# What is Socialism, Communism, etc?



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2018)

I'm working on an article about what Socialism, Communism, And Capitalism actually are. I would really appreciate it if some of you could give your opinions on what you think said systems are; their definition. With sources, if you're basing your definition off a book or something. However, your opinion is fine if you can't find any cites.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 27, 2018)

Is it an opinion based question? There are occasionally books codifying such things, historical implementations (though some question this -- see "there has never been true communism" type lines) and dictionaries (I will leave aside the prescriptive vs descriptive debate for now). You also almost immediately run into either a definitions debate or splintering of ideals; for communism then marxist, maoist, stalinist, leninist, all the smaller twists on the concept as well as the equivalent of non denominational..., for capitalism then the obvious first place to start is laissez-faire capitalism but top-down and bottom-up are also things to note, socialism again varies somewhat (never mind things like national socialism).

I guess you could ask for someone's understanding which might be interesting as such things seem to get a bit warped (presently news seems to love it but the story of the various red scares in the US, or the continuum as it mainly only had a brief hiatus for the US' involvement in world war 2) -- I have had people tell me that government provided healthcare free to all at point of service is communism, though they probably meant socialism if they were using words as they are typically defined and what I found their underlying point to be.

Or if you are asking for sources are you seeking me produce something like "this is what communism is, here is a daily stormer article on the matter"/"everybody is a nazi, the huffington post told me so"?


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Is it an opinion based question? There are occasionally books codifying such things, historical implementations (though some question this -- see "there has never been true communism" type lines) and dictionaries (I will leave aside the prescriptive vs descriptive debate for now). You also almost immediately run into either a definitions debate or splintering of ideals; for communism then marxist, maoist, stalinist, leninist, all the smaller twists on the concept as well as the equivalent of non denominational..., for capitalism then the obvious first place to start is laissez-faire capitalism but top-down and bottom-up are also things to note, socialism again varies somewhat (never mind things like national socialism).
> 
> I guess you could ask for someone's understanding which might be interesting as such things seem to get a bit warped (presently news seems to love it but the story of the various red scares in the US, or the continuum as it mainly only had a brief hiatus for the US' involvement in world war 2) -- I have had people tell me that government provided healthcare free to all at point of service is communism, though they probably meant socialism if they were using words as they are typically defined and what I found their underlying point to be.
> 
> Or if you are asking for sources are you seeking me produce something like "this is what communism is, here is a daily stormer article on the matter"/"everybody is a nazi, the huffington post told me so"?





TerribleTy27 said:


> I would really appreciate it if some of you could give your opinions on said systems.



Looks like I misworded my post. I wanted y'all to give your opinion on what you think they (socialism, communism) are. If your basing your opinion off a definition or book, then cite it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 27, 2018)

I am still at a loss.

I can give you my opinion on what a good person is, a smart person, a lazy person and my reasoning which underpins those, and there are a few hazier concepts that will bring in linguistics. This however seems fairly straightforward if there are nice dictionaries I can look at. There are fuzzy edges of some things and others might be a bit of a spectrum at times if we are looking at real world* rather than theoretical definitions and ideals. I could possibly drill down into some of those and figure out the core tenets of belief that underpin those (for communism for instance it would probably involve pondering the phrase "the means of production" which is so often trotted out, possibly before contemplating the idea of class) to give a more expansive answer than the typical/classical dictionary affords. I could come the other way and do conversation shut down style "social healthcare is communism" type lines but that would not be very productive, nor representative of myself and preferred approach to the world.

*I would probably say there never has been true large scale communism as envisioned by Mr Marx, mainly as the biology and pyschology of humans renders it an impossibility and instead you inevitably end up with an authoritarian dictatorship under a strongman. If however you ask "under communism what were the population growth rates of these countries" I am not going to say there has never been one so can't be answered, instead I will know what you mean and go look up census records and other population measurement techniques for the relevant time periods.


----------



## Spoda (Aug 27, 2018)

Communism = hate rich people

Capitalism = hate poor people


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am still at a loss.
> 
> I can give you my opinion on what a good person is, a smart person, a lazy person and my reasoning which underpins those, and there are a few hazier concepts that will bring in linguistics. This however seems fairly straightforward if there are nice dictionaries I can look at. There are fuzzy edges of some things and others might be a bit of a spectrum at times if we are looking at real world* rather than theoretical definitions and ideals. I could possibly drill down into some of those and figure out the core tenets of belief that underpin those (for communism for instance it would probably involve pondering the phrase "the means of production" which is so often trotted out, possibly before contemplating the idea of class) to give a more expansive answer than the typical/classical dictionary affords. I could come the other way and do conversation shut down style "social healthcare is communism" type lines but that would not be very productive, nor representative of myself and preferred approach to the world.
> 
> *I would probably say there never has been true large scale communism as envisioned by Mr Marx, mainly as the biology and pyschology of humans renders it an impossibility and instead you inevitably end up with an authoritarian dictatorship under a strongman. If however you ask "under communism what were the population growth rates of these countries" I am not going to say there has never been one so can't be answered, instead I will know what you mean and go look up census records and other population measurement techniques for the relevant time periods.



First of all: I'm not asking this because I don't know what socialism is, I'm asking this because I'm curious about the common misconceptions people have about socialism communism etc.

Second of all: it's a lot fuzzier then just looking the word up in a dictionary. There are lots of different forms of socialism; Socialism as an ideology, Socialism as a governing system etc. And that doesn't even touch upon the weird thing people have for calling literally everything socialist when it's really capitalist policies with a dash of socialism.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Basically, I'm just curious about what the assumptions are when it comes to socialism. I'm asking what you _think _it is.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 27, 2018)

So you are asking my opinion on the merits and downsides of those concepts, possibly with examples of policies that they would enact or give rise to (including within systems not explicitly one of those). Preferably from the top of my head rather than anything particularly considered. That is a different question to "opinions on what you think said systems are; their definition". Similarly I never thought you were trying to get us to do your homework, just that you were asking a question clumsily (or perhaps not and were trying to cast a net to catch the frothing at the mouth types).

People or US people? I tend to observe that kind of behaviour in US based/raised peeps. Goes back quite far as well (I have a lovely book from the 30s/40s featuring it extensively, and it goes back basically to the Russian revolution) whereas I get the impression most people outside it view the 1950s style anti communist stuff as almost a parody or fit for a caricature.

Dictionary works for me here. A classical large book of words and 2 lines/maybe a paragraph is rather limiting if you go solely based on that but modern electronic affairs that are almost closer to encyclopaedias do far better.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I'm asking what you _think _it is.





