# Communism or capitalism?



## GhostLatte (Apr 12, 2018)

I've always been a strong supporter of capitalism and have failed to see the beauty of communism as described by some people on the left. Communism has never worked and seems like a flawed system that could never be able to work. Also, it's been attributed to more deaths than fascism yet people constantly place Hitler as being more evil than Stalin or Mao.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

Capitalism daily brah. It has brought more wealth, more opportunity, and standards of living has gone through the roof because of it. 

All Communism leads to is death and starvation. Haven't you notice the only way Communism works (in the beginning) is when the producers of society are paying for it all? What happens when they leave?

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

oh and this is going to be a fun topic


----------



## GameSystem (Apr 12, 2018)

I prefer Wall-Eism, where we are in a post scarcity society, and all of our needs are provided by robots. All we need to do is sit in a hover chair and get fat.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Also, it's been attributed to more deaths than fascism yet people constantly place Hitler as being more evil than Stalin or Mao.


Or Francis Franco or Benito Mussolini.

Not saying Fascism is good, but kind of ironic how the left sees the right as neo-Nazis when they are on the same side as a leader who killed over 10 million of his own citizens for "not liking him".


----------



## x65943 (Apr 12, 2018)

It's not so simple.

No where in the world (except maybe Somalia) has a pure unbridled capitalist economy.

And no where except small communes in the South American rain forests has a purely socialist economy.

On a country level there is always a mix.

The US for instance has many socialist policies: public school, social security, Medicare etc.

The real question is what mix is best?

Look to countries like Sweden for more socialist policies.

Look to countries like the US for more capitalist policies.

But bottom line it's a continuum.

Only in America is there this mass hysteria and hatred of socialism. No socialism does not mean absolute command economy, just like capitalism does not mean 18th century London.

Wake up and realize Socialism is not some Boogeyman.

Bring modern US society back 110 years and this would be the most socialist nation on the planet.


----------



## DarthDub (Apr 12, 2018)

In order for communism to work, everyone would have to treat everyone equally. The problem with that is not everyone wants to be treated the same because some people like to treat people better or worse. The closest we can get is a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

@x65943 

I actually agree with that. Capitalism does in fact need a dash of communism for it to work at all. After all without it, it would extremely hard for people born at the bottom to raise to the top. (there would basically be no way) I've never had an issue with communism per say...it is just once you do down that path there are no breaks. The government just gets bigger and bigger as at that point you can get free votes if you promise X they will get free shit if you vote for them.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

x65943 said:


> ~snip~


Not disagreeing (same as @CallmeBerto ). In my religion we use the phrase "The Church is perfect, the members are not." That can be applied to capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and pretty much anything.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 12, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @x65943
> 
> I actually agree with that. Capitalism does in fact need a dash of communism for it to work at all. After all without it, it would extremely hard for people born at the bottom to raise to the top. (there would basically be no way) I've never had an issue with communism per say...it is just once you do down that path there are no breaks. The government just gets bigger and bigger as at that point you can get free votes if you promise X they will get free shit if you vote for them.


I hate to say it, but survival of the fittest.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Apr 12, 2018)

Each side is biased towards the other. Each one demonizing the other.

I'm usually in favor of a middleground between socialism and capitalism, as it works well in some countries. 100% capitalism creates non sense like private prisons or insanely expensive health care. Its just as bad as hardcore communism imho.

You want to tend to a society where people are more equal, without voiding meritocracy.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

DarthDub said:


> In order for communism to work, everyone would have to treat everyone equally. The problem with that is not everyone wants to be treated the same because some people like to treat people better or worse. The closest we can get is a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism.




Pure communism doesn't work because it is 100% utopian BS. It doesn't even work on paper. First we have to believe everyone is the same. (We are not and we will never will be.) Not only are there differences between just two guys (overall genetic abilities) between the genders (men are stronger then women and women have babies). We would also have to believe that there is no such thing as human nature. I mean do I even need to explain how bat shit crazy this statement is?

Also you can't just give things away for free (that is how you run out of things). Also who the heck is going to pay all the taxes for this? The evil rich people? Yeah that will indeed work...for awhile until the taxes become too much and they take their ball and go home.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I hate to say it, but survival of the fittest.


This is a good concept in theory, but in practice there are too many ethical issues in executing it that it just isn't worth it.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I hate to say it, but survival of the fittest.




Hahaha for that to work we would have to go back to a hard patriarchy agro war lords and harems. Yeah no thanks lol I love tech wayyyy to much for all that noise.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Also who the heck is going to pay all the taxes for this? The evil rich people? Yeah that will indeed work...for awhile until the taxes become too much and they take their ball and go home.


"Rich aren't paying there taxes!"


Spoiler











People making less than 40k literally pay less than 0% of their income in taxes. They get payed others money.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 12, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Hahaha for that to work we would have to go back to a hard patriarchy agro war lords and harems. Yeah no thanks lol I love tech wayyyy to much for all that noise.


You can't give everything away to people of the lower class. They should be functioning members of society rather than leeches.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 12, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I hate to say it, but survival of the fittest.


So should the homeless starve? The infirm die without medical treatment? The mentally retarded left to fend for themselves? The old left to freeze in the winter?

Are you really advocating this?


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

Neither. Socialism. Or a Social-Capitol Combo


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> You can't give everything away to people of the lower class. They should be functioning members of society rather than leeches.


