talking about.

If you believe getting a check for $400 a month is socialism, then YOU don't know what you're talking about.

I object to welfare as well, but that wasn't the subject of the comment to which you're replying.

>>351672642
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
You are studying political science, yet you assume people vote by using the(ir) rational(ity) choice theory.

What a fucking retard, please die in a fire and don't reincarnate.

>>351673171
Wrong. If I was JUST using the dictionary, then okay. But the way I used the word is ALSO common usage.

Why am I even talking to you? Didn't I already establish that you were a shitbrain? GTFO my thread.

>>351672663
>>351672663
>>351672663
>>351672663
>>351672663
>>351672663

>>351672026

I wasn't implying that there is complete transparency. But there is certainly a lot more than with corporations. In pure free market capitalism there wouldn't be anti-trust laws there wouldn't be laws against monopolies and there would be no reason for corporations to be transparent about anything.

Simple.

The socialist man, advocates for Socialism and fights for it because they want to help other people.

I don't want to have my own self little socialist industry.

I want everynewt gingrich to be able to enjoy socialism.

And I won't allow the capitalism to keep explotaiting people.

That's why I'm working for socialism by forming a Socialist Party in elections.

And when the time for revolution comes, I'll be ready.

>>351673145
>an ideology is defined in a general, accepted way

Also die in a fire please, you are cancer