FAST6191 said:


> So you are asking my opinion on the merits and downsides of those concepts, possibly with examples of policies that they would enact or give rise to



I'm genuinely confused here. I'm asking you what you think it is. That's it.

Jeff: hey Bob wats socialism?

Bob: Socialism is the name given to a group of economic policies that are designed to give power to the worker blah blah blah


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 27, 2018)

socialism - pure 100% utopian BS that can never work and will never work. The reason it fails is because it fails at both basic economics and human nature.

communism - basically the same as socialism, and yes I know technically communism hasn't been tried. Doesn't matter since it still fails at both basic economics and human nature which is why it would end the same way.

Capitalism - The greatest form of economics ever. The ONLY system that has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity to everyone. oh and the USA hasn't been free market capitalist since the 50's. You know it is funny how many people shit on Capitalism when if they looked at it is Government screwing everything up.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 27, 2018)

Hmm...I can undoubtedly quote wikipedia or some other sources on what the terms REALLY mean, but you can obviously do so as well. So with the risk of being totally off (I really hope not  ) , I'll go from the top of my head...

In any case, I'm presenting the main view behind the ideology. I'm unsure to what degree countries truly were ever able to implement these (assuming they wanted to in the first place), so it might sound a bit caricatural.


Communism is where the country owns everything. You can't have personal possessions other than what's been granted to you by the state. At least in theory, said state treats everyone as equals and distributes wealth among its citizens, regardless of their worth. While this effectively prevents the rich from getting a stranglehold upon the rest of society, it also removes any motivation people have to excel at anything.

Capitalism is the direct opposite: the individual owns everything and the government is practically non-existent. Taxes are low and only really serve for the most basic of basics. As such, talented individuals have the most to gain by working hard. The main problem with it is that it's like playing a sports match where the referee's vote is worth less than the player's. In other words: companies can grow to such sizes that they effectively hinder competition to grow to the levels they've grown to.

Socialism is somewhere in the middle ground between the two. It has a strong government, but one that is in service to the general public. Services that are deemed a necessity are facilitated or sponsored by the government (medics, schools, ...) but only partially owned by them. They also meddle in the business world in the sense that the benefit of the many outweigh those of the few. In other words: environmental restrictions, anti-monopoly laws, ethical laws and things like that. The main problem would be that it's hard to define. Is internet deemed a necessity in today's world, or is it a luxury? If culture and religion should be preserved, should that also go for the Flying Spaghetti monster? And so on...

My vision is most likely blurred by my own preference (the latter). Nevertheless, I feel that this gives at least a broad overview of the differences between 'em.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...I can undoubtedly quote wikipedia or some other sources on what the terms REALLY mean, but you can obviously do so as well. So with the risk of being totally off (I really hope not  ) , I'll go from the top of my head...
> 
> In any case, I'm presenting the main view behind the ideology. I'm unsure to what degree countries truly were ever able to implement these (assuming they wanted to in the first place), so it might sound a bit caricatural.
> 
> ...



This is an interesting answer, but it kinda jumps the shark on certain areas.

Here's the real definition, if you're curious:


Spoiler



Communism: It's not actually a governing system, but an ideology and movement. The movement? To create a communist state. According to Marx, a communist state is where everyone owns everything and class, money, and even the government itself doesn't exist. Basically just a half step above anarchy.

Socialism: a bunchhhh of social and economic systems generally characterised by the workers owning the places they work at. The tricky bit about socialism is that there are many different forms of it throughout the world. Socialism is an ideal to aspire to. It's an economic policy of fairness. It's a system without evil capitalists like me.  Hell, universal health care is a form of socialism under some countries version of socialism... So Yeah.

Capitalism is the idea that people can own their stuff with money. That's it. You have economic schools of thought such as Lazzas Faire capitalism (free market). And you even have state capitalism, which is basically communism with money. But I digress. 

What's interesting is that your version of socialism is in fact very close to Obama-era governing, characterised by big government messing around in businesses faces for the interest of the public good. This is part of why I'm doing this, cause it's fascinating to see how people from other countries see what is normally seen as a taboo system in the states.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 27, 2018)

I would still maintain the earlier stuff about opinions on what something with a broadly accepted definition is a strange question. At best you would get essentially quoted talking points rather than anything particularly salient or considered.

Still

Communism. While there were some works than undoubtedly influenced him, to say nothing of European politics and empiricism at the time, then one Mr Karl Marx in the mid 1800s wrote some things called The Communist Manifesto, and another called Das Kapital. These would form the underlying framework for the overwhelming majority of takes on communism but there are also an awful lot of later works. In the idealised form it describes a system of government in which there are no classes, no real need for money/currency and everything is created and distributed according to need. Practically as there are free riders, human brains say "get what you can as there might be starvation coming up", human brains that say "me then my family then my tribe then my town then my country are how the list of important groups go", and unless everybody operates under the system you are going to be ridden roughshod over by others unless you are isolated (which does not work) then that gets tricky to implement. To that end in places it was attempted to be implemented then serious social controls were put in place to try to break the former and policies to spread things with a goal of worldwide communism were also enacted.
Unlike what Marx predicted it was first attempted to be enacted by the Russians in their revolution as the communist forces were the victorious party (of several) in that, they then also got to be a driving force in such things (nowhere else of suitable wealth independently became communist it would seem). It would be tempting to discuss world war 2, world war 1, China, the Sino-Soviet split, the fall of the Berlin wall and more at this point but I shall spare us that.

This loss of individual property, individual rights and such was pretty antithetical to the approaches favoured by the rest of the world, and fundamental animal biology, made all the worse by the conditions endured by those under the nominally communist systems. This would be most exemplified in the USA, which by the 1950s was one of the two superpowers at play (World War 2 having finished off the British Empire, the other European empires having more or less crumbled as a result of world war 1 and other things), and positioned itself as something of the complete opposite to the communist USSR. The legacy of this policy lasted a very long time and still influences at least rhetoric today (many politicians having been created then still serving today and people don't tend to change too much after they reach typical politician age), far far more so than the parts of Europe that were not under the control of communist forces and even a fair few of those as well. To that end I do occasionally have to try to discern if the person I am speaking to has a USA type mindset about such things as we might be operating with rather different definitions for similar terms and possibly even being very similar in moral philosophy.