"Survival of the fittest." and "Give the poor jobs so they can function without our help" are two insanely different things.

Survival of the fittest is a reference to Darwin's theory of evolution. This means that if a kid is born with hole in his heart and parents don't have enough money to have insurance or pay for it, he is just going to die.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 12, 2018)

SirBeethoven said:


> Neither. Socialism. Or a Social-Capitol Combo


Socialism is just a renaming of communism to make it more palatable.

Like venereal disease becoming STDs and STDs becoming STIs. 

Communism and socialism are the same concept.

When communism was a more widely used term it became associated with Russian socialism and dictatorship - but the word is merely synonymous with socialism at its roots.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> You can't give everything away to people of the lower class. They should be functioning members of society rather than leeches.



Oh I 100% agree. In fact that is the problem, we have more single mothers, poor people because of that. Honestly we need to stop rewarding people for making bad decisions but to say that is be called heartless. (not that IGAF)

However there must also be systems in place so that people who aren't born in the bottom are stuck there forever. I personally don't have a solution to this.

Ima spit ball an idea and tell me what you think -

"I'm not a fan of people not being able to access education because of the price tag. Therefore I seems fine to be to pay for someone's education if they show potential. Good grades, no crime, works hard, give back to the community. The system we have in place now were any dumb fuck can get free money from the government even if it is clear as day they will never become anything is crazy to me."


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 12, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Oh I 100% agree. In fact that is the problem, we have more single mothers, poor people because of that. Honestly we need to stop rewarding people for making bad decisions but to say that is be called heartless. (not that IGAF)
> 
> However there must also be systems in place so that people who aren't born in the bottom are stuck there forever. I personally don't have a solution to this.
> 
> ...


Everything you just said is scripture to me.

My mother once worked for a welfare center (not sure of the exact name), but one day (the day she quit actually) a man walked in. He was in rags almost, drove a beater car and had his three kids with him and wife. He spoke about how he had gotten a paycheck earlier in the month (first three days) but they had no money left, since school time came and he needed to by school supplies. They were completely broke, but because of the rigged system, he couldn't get any welfare approval because he got income earlier in the month. It was the 29th, and they just wanted to eat. Then, not an hour later, a lady with her hair all done up and one kid playing on his smartphone and wearing really nice shoes walked in. Her nails were done also. She was approved for welfare because she hadn't received any income. She also drove a _fucking sports car_. My mother asked her about the car and she responded that it was her parents. If your parents can let you drive a 100k+ sports car, why do you need welfare?

People are milking the system, and it isn't fair to those that have to provide the system. If everybody were to stop working and milk the system, the milk would run dry and everybody would die.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 12, 2018)

Capitalism. Earn your keep.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

@blujay - Oh yeah dude I see this everyday. I have a cousin who is very pretty (sounds strange but shut up and roll with me for a second here) She has 4 children...from 4 different guys, never had a job in her life and gets full welfare benefits AND got over 10K in tax returns this year. I have reported this bitch twice and NOTHING!!!


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 12, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @blujay - Oh yeah dude I see this everyday. I have a cousin who is very pretty (sounds strange but shut up and roll with me for a second here) She has 4 children...from 4 different guys, never had a job in her life and gets full welfare benefits AND got over 10K in tax returns this year. I have reported this bitch twice and NOTHING!!!


She's not breaking any rules. Sadly enough.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

Memoir said:


> She's not breaking any rules. Sadly enough.



*cries at the sound of personal responsibility going out the window*


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 12, 2018)

x65943 said:


> So should the homeless starve? The infirm die without medical treatment? The mentally retarded left to fend for themselves? The old left to freeze in the winter?
> 
> Are you really advocating this?





blujay said:


> "Survival of the fittest." and "Give the poor jobs so they can function without our help" are two insanely different things.
> 
> Survival of the fittest is a reference to Darwin's theory of evolution. This means that if a kid is born with hole in his heart and parents don't have enough money to have insurance or pay for it, he is just going to die.


I never said I was for the system in place. I brought it up to remind people of the harsh reality.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 12, 2018)

The purest expression of capitalism is unregulated competition. Competing entities vie for marketplace/social standing and value through innovation and policy. This breeds results quickly as competition showcases strengths and uncovers weaknesses.

A major problem in the model is simply mankind’s predisposition towards greed. When an entity gets large enough, it can simply out-resource it’s competitors to dominate its area. This is known as monopolizing. Also, unfair practices can tilt the scales in its favor depending on the circumstances surrounding it. The best example of this I can think of is currency manipulation, where a currency is increased in value through various unfair activities like reducing the amount of currency in circulation at the expense of those who have earned it fairly.

Capitalism is very merit based though, so it’s a great economic engine.

Moving onto communism, it is equality based in theory, and no one deserves any less or any more than anyone else. You function in your capacity supporting the system doing your assigned task, and the government supplies your daily needs without direct cost to you through taxation. Sounds noble right?

A major problem in the model is the exact same as capitalism. Greed. It is inherently large so greed becomes it eventually.  Communist governments often become tyrannical as the views and policies of the leadership often become mandatory. There is no I, only us.

I feel “what fits where” really determines what works here. In most marketplaces capitalism works best. In a few other areas, there needs to be govt involvement to avoid greedy practices.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Apr 12, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Socialism is just a renaming of communism to make it more palatable.