Socialism. One Mr Marx is again a major early player but serious tweaks have happened since then and we then get to play define hundreds of terms and cover even more history if we want to start there. A broad/common unifying theme would involve the collectivisation of various things, be it from a central authority (aka government) or more local groupings. Some would view it as a watered down version of communism (many envisioning it as a stepping stone), others would view takes on it as necessary if we are reasonably going to say we value general human health, wellbeing and happiness but explicitly not have the goal of ending up under communism. As those are somewhat opposing in core philosophy we get the first of the term debates, and that can sometimes generate entirely different terms (various Nordic countries right now exclaiming they are not socialist when various US politicians attempt to refer to them as such). Other debates would include anarchism (another semi-related system that I would say human nature does not permit), the extent of states permissible under various takes (some are quite happy to have states, others would abolish them) and a whole load of other things. Said tweaks also often manifest themselves in the form of words prepended or appended to the base term, confusingly so at times (there being notable differences between democratic socialism and social democracy).

Capitalism. A process in which people seek to create wealth by means of trade, manufacture and production. While groupings within it are possible, and possibly even necessary given human biology, the individual, as opposed to the collective, is held in incredibly high regard within it. Much like there never being pure communism implemented you tend to also find there is no pure capitalism either. Pure capitalism is typically viewed as incredibly harsh (do or die/law of the jungle sort of thing) so most places will implement some kind of safety net to allow individuals that can't, or won't, do to that extent to still thrive to some degree (thrive might be too strong a goal for some). The reasoning for this varies (for some it is purely selfish, and it is nice to be reasonably sure essentially everybody you meet has been taught things enough to allow meaningful interactions, and for others it would stem from some form of ethics -- humans don't like to see other humans, much less members of their tribe, suffer). The extent of these policies then being debated endlessly in political circles, mainly as funding such things can't be done for nothing and that necessarily means forcefully taking things away from people, something many would say you want to limit doing if you can.
For me an interesting crack is the extent of automation and aspects of technology. For most or recorded history then maximum profit ratios to employee numbers were about the same, whereas looking at major companies today and extrapolating out to the future of others then it represents something of a shift here.
Some would want to view capitalism as the opposite of communism, I would probably say that is a simplification too far (simplification being a perennial problem in such discussions). A good contrast might be to compare Islam to one of the Christian religions -- the former has shifted but started out as a manual on how to run a society, the latter was a collection of cool stories and the means of running a society was built up around that in some cases or at least with the aid of it.

All three are but aspects of governing systems. Some prefer models using spectrums, others circles ("do as we say" being a feature commonly seen in nominally communist countries and those following the opposite philosophies), others graphs, some would look at fundamental notions, some would look at results, some would look to various models of ethics, some would ponder the extent of government permissible or desirable, some would look at religions (they are not yet a historical concept) and the list goes on. Different places usually have different talking points as well, often mirroring pressing local concerns or some form of historical concern that took on a larger than life element.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 27, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> This is an interesting answer, but it kinda jumps the shark on certain areas.
> 
> Here's the real definition, if you're curious:
> <text>


Okay, I'll bite: what makes your definition the "real" definition? 

I'll admit that I've read that definition of capitalism somewhere, but really...that's at best an ideological definition. That 'free market' capitalism is what rules the world these days. Even more so than the actual countries in a lot of ways.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 27, 2018)

Your "real" definition of socialism is still closer to communism than anything else. The defining trait of socialism that the other economic systems don't have is that under socialism, citizens pay a tax that is then used to fund programs that said citizens can take advantage of and are owned by the public as a whole. I suppose you could argue that under true socialism, EVERYTHING is owned by the public, but your answer (as I see it) is a weird bastardization of true communism (people own means of production and labor, not any one person) and capitalism (individual industries under separate ownership).


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 27, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, I'll bite: what makes your definition the "real" definition?
> 
> I'll admit that I've read that definition of capitalism somewhere, but really...that's at best an ideological definition. That 'free market' capitalism is what rules the world these days. Even more so than the actual countries in a lot of ways (the interesting thing is that even Trump is discovering that in an attempt to regain economic control of the USA).





TotalInsanity4 said:


> Your "real" definition of socialism is still closer to communism than anything else. The defining trait of socialism that the other economic systems don't have is that under socialism, citizens pay a tax that is then used to fund programs that said citizens can take advantage of and are owned by the public as a whole. I suppose you could argue that under true socialism, EVERYTHING is owned by the public, but your answer (as I see it) is a weird bastardization of true communism (people own means of production and labor, not any one person) and capitalism (individual industries under separate ownership).



It's real cuz I make it real 

In all seriousness, I've worked in the political and economic fields for years, so I know the academic definitions at least. But I'll admit, calling it real was probably just ego-blowing on my side

Anyway heres some sources if you still need it.


Spoiler



Capitialism- Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser, J Barkley (23 July 2003). _Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy_. MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-262-18234-8

Communism- George Thomas Kurian, ed. (2011). "Withering Away of the State". _The Encyclopedia of Political Science_. CQ Press

Socialism- Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). _International Encyclopedia of Political Science_. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636





TotalInsanity4 said:


> citizens pay a tax that is then used to fund programs that said citizens can take advantage of and are owned by the public as a whole.


I did oversimplify, but you did too. Nearly all forms of socialism focus on either public ownership of some kind, or they focus on, as I said, workers owning the places they work at. I tend to encounter the latter far more often so I didn't mention the former.

But besides that, socialism is a massive school of thought, with hundreds of variations across the world. There really is no right definition.

Totalinsanity, I am curious as to why you honed in on the taxing bit. Did you live in a socialist country and that's how they described themselves?


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 27, 2018)

There's also resource-based economy.



Spoda said:


> Communism = hate rich people
> 
> Capitalism = hate poor people


Now I'm wondering what you think socialism is.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 27, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Totalinsanity, I am curious as to why you honed in on the taxing bit. Did you live in a socialist country and that's how they described themselves?


I live in the US, so like

I guess?


----------



## Spoda (Aug 27, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Now I'm wondering what you think socialism is.


Socialism = hate powerful people


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 27, 2018)

Nice folks.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 27, 2018)

@Hanafuda 

Ummmm ok?

Yeah I would agree those people are garbage but what does that have to do with this topic?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Spoda said:


> Socialism = hate powerful people



ech more like

Socialism = hate the winners in life.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @Hanafuda
> 
> Ummmm ok?
> 
> Yeah I would agree those people are garbage but what does that have to do with this topic?



They’re Communists.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> They’re Communists.


No, that's cherry picking explains and an ad hominem


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @Hanafudaech more like
> 
> Socialism = hate the winners in life.


If we're going to phrase it that way, then "socialism = hating people who amass vast amounts of wealth by refusing to fairly pay workers and taxes"


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 28, 2018)

@TotalInsanity4 

If you get paid the min wage no matter were you go which is more likely? They are all greedy or you have low skill? You are paid a fair wage based on the value you provide. Oh and the the rich pay all the taxes. The top 1% pay almost half of all the damn taxes.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @TotalInsanity4
> 
> If you get paid the min wage no matter were you go which is more likely? They are all greedy or you have low skill? You are paid a fair wage based on the value you provide. Oh and the the rich pay all the taxes. The top 1% pay almost half of all the damn taxes.


Jeff Bezos hasn't paid taxes in years and pays warehouse workers minimum wage, while severely punishing them for taking so much as a bathroom break


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 28, 2018)

https://splinternews.com/amazon-made-5-6-billion-in-profits-last-year-and-repor-1823329221

"As Matthew Gardner at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy writes, Amazon was able to effectively zero out its federal income tax burden by leveraging various tax benefits. Here’s what Amazon had to say in its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing (emphasis mine):

Our provision for income taxes in 2017 was lower than in 2016 *primarily due to excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation and the provisional favorable effect of the 2017 Tax Act,* partially offset by an increase in the proportion of foreign losses for which we may not realize a tax benefit and audit-related developments."

Sounds like an issue with our tax laws. If you are suggesting we fix them then I would have to agree.

Reading up more on him he sounds like a bad person and nobody should work for him.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Sounds like an issue with our tax laws. If you are suggesting we fix them then I would have to agree.


I do believe you'd be hard-pressed to find a leftist that would _disagree_ with that. The problem is that we have a system that not only enables greed like his, but rewards it


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 28, 2018)

Well we do have a government that has sold its soul for cold hard cash decades ago soooooo.

I can't think of a way to fix it without killing it and starting over. Voting the "right" people in is unlikely going to fix anything due to how bad it has gotten, who knows how far this even goes.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> No, that's cherry picking explains and an ad hominem



I suppose Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il are all cherry picking too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I suppose Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il are all cherry picking too?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes


What in the goddamn hell does that have to relavantly do with literally anything in the sequence you quoted

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



CallmeBerto said:


> Well we do have a government that has sold its soul for cold hard cash decades ago soooooo.
> 
> I can't think of a way to fix it without killing it and starting over. Voting the "right" people in is unlikely going to fix anything due to how bad it has gotten, who knows how far this even goes.


Again. Agreed. The government needs to work in the interest of the people, whereas our current political system rewards elected officials with a fat pension and no obligation to do anything to help people in a lower tax bracket than themselves


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> I suppose Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il are all cherry picking too?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes


Yes, what you are doing is still cherry picking. You are just selecting random pieces of information that don't reflect the movement as a whole, but presenting them as if they do. That's cherry picking.


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> socialism - pure 100% utopian BS that can never work and will never work. The reason it fails is because it fails at both basic economics and human nature.
> 
> communism - basically the same as socialism, and yes I know technically communism hasn't been tried. Doesn't matter since it still fails at both basic economics and human nature which is why it would end the same way.
> 
> Capitalism - The greatest form of economics ever. The ONLY system that has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity to everyone. oh and the USA hasn't been free market capitalist since the 50's. You know it is funny how many people shit on Capitalism when if they looked at it is Government screwing everything up.


I disagree tho. I find a social democracy to be the best system in place that brings much more wealth and prosperity to everyone then almost a  pure capitalistic system  that is in place in the US.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 28, 2018)

Spoda said:


> Communism = hate rich people
> 
> Capitalism = hate poor people


Better yet..
Communism = laziness
Capitalism = greed


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Yes, what you are doing is still cherry picking. You are just selecting random pieces of information that don't reflect *the movement as a whole*, but presenting them as if they do. That's cherry picking.




Communism's had over 100 years to turn in a success story. Name it. Those regimes ARE the movement as a whole. Throw in Venezuela, Cuba, et al. and their glorious contributions to boot.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 28, 2018)

Vietnam is doing pretty OK nowadays


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Communism's had over 100 years to turn in a success story. Name it. Those regimes ARE the movement as a whole. Throw in Venezuela, Cuba, et al. and their glorious contributions to boot.


I miss pre-1999 Venezuela, it was a nice place. Kind of. 
I kid, it was already a free falling tragedy. Even before its Corruptism.
Well, being positive about at least it is about to stop the free fall... abruptly. It has to crash-land on the bottom after all.
Poor Venezuelans.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Communism's had over 100 years to turn in a success story. Name it. Those regimes ARE the movement as a whole. Throw in Venezuela, Cuba, et al. and their glorious contributions to boot.


We could also talk about the fact that millions of people die almost every single day under Capitalism because they can't afford basic food, clean water, and proper medical care. You are using the same cherry picked arguments everyone uses. What you are saying however is not what Communism nor Socialism is, it's cherry picked examples of when it failed.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 28, 2018)

I p(success)=0 for one thing and p(success)=greater than 0 for something else then the latter is objectively better, even if only marginally.

It might still result in some shit but point me at something better and we will contemplate it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> We could also talk about the fact that millions of people day every single under Capitalism because they can't afford basic food, clean water, and proper medical care. You are using the same cherry picked arguments everyone uses. What you are saying however is not what Communism nor Socialism is, it's cherry picked examples of when it failed.




Sure man.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure man.


Why not bring up the examples of when the CIA went in and overthrew/attempted to overthrow leaders just to make the system fail? If it's ok to talk about the failures of Communism, then it's ok to talk about the failures of Capitalism.
Neither system is without flaw, but that doesn't mean the flaws are the only part of the system. Your examples are not what Communism is, is what I am getting at. If you are going to only define one system by it's flaws, then your system is also defined by it's flaws.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 28, 2018)

Oh hell, this thing is degenerating. Try to keep on topic, I guess?


----------



## mattytrog (Aug 28, 2018)

Communism = Everybody works for the state. The state controls everything. The economy, healthcare, defence, education.

Socialism = For the greater good of everybody. The rich will subsidise the poor, some things are controlled at state-level, free to use for citizens (ie our NHS system).