No. It makes all the difference between a society where individualism is king and a society that doesnt let its people die, and try to make chances of success fair for everyone.

Communism has other notions like everything belongs to the state, universal revenue etc.
Now yes in America there's a ridiculous propaganda against it. But it's not communism.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 12, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> The purest expression of capitalism is unregulated competition. Competing entities vie for marketplace/social standing and value through innovation and policy. This breeds results quickly as competition showcases strengths and uncovers weaknesses.
> 
> A major problem in the model is simply mankind’s predisposition towards greed. When an entity gets large enough, it can simply outspend it’s competitors to dominate its area. This is known as monopolizing. Also, unfair practices can tilt the scales in its favor depending on the circumstances surrounding it. The best example of this I can think of is currency manipulation, where a currency is increased in value through various unfair activities like reducing the amount of currency in circulation at the expense of those who have earned it fairly.
> 
> ...


Honestly? Whatever "-ism" you may choose. They all have vast shortcomings due to one shared point. Humans.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 12, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Honestly? Whatever "-ism" you may choose. They all have vast shortcomings due to one shared point. Humans.


Bingo. Very few would complain about a monarch if they’re benevolent and humble.


----------



## x65943 (Apr 12, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> No. It makes all the difference between a society where individualism is king and a society that doesnt let its people die, and try to make chances of success fair for everyone.
> 
> Communism has other notions like everything belongs to the state, universal revenue etc.
> Now yes in America there's a ridiculous propaganda against it. But it's not communism.


I get your point, but they are synonyms. One word is more demonized, but they refer to the same ideology.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 12, 2018)

I would call myself a classic libertarian agro small government, free market with a dash of communism. I think is the best system. 

However most people wont' go for it because people love giving up their rights fo safety and free stuff is nice, which of course leads to bigger government and we get what we have now in the USA and the problem only gets worst until it goes to shit and the cycle starts over again.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Apr 12, 2018)

x65943 said:


> I get your point, but they are synonyms. One word is more demonized, but they refer to the same ideology.



I don't know how they can say its a synonym with such major differences.



CallmeBerto said:


> I would call myself a classic libertarian agro small government, free market with a dash of communism. I think is the best system.
> 
> However most people wont' go for it because people love giving up their rights fo safety and free stuff is nice, which of course leads to bigger government and we get what we have now in the USA and the problem only gets worst until it goes to shit and the cycle starts over again.



Check european countries. They gave up more "rights" for safety and the criminal rate is lower than the US.
And safety nets are nice yes.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 12, 2018)

I don't want Stalin but I also don't want private companies running my country.



GhostLatte said:


> You can't give everything away to people of the lower class. They should be functioning members of society rather than leeches.


My family is on food stamps (single mom with two kids and a father that pays $500/mo for child support). Guess we're leeches?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 13, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> I don't know how they can say its a synonym with such major differences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Comping the USA to Europe is insane. Comparing any country to another is insane. Each country has their own culture, history, ideas all which play a HUGE role in how it affects every aspect of their country including crime rates. Copying their policies here without taking anything I said above into consideration would never work.

On safety nets...so I'm torn on this. It is true that good honest people do indeed fall on hard times (sometimes through no fault of their own) and helping one another would be the moral thing to do. However if you subsidized something you get more of it(agro more poor people) If you tax it you get less of it (people who are willing to put in extra hours of work) You need to find a balance and I think the USA has gone far to far into the subsidized part of it. Look at the single motherhood rate, look at all the poor people who are doing NOTHING to improve their lives and instead leeching off the government and demanding more and more.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 13, 2018)

My question would be, why pay any attention to the welfare leeches? There are those that use it and need it to get to a contributing position, and those that're just unmotivated leeches. But let's be real here, how far will they get? Will they ever see the world? Probably no. Will they ever learn outside culture? Probably no. Will they ever truly experience life's finer offerings at all? Probably no. So let them have the scraps you're willing to drop or forget about if not for any other reason but to remember why you're motivated yourself. Is it fair? Not really. But show me what document I signed that assured life would be fair.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 13, 2018)

Sort of an incoherent rant on the subject, but here goes:

I'm not a full supporter of capitalism; what Adam Smith said about an invisible hand guiding the economy and bringing society upwards is bullshit.  To paraphrase one _New York Times_ article from the 70s, corporations only have one social responsibility, and that's to make money.  More often than not, they're far too concerned with their own profits to pay heed to how they're affecting the world around them.  Look at Nestle, claiming that water isn't a basic human right.  Look at how Facebook indirectly screwed with one of the most powerful political systems in the world.  Corporations are downright irresponsible at times.

Like what X said, there needs to be a balanced mix of capitalism and socialism in any half-healthy society.  People and organizations can, and will, do bad things, and it's the government's job to keep them in place while also respecting basic human rights, which can admittedly be a tough line to balance on.  A good functioning government should allow for upward mobility, but restrain people if their ambitions lead them towards unsavory actions.  Even "successful" communist countries like China have embraced capitalist elements.  This whole notion of socialism as evil is a rather annoying holdover in the US from events such as the Red Scare, and should honestly be debunked.  