Capitalism = Race to the top. State doesn`t control citizens. Poorest people are left at the bottom. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer normally.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 28, 2018)

@kumikochan 

The USA hasn't been really capitalist since the 1950's

@Lilith Valentine - On the CIA? What are you on? The CIA is apart of GOVERNMENT not Capitalism

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

[QUOTE="Capitalism = Race to the top. State doesn`t control citizens. Poorest people are left at the bottom. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer normally.[/QUOTE]

Expect this isn't even a bit true. EVERYONE gets more richer under capitalism. Hell compare your life to that of 20 years ago. You are much much richer today. Not only do you have more wealth you have more free time then ever before. The really really poor are in the minority.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @kumikochan
> 
> The USA hasn't been really capitalist since the 1950's
> 
> ...




Not sure about that.
In any case, (almost) everyone gets a better quality of life under any semi-functioning economy (e.g. China, India, Cuba, Pakistan, USA, compare the life standard of the average citizen of any of those to that one century ago). Probably due to progress.

What is true is that the gap intensifies starkly.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @kumikochan
> 
> The USA hasn't been really capitalist since the 1950's
> 
> @Lilith Valentine - On the CIA? What are you on? The CIA is apart of GOVERNMENT not Capitalism


They are part of the US government and orchestrated several attempts to overthrow Communist governments instate the same systems as the US. This still has quite a bit to do with Capitalism, but I was using it as example to explain that defining one system by it's flaws only opens the other to be defined by it's flaws as well. I was trying to bring it back on topic. It's not a shinning example of my best work and was rather poorly put together, I will give you that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Vietnam is doing pretty OK nowadays




Capitalist-based reforms. China too.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Capitalist-based reforms. China too.


USA is also doing good, with its "socialism" based reforms since the 50s. (?)
No one follows a pure model, that doesn't work really.


----------



## Stephano (Aug 28, 2018)

The best way I can put it is socialism is for the equality of outcome rather than the equality of opportunity. A socialist government would like to have a greater roll in distribution of wealth. I believe there is a fine line in what a government should and shouldn't do for a country. For example, some say that schools and taxes for road building are socialist in nature. While I personally can't say whether they are or not, I do believe some programs like schools are necessary for a healthy society. Without such programs, it would be a pure democracy which is basically mob rule. That's why America is not a pure democracy but rather a constitutional republic. The founding fathers new that government would have to play some role to keep the country prosperous but where the line is drawn as far as how big of a role the government plays in micromanaging our lives is what separates pure socialism from pure democracy.

This isn't a perfect definition and is not intended to be. I just needed an explanation so i can post this image.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 28, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Again. Agreed. The government needs to work in the interest of the people, whereas our current political system rewards elected officials with a fat pension and no obligation to do anything to help people in a lower tax bracket than themselves


There are people who actually try to help people, despite how the system is. So, it isn't as gloom and doom as he makes it. That said, fixing some of the problems of the system would help a lot too.



kumikochan said:


> I disagree tho. I find a social democracy to be the best system in place that brings much more wealth and prosperity to everyone then almost a pure capitalistic system  that is in place in the US.


I mean, I feel like we are moving to a social democracy. Just a bit slowly.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Expect this isn't even a bit true. EVERYONE gets more richer under capitalism. Hell compare your life to that of 20 years ago. You are much much richer today. Not only do you have more wealth you have more free time then ever before. The really really poor are in the minority.


That depends on who you ask

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...n-america-by-18-million-people/?noredirect=on

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/us/america-poverty-un-report/index.html


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Expect this isn't even a bit true. EVERYONE gets more richer under capitalism. Hell compare your life to that of 20 years ago. You are much much richer today. Not only do you have more wealth you have more free time then ever before. The really really poor are in the minority.


https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Just because we have more money doesn't mean we're richer, because you've failed to factor bin increased inflation, cost of living, and compensation for productivity, in favor of an average that is skewed by the people on the top making disgusting amounts of money more than everyone else. And because you said that a "minority" of Americans live in poverty, I want to phrase it in a much more realistic manner: in 2012, roughly one out of every *six* Americans was living below the poverty line. And that statistic will only grow alongside wage inequality as time continues to pass


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 28, 2018)

Not to mention the average household debt is the highest its ever been.


----------



## mattytrog (Aug 28, 2018)

The sad thing is, to reverse this trend of insurmountable debt, which no countries in the world have a chance of paying off, we have a reset button. This has been used twice in the last century. In 1914 and 1939.

It's only a matter of time before things boil over. War = money. Why do you think so many leaders have been hell bent on starting one?


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 28, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> USA is also doing good, with its "socialism" based reforms since the 50s. (?)
> No one follows a pure model, that doesn't work really.



Generally, I agree. Capitalism ultimately concentrates wealth. Communism ultimately concentrates power with the State. Neither is ideal. But in choosing which side gets the thumb on the scale, I definitely prefer limited government.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 28, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Generally, I agree. Capitalism ultimately concentrates wealth. Communism ultimately concentrates power with the State. Neither is ideal. But in choosing which side gets the thumb on the scale, I definitely prefer limited government.


Capitalism concentrates power with a small percentage of wealthy oligarchs, and you end up with the same situation because they control the police/private militaries.  Unfettered capitalism leads to dystopia just as quickly as unfettered communism does, which is why you need other influences (like socialism) and rules/regulations to keep capitalism from becoming too heavy-handed in choosing winners and losers.


----------



## Quantumcat (Aug 28, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> The ONLY system that has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity to everyoneso few


FTFY


----------



## Quantumcat (Aug 28, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
> 
> Just because we have more money doesn't mean we're richer, because you've failed to factor bin increased inflation, cost of living, and compensation for productivity, in favor of an average that is skewed by the people on the top making disgusting amounts of money more than everyone else. And because you said that a "minority" of Americans live in poverty, I want to phrase it in a much more realistic manner: in 2012, roughly one out of every *six* Americans was living below the poverty line. And that statistic will only grow alongside wage inequality as time continues to pass


Even if it was 1 in 10,000, those people are human beings, and nobody should have to choose between starving or letting their kids go hungry, or dying of an easily treatable illness.

The best society would be the one proposed by Socrates - where everyone gets together and works out how it is going to function, then they go to sleep and wake up in a random position in that society. This means all positions have to have their advantages and disadvantages, and nobody gets all the crap while others get all the luxuries.

In reality, a democracy where the majority have a working empathy lobe in their brain (mix of socialism and capitalism perhaps) is the best we can do, I think.


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 28, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> Even if it was 1 in 10,000, those people are human beings, and nobody should have to choose between starving or letting their kids go hungry, or dying of an easily treatable illness.
> 
> The best society would be the one proposed by Socrates - where everyone gets together and works out how it is going to function, then they go to sleep and wake up in a random position in that society. This means all positions have to have their advantages and disadvantages, and nobody gets all the crap while others get all the luxuries.
> 
> In reality, a democracy where the majority have a working empathy lobe in their brain (mix of socialism and capitalism perhaps) is the best we can do, I think.