That said, I agree with you on communism; it was a failed system written by a man with good intentions.  Communism didn't work because it put too much stock in people; not everyone is going to work hard all day every day, especially if what they're working in isn't necessarily aligned with their interests (an all-too-common sight in communism).  Some people are better-skilled at others; it's a tough pill to swallow, but it's true nonetheless, and governments need to give leeway for this.


----------



## Axido (Apr 13, 2018)

Neither nor. Neither is executed well as of now. Capitalism benefits a few who just got lucky. Effort does not equal wealth. You could work off your arse all life long and some fat banker gets rich because of that work you put in. Capitalism the way it is right now is just modern slavery unless you happen to know the right people.

Socialism in its originally intended form would be pretty nice. I just can't think of any country that has a system like that. Even countries that identify as socialist or communist don't have much in common with the ideas of Marx, Engels or Lenin.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 13, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> My question would be, why pay any attention to the welfare leeches? There are those that use it and need it to get to a contributing position, and those that're just unmotivated leeches. But let's be real here, how far will they get? Will they ever see the world? Probably no. Will they ever learn outside culture? Probably no. Will they ever truly experience life's finer offerings at all? Probably no. So let them have the scraps you're willing to drop or forget about if not for any other reason but to remember why you're motivated yourself. Is it fair? Not really. But show me what document I signed that assured life would be fair.



Multiple reasons.

A. They keep voting for bigger and bigger government which means either higher taxes, inflation (normally both)

B. They try to rig the game in their favor via gender quotas, affirmative action.

C. They keep breeding (you are basically paying people who should have never been allowed to have children in the first place; the reason the poor stay poor in the USA is because they decided the wanted to be poor or they are stupid) you don't want these kind of people breeding with other screw ups.

Which means the cycle starts over from A again again and again until the system shits the bed.

That is what is happening now. Look at any poor community holy cow it is a shit show. Even if you don't think that IQ or lack of work ethic is the problem then you have to agree that the culture that created these people is trash and it should be killed with a flamethrower.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 13, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Multiple reasons.
> 
> A. They keep voting for bigger and bigger government which means either higher taxes, inflation (normally both)
> 
> ...


Then hit the polls at your opportunities. They mostly don't. I think you're taking a very vocal minority and lumping them in with a majority that do work and contribute, but need help here and there. I came from poor communities. It was rough and gritty, but it had its merits. I'm quite appreciative of what I've earned due to not having shit growing up, but I'm not gonna say "I got mine and fuck the rest of you" due to a few bad apples. Poverty is struggle, struggle breeds character growth. While they may be lazy, who are you to pre-judge their offspring? They may be the next Hawking, Plato, Beethoven, MLK, ...... You just dont know.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 13, 2018)

Axido said:


> Neither nor. Neither is executed well as of now. Capitalism benefits a few who just got lucky. Effort does not equal wealth. You could work off your arse all life long and some fat banker gets rich because of that work you put in. Capitalism the way it is right now is just modern slavery unless you happen to know the right people.
> 
> Socialism in its originally intended form would be pretty nice. I just can't think of any country that has a system like that. Even countries that identify as socialist or communist don't have much in common with the ideas of Marx, Engels or Lenin.




I've already kinda answered why communism is BS and would never work (doesn't even work on paper) - 

Pure communism doesn't work because it is 100% utopian BS. It doesn't even work on paper. First we have to believe everyone is the same. (We are not and we will never will be.) Not only are there differences between just two guys (overall genetic abilities) between the genders (men are stronger then women and women have babies). We would also have to believe that there is no such thing as human nature. I mean do I even need to explain how bat shit crazy this statement is?

Also you can't just give things away for free (that is how you run out of things). Also who the heck is going to pay all the taxes for this? The evil rich people? Yeah that will indeed work...for awhile until the taxes become too much and they take their ball and go home.

I'd also like to reply to a few other things you said.

"Capitalism benefits a few who just got lucky. Effort does not equal wealth. You could work off your arse all life long and some fat banker gets rich because of that work you put in."

This is 100% untrue. If you work hard and I mean really work and bring as much value as you can to the market people will indeed pay you a lot of money. Are there people who get lucky and get an easy life? You bet your ass there is. Life isn't fair no point in crying about it and work towards being the best version of you, you can be.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Apr 13, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I don't want Stalin but I also don't want private companies running my country.
> 
> 
> My family is on food stamps (single mom with two kids and a father that pays $500/mo for child support). Guess we're leeches?


Don't you know that anyone on any government program are a bunch of do-nothing leeches that just sit on their lazy asses and collecting "the walfare" from the government.

Not like a good number of people are working 40+ hours a week, doing the best they can with the hand they were dealt or anything like that trying to make living and need the help to get by, just a bunch of worthless people who could EASILY get out of their position if they just tried.

((The last two statements were sarcasm))

Also, I swear people who have never had the need for the programs always have some bullshit story about how "well I knew this person who used their benefits to buy drugs", "This one person is lazy and didn't work a day in their lives and still got benefits" or "there was this one rich person making off like bandit" and then try to apply to anyone on said benefits and act like that is why we should have them completely taken away and why we shouldn't do anything to try to help people out of a bad situation at any point.

And yes I am very pissed off at this because I was made fun of for being fucking poor for most of my goddamn life and I am sick off all these washed up ass-hat motherfuckers always mocking those less fortunate and acting like they are fucking getting benefits just to bug or make them pay more taxes. It also pisses me the fuck off because my mother worked 2 fucking jobs to house and feed me and my sibling, but because we got food stamps, people called her a fucking leech too and mocked her at her jobs.