So a social democracy basically like is in place in Europe


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 29, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> They are part of the US government and orchestrated several attempts to overthrow Communist governments instate the same systems as the US. This still has quite a bit to do with Capitalism, but I was using it as example to explain that defining one system by it's flaws only opens the other to be defined by it's flaws as well. I was trying to bring it back on topic. It's not a shinning example of my best work and was rather poorly put together, I will give you that.


I only partially agree with that (and it seems to me like you've read up on the works of Naomi Klein as well).

The idea Klein outlines best in 'the shock doctrine' (and refers to in her later books) is that capitalism - or at least the free market capitalism version of it - simply cannot survive unless enforced by some sort of militia, and as a co-ordinated response to a public tragedy. In that light, the CIA has meddled in numerous global operations that...well...let's just leave it at "if other countries would do similar things with the USA as target, they'd immediately be labeled terrorists" (you might recall a certain Al-Qaeda rebel group being funded by the CIA before they started doing to the USA what the CIA intended them to do against their local government).

The thing is...the countries that are targeted weren't all communistic. Some had more socialistic forms of leadership, and it wouldn't surprise me if some even adopted capitalism to begin with. The common idea was more that they minimized or even blocked USA's influence more than these liked.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 29, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I only partially agree with that (and it seems to me like you've read up on the works of Naomi Klein as well).
> 
> The idea Klein outlines best in 'the shock doctrine' (and refers to in her later books) is that capitalism - or at least the free market capitalism version of it - simply cannot survive unless enforced by some sort of militia, and as a co-ordinated response to a public tragedy. In that light, the CIA has meddled in numerous global operations that...well...let's just leave it at "if other countries would do similar things with the USA as target, they'd immediately be labeled terrorists" (you might recall a certain Al-Qaeda rebel group being funded by the CIA before they started doing to the USA what the CIA intended them to do against their local government).
> 
> The thing is...the countries that are targeted weren't all communistic. Some had more socialistic forms of leadership, and it wouldn't surprise me if some even adopted capitalism to begin with. The common idea was more that they minimized or even blocked USA's influence more than these liked.


To be fair, it wasn't really a post I made to be a history lesson, just an example of what it looked like to define another based on it's negative history. All of his posts were simply making a point to point out all the flaws in Communism and declare that as being Communism as a whole. I rebuttal by doing the same with Capitalism to show that the negative aren't the only defining traits. It was pretty poorly thrown together though because I was extremely tired from work.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 30, 2018)

I'm actually going to make a Blog explaining why the belief the Rich getting Richer and preventing the poor from rising to the top is non sense in a capitalist society. And Why Minimum Wage laws are horrible. It's going to take me awhile to type though.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I'm actually going to make a Blog explaining why the belief the Rich getting Richer and preventing the poor from rising to the top is non sense in a capitalist society. And Why Minimum Wage laws are horrible. It's going to take me awhile to type though.


I'll be interested in reading that, along with seeing your supporting evidence


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I'm actually going to make a Blog explaining why the belief the Rich getting Richer and preventing the poor from rising to the top is non sense in a capitalist society. And Why Minimum Wage laws are horrible. It's going to take me awhile to type though.


You do that and I'll post one graph of the rising income gap over the past 50 years


----------



## SG854 (Aug 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'll be interested in reading that, along with seeing your supporting evidence


The Short is, that the Higher Priced Something is the less you buy. The Cheaper something is the more you buy.
Such an easy concept yet it flies over peoples minds.

The Higher you raise wages the higher unemployment raises. And it destroys jobs. You end up creating a surplus.

More people want to work at a higher pay job. And you end up pricing out low skilled workers like teenagers, because if they are not producing at the minimum wage then they will rather higher someone with more skill who does. The real minimum wage is $0. Minimum only benefits people that already have jobs and produce at that level. While the higher unemployment increases, you end up creating more $0 wage people, which harms in the lower income bracket more then helps.

Back in the day there use to be kids that will show you to your seat in movie theaters. Now you don't see those jobs. These jobs are useful for teens to gain experience and raise their wages overtime based on training they get. But with minimum wage they won't get that experience and it'll price them out of the work force. Especially minorities. It damages teens the most. Theres a reason Unions died out in America. They wanted higher wages and child labor laws to eliminate competition.

The Competitive Market is very brutal. More than Half of the businesses that existed a century ago are now gone. A&P being one of them. They dominated because they offered low prices. Until Big Supermarkets with advancing technology of cars and refrigerators took advantage of that and was able to offer at cheaper prices, from taking advantage of Economics of Scale. While A&P became virtually non existent today, since A&P didn't offer lower prices, what matters more is that the standard of living in the country rose because we are now buying cheaper groceries. Its very hard to screw people over with high prices or low wages because that'll mean the death of your business. But jobs didn't go away since people shifted to work at the newer grocery chains.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> You do that and I'll post one graph of the rising income gap over the past 50 years


The middle class is disappearing into the higher class.
The is another chart that shows the opposite results. And yes both types of charts can exist simultaneously. When you break it down further you'll get different results. Its like the female wage gap, the 87 cents to the dollar a man makes is deceiving when you don't break it down.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The Short is, that the Higher Priced Something is the less you buy. The Cheaper something is the more you buy.
> Such an easy concept yet it flies over peoples minds.
> 
> The Higher you raise wages the higher unemployment raises. And it destroys jobs. You end up creating a surplus.
> ...


Youre talking about the fantasy of free market. Like we don't like Billy's ice cream because its too expensive so we'll buy Johnny's ice cream. Since his sales are higher johnny can now higher more people to sell his ice cream without raising prices. But what you don't account for is the real life scenario where johnny buys out Billy's shop and pays all his employees the minimum wage while increasing their labor. He cuts their benefits and lobbies politicians to get policies passed that will give him the sole supply of ingredients and allow him to be the only one to sell his ice cream in particular areas. Being one of the few employers in his town he can continue to cut labor and benefits and still have an endless supply of poor people seeking work. Now johnny continues to expand, buying out all other smaller companies, cutting wages and increasing prices, cause where else you going to buy ice cream?