Edit: I do apologize for the insults and anger, this is one thing that really does grind at my gears.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I hate to say it, but survival of the fittest.


Survival of the Fittest is not what you think it means. It's Survival of the Fittest, not Survival of the Strongest.

Some Mammals for example evolved to be much smaller than some Dinosaurs. In a fight with a T-Rex a small Rat will loose. But when resources were scarce a bigger body means more food you need, Mammals with smaller bodies only needed smaller amounts of food and thus more likely to survive. Mammals were more fit to survive and bigger Dinosaurs weren't and they became extinct. And populations evolve not individuals. Humans evolved to be a social species and work together, this is why we even have language in the first place. And emotions that push us to correct our behavior when we step out of line and get criticisms.

If a society incorporates socialism and it provides an advantage to them compared to a capitalist society that crumbles, then the socialist society would be more fit to survive. Just an example for arguments sake, and i'm not saying socialism is better than capitalism, or vice versa.



CallmeBerto said:


> Oh I 100% agree. In fact that is the problem, we have more single mothers, poor people because of that. Honestly we need to stop rewarding people for making bad decisions but to say that is be called heartless. (not that IGAF)
> 
> However there must also be systems in place so that people who aren't born in the bottom are stuck there forever. I personally don't have a solution to this.
> 
> ...


The welfare state is a single mother state or non 2 parents family state. People with intact families only 2%-5% take money out of the (TANF) federal welfare system. The majority who are on welfare are single mothers. The rest are from people who are Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents watching kids who no longer live with biological parents.

Single motherhood you can partly blame the divorce system in America. Divorce Courts compared to Regular courts are courts of Equity, which means constitutional rights do not apply to it. The 6th amendment that guarantees you a lawyer if you can't afford one does not apply in Divorce courts. Which means if you can't afford one then too bad for you. And lawyers are $500 and up an hour.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 13, 2018)

SonowRaevius said:


> Don't you know that anyone on any government program are a bunch of do-nothing leeches that just sit on their lazy asses and collecting "the walfare" from the government.
> 
> Not like a good number of people are working 40+ hours a week, doing the best they can with the hand they were dealt or anything like that trying to make living and need the help to get by, just a bunch of worthless people who could EASILY get out of their position if they just tried.
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly! Honestly the real leeches are the societal leeches aka the people who say "_yeah, they may work 40-60 hours a week at minimum wage to support a family of four, but it's not the country's fault that it's still not enough to support basic human rights (food, etc)! It's their's! How do they ask for assistance? *insert more conservative ranting here*_"

There's HUGE difference between so-called "handouts" and something someone and/or their family _actually requires to survive_.


----------



## Viri (Apr 13, 2018)

Capitalism, with a sprinkle of socialism. I don't mind my tax dollars paying for the unfortunate, and help them get back on their feet. Imo, the way we treat the homeless is just god awful. Shit like tent cities shouldn't exist.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 13, 2018)

Pure capitalism and pure communism have both had their share of failures.  The best system is a hybrid of several economic inspirations.  Unfortunately the US has lost sight of that in recent years, and opted for a greedy capitalist society with a crumbling infrastructure and poor pollution regulation.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Apr 13, 2018)

Please don't take this personally, I got really passionate xD



CallmeBerto said:


> Comping the USA to Europe is insane. Comparing any country to another is insane. Each country has their own culture, history, ideas all which play a HUGE role in how it affects every aspect of their country including crime rates. Copying their policies here without taking anything I said above into consideration would never work.


How is that insane... ? Would you rather ignore how other countries are doing, even if what they are doing work better, simply based on the fact that people would have different cultures? They are different cultures within a country, should we never compare them?

And speaking of the U.S., Europeans and Americans have a common history (Christianity being one of them) and are countries of similar wealthness. Their culture is close enough to justify a fair comparison. It's perfectly valid to compare them and look at examples where some "ideas" are implemented, instead of automatically denying its feasibility without having to provide argumentation (that's what politics do). In many ways, Europe found some inspiration looking at the U.S. for a large number of things these past decades. Maybe the U.S. could do the same sometimes, especially regarding some current, hot topics (I won't get into that).

By reading international newspapers, you could also make your own opinion on whether something could potentially work or not, and whether the reflection you have or your own society is accurate or biased. Constant demonizing of socialism in the U.S., now THAT is insane, and it relies on nothing more than a wide spread propaganda. Safety nets? lots of them are in place in Europe, even in Canada, and the countries aren't crowded with poor people abusing them (though some individuals are abusing - yes). It offers a peace of mind in life, where you know that should something bad happen to you, where you're not necessarily responsible of (sickness, cancer, whatever) your country is not going to throw a big fuck you at your face, with people around you telling you they give no shit about contributing 1% of their "hard earned money" for a safety net that EVERYONE could need someday.
Sure! It might not work as well in a society filled with individualism, but that doesn't mean you can't try to educate people to its benefits rather than letting fatality win. The all too common "Thoughts and prayers" every time something goes wrong!

That's actually my one big complain since I moved to the US, the absolute ignorance that some people (public figures, politics, and some medias) show everyday regarding their understanding or the world. You can thank biased medias and lobbies funding campaigns for that, there was one guy at least open to give it all a fresh look, and he was beaten by Clinton, not that they ever fought on equal grounds anyway...



CallmeBerto said:


> On safety nets...so I'm torn on this. It is true that good honest people do indeed fall on hard times (sometimes through no fault of their own) and helping one another would be the moral thing to do. However if you subsidized something you get more of it(agro more poor people) If you tax it you get less of it (people who are willing to put in extra hours of work) You need to find a balance and I think the USA has gone far to far into the subsidized part of it. Look at the single motherhood rate, look at all the poor people who are doing NOTHING to improve their lives and instead leeching off the government and demanding more and more.


For the love of everything that matters, about poor people, this is typically a case where you SHOULD look at how other countries are doing. Yes there's always a risk of people leeching and abusing systems, however in the U.S. such systems barely exist, what exist is that you can be a worker at walmart, working full time, and get completely screwed in life because of one health care bill, BECAUSE there are no safety net. Having safety nets is essential. It is to me so much more important than a few potential leechers ! Those you can always try to rule them out by being smarter and smart about who you help. But priorities, PLEASE!
And being a IT dev, paying a lot of taxes in the US, I would GLADLY spend even more if these people weren't stuck in a hellhole where they kept being blamed by people richer than them, while having next to no security in life, thanks to an extreme idea of capitalism that makes even health care related services an excuse to screw people over for profit.
Also, instead of automatically blaming the poor, maybe try to work around fixing the root cause? I don't know... free education comes in mind, giving everyone a fair change to succeed FIRST and then sure, if they don't give a shit, they won't ever be rich, their bad for being lazy... but at least give them a fair chance. But it's too easy to not look at the inherent problems that living in poor areas bring, and then blame them for leeching off the society, and blame them for all the violence. A successful civilization should ALWAYS work towards reducing inequalities between the top of the society and the bottom. Reducing them, but still allowing people to breath and succeed through meritocracy.

rent over, please don't hate me <3


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 13, 2018)

Once upon a time there was Russia. And there was the Soviet Union. And there was China. All powers that were "enemies" or strong competitors. The media had to come up with some word to encompass them, so they choose communism.

They happened to be communist or socialist states, so that made it easy to choose the term, but you must take into account that later the term was used to represent those regions (specially the Soviet Union) and their crimes, some times real, some time exaggerated.

Nowadays, when we talk about communism, we are really talking of the image the media left on us from the Soviet Union and their allies, and not from the economic model. We also talk of the economic model some times, but always with a big influence from that old narrative that communism is what the Soviet Union made.

Russia is still Russia nowadays, it is not communist at all, more like a fascist Capitalism, very Mussolinesque, it still is quite shady, and perhaps even unconsciously people think of communism when talking about Russia. The same can be said about China, a very fascist Capitalist country (communism only in its "People" country name).

Socialism and Communism might have been synonyms at some time in the past, they are not anymore since a long time ago. The mass media and propaganda made sure to change the meaning of the word "communism".

That said, I lean center-right. If anything. I believe it is what works better.


----------



## Windowlicker (Apr 13, 2018)

Radical centrism.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 13, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> Please don't take this personally, I got really passionate xD
> 
> 
> How is that insane... ? Would you rather ignore how other countries are doing, even if what they are doing work better, simply based on the fact that people would have different cultures? They are different cultures within a country, should we never compare them?
> ...


There always have to be someone who resorts to that argument.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 13, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> There always have to be someone who resorts to that argument.



Venezuela? Communist? What?
Also, the Russian Federation? Communist?

That's what I meant with that post, communist doesn't mean what it meant originally anymore, but it is a word to describe "what the enemy made", changed to that meaning by old times propaganda.

Venezuela is as "communist" as the dictatorial governments in Latin America that the USA supported in the 70s/80s.
Oh, wait, those weren't "communists" because those were allies.

All that shit looks quite the same to me, fascist capitalism.


----------



## Stephano (Apr 13, 2018)

It's already been said but I'll through my hat in the ring. There are some aspects of Communism/Socialism that are needed in society because for a government to do there job (assuming they actually do their job...), they need some of those ideals. Things like taxation and public education are two things that are socialist in principle but are widely considered important. Without taxation, we wouldn't be able to fund a military, police, public roads, or public parks. While there is an argument for private education, the argument still requires funding from the government. If students had to pay to go to school, there would be several families that wouldn't be able to send their kids to school. Less people graduating and entering the professional workforce means, less money being generated in the market.

There are a few other things like legislation to deter companies from outsourcing labor and try to in source instead which are definitely not capitalist ideals. For things like this, there are definitely some that are okay with this because it keeps business here which means are money stays here. A country should export goods more than they are importing to keep money in our local economy.

In short, I love capitalism because it makes my journey through college more meaningful and worthwhile. I can be calm in knowing that my hard work now will guaranty me a good paying job in the future.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 13, 2018)

Capitalism motivates production, but it also promotes greed and corruption, to the point of a kind of caste-styled system
socialism ensures no one gets left behind, but reduces motivation and can be ripe for abuse as well if handled poorly

So what's the answer? What appears to work, when placed in real-world scenarios, is socialism up to a point, then capitalism with individual protections (there's more than those two, but I'll keep it simple). maximizes the benefits of the various systems, with fewer of the weaknesses. Universal income and universal healthcare seem to ensure folks can focus on doing better, rather than just surviving. At that point, capitalism kicks in and folks have no problem jumping right in and leveraging that system's strengths. This is apparently how most humans are wired. Doesn't really matter what you think will or won't work, the numbers seem to indicate this is indeed how humans tend to operate. google "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" if you're curious as to why this might be the case. Personally, I think It'll be interesting to see how different cultures (like the US) would handle this scenario after a few years of trying it.