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 30, 2018)

Now johnny is rich as fuck and everyone in his community is poor'er'.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 30, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Youre talking about the fantasy of free market. Like we don't like Billy's ice cream because its too expensive so we'll buy Johnny's ice cream. Since his sales are higher johnny can now higher more people yo sell his ice cream without raising prices. But what you don't account for is the real life scenario where johnny buys out Billy's shop and pays all his employees the minimum wage while increasing their labor. He cuts their benefits and lobbies politicians to get policies passed that will give him the sole supply of ingredients and allow him to be the only one to sell his ice cream in particular areas. Being one of the few employers in his town he can continue to cut labor and benefits and still have an endless supply of poor people seeking work. Now johnny continues to expand, buying out all other smaller companies, cutting wages and increasing prices, cause where else you going to buy ice cream?


Monopolies are rare

As long as the government doesn't intervene in anyway and lets the free market to flourish then monopolies can't exist for too long. Control is a misleading term. Even if someone controls 100% of a resource that doesn't mean its a monopoly as long as new competitors can enter the market. A&P being the biggest grocery chain now being non existent is an example.

Another example is the Aluminum company (Alcoa). Even though they produced all the virgin ingot aluminum in America in the past and no one else sold it, its prices were still going down. Why? Because people can buy other products as a substitute if its price is too high. So they are competing with other products and its not just aluminum. If someone has full control of Ice Cream and raises the prices of Ice Cream too high, then people will buy less of it and instead buy candy bars as a substitute. Ice Cream companies not only compete with other Ice Cream companies, they are also competing with other company that offers sweets, so thats thousands and thousands of products in competition with each other. So either lower the price of ice cream or loose business.

Cartels can't exist either because they usually fail. Businesses can all team up and say lets all artificially raise prices of apples. But eventually a business will break that promise and offer lower prices to attract customers away from another business, giving them an economic advantage, essentially bringing it back to a free market economy. Cartels never last.

Allowing prices to fluctuate, going up and down depending on supply and demand, allows efficient use of those resources. There is a reason why communist societies without a free market end up having a low standard of living. They may be more equal but they are starving. An example is gas. People think corporations are raising prices because of greed, but in reality if they get a low supply of something and high demand for it, it causes prices to rise. The higher something is the less people buy of it. Which means people will drive less to save money and we wont have a gas shortage from people using limited resources irresponsibly since there isn't enough to go around. Longer gas lines has happened many times in America when government artificially lowered prices then would exist in a free market economy. Communist countries also have longer lines to buy groceries, and very little products being sold, like Venezuela. The use of scarce resources with alternate uses efficiently is what increases our standard of living.

If Billionaires are a bad things because they use their power to keep people poor then you should see countries with the most Billionaire to suffer the most.
But U.S. has more billionaires than all the 3rd world countries combined, yet the Poor in the U.S. have a higher standard of living then the poor in 3rd World countries.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Monopolies are rare
> 
> As long as the government doesn't intervene in anyway and lets the free market to flourish then monopolies can't exist for too long. Control is a misleading term. Even if someone controls 100% of a resource that doesn't mean its a monopoly as long as new competitors can enter the market. A&P being the biggest grocery chain now being non existent is an example.
> 
> ...


We aren't third world because we have socialism, that leftist stuff that everyone hates. If you take the big corporations like the one I was describing but in real life. Amazon, Walmart, Comcast, etc. They do exactly what I described. Are we patrons of these companies because of good service or quality products? No. They're rude and have cheap Chinese shit. But where else will you go?

This has become the main business model. People that start businesses don't even hope to be the best anymore. They know better, they just hope to become big enough to be bought out by these companies. And when they do there's even more unemployment. So why is quality of life better than say south Africa or middle eastern countries? Because, like I said, socialism. When a family falls in to poverty they are eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Which in turn comes out of our taxes. Not the billionaire's taxes, they use deferments and whatever other bullshit loopholes they have to get out of it. The taxes they do have to pay, they use to bitch about socialism.

When it comes to not wanting to help people the government shouldn't be involved, but when it comes to building their empires they lobby for bailouts and all sorts of stuff.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The Cheaper something is the more you buy.
> Such an easy concept yet it flies over peoples minds.


*Gasp* it's so simple, why haven't I thought of that before?!

No but seriously, I'm going to hit you up with another concept: people buy more of cheap shit because it wears out faster. To paraphrase a man that's a much better economist than I'll ever be, "the poor man will buy cheap boots and wear them until he's worn through the soles and is forced to buy another pair, while the rich man can afford to buy quality boots and won't need to buy another pair for years to come"


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 31, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Monopolies are rare





Not with Communism.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 31, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Not with Communism.


Under true communism it's literally impossible to hold a monopoly tho. Everyone owns an equal share of every possible means of production


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Under true communism it's literally impossible to hold a monopoly tho. Everyone owns an equal share of every possible means of production



Yeah, under _true_ communism. Where's that happening?

I don't have an issue with "true" communism, it's a lovely _idea_. It's just never going to exist with any meaningful persistence due to human nature. A beehive is as close as you're likely to get.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 31, 2018)

We must seize the means of production my comrades


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 31, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah, under _true_ communism. Where's that happening?
> 
> I don't have an issue with "true" communism, it's a lovely _idea_. It's just never going to exist with any meaningful persistence due to human nature. A beehive is as close as you're likely to get.


I agree, which is why I never advocate for the methods that are brought up in discussion. I'll never be in favor of ANY kind of totalitarian government, period


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree, which is why I never advocate for the methods that are brought up in discussion. I'll never be in favor of ANY kind of totalitarian government, period



Just a question, but what do you consider a totalitarian government? The founding fathers would definitely consider the USA a very totalitarian government in need of overthrowing, just based off the 10th amendment itself (Side note: The American Civil War had almost nothing to do with slaves and was almost entirely about the 10th amendment.)
I would consider almost any government other than something like Lichtenstein a totalitarian one, just based on how must power they hold over the populace.


----------



## Trash_Bandatcoot (Sep 12, 2018)

All I can say about communism is that's it's an overused meme that I don't understand.
Rather that's a good or bad thing is completely up to you. (it's bad)


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> We aren't third world because we have socialism, that leftist stuff that everyone hates. If you take the big corporations like the one I was describing but in real life. Amazon, Walmart, Comcast, etc. They do exactly what I described. Are we patrons of these companies because of good service or quality products? No. They're rude and have cheap Chinese shit. But where else will you go?
> 
> This has become the main business model. People that start businesses don't even hope to be the best anymore. They know better, they just hope to become big enough to be bought out by these companies. And when they do there's even more unemployment. So why is quality of life better than say south Africa or middle eastern countries? Because, like I said, socialism. When a family falls in to poverty they are eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Which in turn comes out of our taxes. Not the billionaire's taxes, they use deferments and whatever other bullshit loopholes they have to get out of it. The taxes they do have to pay, they use to bitch about socialism.
> 
> When it comes to not wanting to help people the government shouldn't be involved, but when it comes to building their empires they lobby for bailouts and all sorts of stuff.