And really, if you think one system is flawless and the other one idiotic, then you understand neither.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 13, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Capitalism motivates production, but it also promotes greed and corruption, to the point of a kind of caste-styled system
> socialism ensures no one gets left behind, but reduces motivation and can be ripe for abuse as well if handled poorly
> 
> So what's the answer? What appears to work, when placed in real-world scenarios, is socialism up to a point, then capitalism with individual protections (there's more than those two, but I'll keep it simple). maximizes the benefits of the various systems, with fewer of the weaknesses. Universal income and universal healthcare seem to ensure folks can focus on doing better, rather than just surviving. At that point, capitalism kicks in and folks have no problem jumping right in and leveraging that system's strengths. This is apparently how most humans are wired. Doesn't really matter what you think will or won't work, the numbers seem to indicate this is indeed how humans tend to operate. google "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" if you're curious as to why this might be the case. Personally, I think It'll be interesting to see how different cultures (like the US) would handle this scenario after a few years of trying it.
> ...


We do need a better Health Care system then the one we have over in America. Medication that costs $40 elsewhere can cost $600 over here for no reason at  all other then greed. Patents can make them free from competition. Once a patent runs out, and competitors can make copies of a drug and sell it for cheaper, they come out with a "NEW" drug that has a fresh new patent that they claim to be better when in reality its effects are exactly the same as the old drug, and they have monopoly over it and sell it for ridiculous prices.

Many drugs (maybe most) are nothing but expensive placebo's. Some drugs are life saving, some necessary for survival, some are very helpful, but there are lots that are completely useless. And when people get better they think its the drugs when in reality its the human body healing itself and naturally getting better over time. Many new drugs are not created to cure diseases and instead are created to generate profits. And they convince doctors and patients that new drugs because are better than old ones.


----------



## MiguelinCrafter (Apr 13, 2018)




----------



## Viri (Apr 14, 2018)

MiguelinCrafter said:


>



I'm sure most of eastern Europe has fond memories of the USSR. The country that had to make another country build a wall to keep their citizens in.


----------



## bitjacker (Apr 14, 2018)

In communism, Where is the incentive to excel? Before anyone else has the right to comment, refute that. Why be a doctor? Why rise to the top?


----------



## oji (Apr 14, 2018)

A capitalism model is a way to nowhere as it last only while an economy continuously grow which is possible only while 3rd world countries exists & milked to death by 1st world economies. On an opposite side a communism is a great idea but it's near to impossible in a modern world as it proved by USSR.


----------



## MiguelinCrafter (Apr 14, 2018)

Viri said:


> I'm sure most of eastern Europe has fond memories of the USSR. The country that had to make another country build a wall to keep their citizens in.


It's a joke, bro


----------



## xpoverzion (Apr 14, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I've always been a strong supporter of capitalism and have failed to see the beauty of communism as described by some people on the left. Communism has never worked and seems like a flawed system that could never be able to work. Also, it's been attributed to more deaths than fascism yet people constantly place Hitler as being more evil than Stalin or Mao.


Karl Marx was absolutely correct on how and why capitalism will fail in the long run.  Capitalism starts out with promise, and looks good at first.  But, over time the wealth gap will widen, and eventually you will have a relative few that command 99% of the wealth in a capitalistic society.  In the end, it doesn't matter what kind of system you have.  Generally speaking, humans are filthy, greedy, scheming, lying, decietful, cunning, selfish, power hungry pieces of shit and all systems will get corrupted and imbalanced due to these fundamental characteristics of human behavior.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 14, 2018)

Neither; Socialism, like literally the rest of the civilized world

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



bitjacker said:


> In communism, Where is the incentive to excel? Before anyone else has the right to comment, refute that. Why be a doctor? Why rise to the top?


You mean to tell me that you wouldn't want to achieve anything in your line of work if you weren't paid higher than everyone else to do it?


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Apr 14, 2018)

Well, Bolshevik was wonderful wasn't it? That was thanks to Communism.


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 14, 2018)

Here we go *again.*


I think the communist ideology is perfect world that humans can't achieve.
In this perfect world, you can give people everything that they need to live a healthy life, and still work.

One thing I hate about communism is that everything you can invent, isn't really yours, because doing so would make the other people poor relative to you.

I fear this thread is going to derail in a couple of people calling themselves "brainwashed capitalist pigs" and "delusional commie utopists" at some point.

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



xpoverzion said:


> Karl Marx was absolutely correct on how and why capitalism will fail in the long run.  Capitalism starts out with promise, and looks good at first.  But, over time the wealth gap will widen, and eventually you will have a relative few that command 99% of the wealth in a capitalistic society.  In the end, it doesn't matter what kind of system you have.  General speaking, humans are filthy, greedy, scheming, lying, decietful, cunning, selfish, power hungry pieces of shit and all systems will get corrupted and imbalanced due to these fundamental characteristics of human behavior.