Communism doesn't work because of many reasons, one of them is the issue with bureaucracy and the needs of the lower manufacturing managers going on up to the top decision making people. This is the same issue that big corporations have, and this causes them to react to market forces in a slower manner than a family owned business. This would lead to a decline in profits for the big guys. You also have to realize that the reason people want to be bought out is the fact that the profit motive for investment is getting lower every day. With taxes, and regulations, there's almost no guarantee your company will survive the next years, so you want to get out with a good chunk of change, and say "I did good", instead of tussling it out with the big guys, even though you theoretically should be able to win with the government out of the way.
  Investment is slowing because the promise of profit that should always be there is slowly vanishing. In life, when you save up for something, it should end up giving you more than if you spend something immediately for present gains. That's how we got wealthy as a society. We saved and created capital for ourselves, and now we can buy cellphones and other things. But now, you can't even save for your kids. A lot of it will be taken as taxes, leading to people just spending their retirements for themselves, as they know if they tried to give it to their kids, which they in turn could use for creating businesses, or investing it in another business (thus creating even more capital for the family), are gone. The "elite" families grew up in a time where people could save for their kids, and they could continue that and make themselves very wealthy, but now the government makes that impossible. Essentially, the government preserves the status quo of the world, thanks to making it incredibly risky (as opposed to being very safe) to save capital, and in turn makes it risky to create capital for one's self.

(Note: Working at a job in an investment in itself, which is one of the last safe ways for the average person to invest. Instead of doing what you want for present gains, you invest your time into your work, and then get a paycheck out of it. People should be taking some of that money and investing it into companies or other things, but they do not for the reasons stated above. Even a 100 dollars could be turned into a 1000 with a little time in a capitalist society.)


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 12, 2018)

You guys keep saying that taxes and regulations are the cause for big business monopolies. But how exactly does loosening regulations and taxes on these monsters help even the playing field? I dont get it.

Also, that last part. Working a job used to be an investment. But with businesses cutting wages, over working labor, cutting benefits, laying off, it's now impossible. That's not a fault of government. That's capitalist greed. If you dont make your bottom line from profit, take it from labor budget.

I dare you to work in an Amazon warehouse or walmart making barely enough to get buy and unable to afford benefits, all the while the owners have enough money to end world hunger, and see if you still hold your views.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Just a question, but what do you consider a totalitarian government? The founding fathers would definitely consider the USA a very totalitarian government in need of overthrowing, just based off the 10th amendment itself (Side note: The American Civil War had almost nothing to do with slaves and was almost entirely about the 10th amendment.)
> I would consider almost any government other than something like Lichtenstein a totalitarian one, just based on how must power they hold over the populace.


That's... hard to describe, I guess, and I wouldn't feel comfortable giving "definitive" definition because I know they differ depending on who you ask

THAT SAID, how _I_ would define "totalitarian" is a governmental structure centered around the decisions of one person, which passes laws intended to oppress all - or at least a very significant portion of all - classes in such a way that they can never rise up to challenge the "privileged" class


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's... hard to describe, I guess, and I wouldn't feel comfortable giving "definitive" definition because I know they differ depending on who you ask
> 
> THAT SAID, how _I_ would define "totalitarian" is a governmental structure centered around the decisions of one person, which passes laws intended to oppress all - or at least a very significant portion of all - classes in such a way that they can never rise up to challenge the "privileged" class



So I'm guessing you're in favor of the second amendment, and not any of the legislation surrounding it? Pretty hard for an unarmed populace to rise up.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> So I'm guessing you're in favor of the second amendment, and not any of the legislation surrounding it? Pretty hard for an unarmed populace to rise up.


I'm in favor of the second amendment as it's written, not as it's interpreted; I also believe that there should be strict legislation regarding licensing for ownership. One should be able to pass a basic competency test and take a course on gun safety before owning a gun, much the same as owning a car

That said, the one that's more important to me is the First Amendment; if you can't criticize the ruling class and run in opposition of them politically, then the second amendment means nothing


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm in favor of the second amendment as it's written, not as it's interpreted; I also believe that there should be strict legislation regarding licensing for ownership. One should be able to pass a basic competency test and take a course on gun safety before owning a gun, much the same as owning a car
> 
> That said, the one that's more important to me is the First Amendment; if you can't criticize the ruling class and run in opposition of them politically, then the second amendment means nothing



I mean, the second amendment is the one to protect the constitution, and the rest are to protect the rights of the people. And you do realize that if we had a totalitarian government that was tyrannical, what would those competency tests look like? Do you really think the majority of people would pass if the government wanted to seize control of everyone? Giving that much power to the government is like saying "Here's my only means of defence against you. You can have it, friend"


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> I mean, the second amendment is the one to protect the constitution, and the rest are to protect the rights of the people. And you do realize that if we had a totalitarian government that was tyrannical, what would those competency tests look like? Do you really think the majority of people would pass if the government wanted to seize control of everyone? Giving that much power to the government is like saying "Here's my only means of defence against you. You can have it, friend"


Is it really the only means of defense? The system isn't perfect, and there is corruption, but it can be improved. It was designed that way, we have a voting system. The problem is, most people dont vote. That's how things got the way they are. And if the majority can't be bothered to care enough to vote, what makes you think they'd militarize?


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 12, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> Is it really the only means of defense? The system isn't perfect, and there is corruption, but it can be improved. It was designed that way, we have a voting system. The problem is, most people dont vote. That's how things got the way they are. And if the majority can't be bothered to care enough to vote, what makes you think they'd militarize?


Because only 5% of the populace is needed to take over the government. I have some statistics and such that I can get to you tonight, if you would like.


----------



## WeedZ (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Because only 5% of the populace is needed to take over the government. I have some statistics and such that I can get to you tonight, if you would like.


So if you take it down, what do we replace it with? Do we go back to bartering animal skins and stone tools like barbarians?


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> So if you take it down, what do we replace it with? Do we go back to bartering animal skins and stone tools like barbarians?


The benevolent corporations will replace them, of course.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Because only 5% of the populace is needed to take over the government. I have some statistics and such that I can get to you tonight, if you would like.


Are you referring to violently overthrowing the government, or democratically engaging them?


----------