This.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Apr 14, 2018)

Capitalism is pretty great. I just think it needs to be well regulated in a way that maximizes creation of small businesses.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 14, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> One thing I hate about communism is that everything you can invent, isn't really yours, because doing so would make the other people poor relative to you.


I don't see that as the biggest issue, as one could argue that humans have a drive to innovate so long as it makes life easier for themselves in the end as well. The BIGGEST issue with large-scale communism is that as soon as you make everyone economically "equal", there rises up a prick that wants to be "more equal" than everyone else, and suddenly you have a dictator that you can't get rid of

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



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Capitalism is pretty great. I just think it needs to be well regulated in a way that maximizes creation of small businesses.


So like

Socialism


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't see that as the biggest issue, as one could argue that humans have a drive to innovate so long as it makes life easier for themselves in the end as well. The BIGGEST issue with large-scale communism is that as soon as you make everyone economically "equal", there rises up a prick that wants to be "more equal" than everyone else, and suddenly you have a dictator that you can't get rid of
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



And this is where human nature comes into play.
Even socialism, which is a less pure way of communism, seems too far-fetched for me.


----------



## VinsCool (Apr 14, 2018)

Whatever system that doesn't let people starve to death.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 14, 2018)

VinsCool said:


> Whatever system that doesn't let people starve to death.


I wish I could honestly say "I think that's what we all want," but I really don't know if that's true or not


----------



## Reploid (Apr 14, 2018)

If I'll choose communism, it will justify me jailbreaking my switch?


----------



## lexarvn (Apr 14, 2018)

Reploid said:


> If I'll choose communism, it will justify me jailbreaking my switch?


Either way you can't justify it.

Under pure communism, the switch isn't really yours, it's the government's, so you'd be tampering with government property.
Under pure capitalism, you don't own the switch, you are just granted a license to use it the way the manufacturer intended, so you'd be operating outside your license agreement.

Turns out that either way, people don't really own anything. Either the government owns everything, or corporations do.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 14, 2018)

lexarvn said:


> Under pure communism, the switch isn't really yours, it's the government's, so you'd be tampering with government property.


Correction, under pure communism, if I understand correctly, the knowledge of how to make a Switch is in the public domain so that anyone can make one given the materials and expertise. You're thinking of corrupt communism; in theory, there IS no government under pure communism


----------



## Reploid (Apr 14, 2018)

lexarvn said:


> Either way you can't justify it.
> 
> Under pure communism, the switch isn't really yours, it's the government's, so you'd be tampering with government property.
> Under pure capitalism, you don't own the switch, you are just granted a license to use it the way the manufacturer intended, so you'd be operating outside your license agreement.
> ...


Oh, now I remember why I wanted to become a hermit. Or any other other kind of frog.


----------



## lexarvn (Apr 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Correction, under pure communism, if I understand correctly, the knowledge of how to make a Switch is in the public domain so that anyone can make one given the materials and expertise. You're thinking of corrupt communism; in theory, there IS no government under pure communism


Fair enough. The way I always thought of it though is you have to have someone that manages the communal goods, if for no other reason but to handle the logistics of said communal goods, thus you have government, even if that government could be run as an automated computer program.


----------



## emigre (Apr 15, 2018)

I think a lot of people here want is Social Democracy. As much as I think Marx is racking political thinker, Marxism and Communism haven't been relevant political alternatives since the end of Cold War.  North Korea is just a despot state, China is state capitalism.  

I think there are a number of issues with the present state of Lassaiz Faire capitalism and people are really questioning if that system works for them.  As a Brit, I've seen the cost of housing go through the roof with 'affordable housing' still being unaffordable, increasing the cost of living coupled with the shrinking of salaries and workplace conditions. And these are issues which people across the developed world are facing similar. People who 'doing the right thing' but are struggling. Previously conventional thinking to eliminating poverty was getting into work but the majority of families in poverty actually do work but living on the breadline.  I think there's a real feeling since the financial crisis of 2008, the average Joe has been screwed around by the system, it was a crisis caused by the banking system but Joe Public has picked up the cost which generated a greater feeling of disillusionment and criticism of the present economic system.

Personally, in the future, I would want to see a retreat from such Lassaiz Faire which incorporates stringent regulation and greater state and community ownership in the economy for a mixed economy, I think this can provide a great amount of social good for society to see people have greater charge of their destinies in it be via resident committees, cooperatives or worker-owned businesses. Heck, even something like Local Government making a conscious decision to procure from local vendors can have a transformative impact on its local economy.   The old argument of capitalism vs communism belongs to the scrapheap, I think the question we should be asking is 'what society do we what?' and that will be a better guide in deciding what economic structure we want. Do we incorporate a universal basic income, when it comes to automation, how about the robots are owned by the workers? In assessing a future economic system, there's going to be a great number of flexibilities and need for new ideas.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 15, 2018)

emigre said:


> I think a lot of people here want is Social Democracy. As much as I think Marx is racking political thinker, Marxism and Communism haven't been relevant political alternatives since the end of Cold War.  North Korea is just a despot state, China is state capitalism.
> 
> I think there are a number of issues with the present state of Lassaiz Faire capitalism and people are really questioning if that system works for them.  As a Brit, I've seen the cost of housing go through the roof with 'affordable housing' still being unaffordable, increasing the cost of living coupled with the shrinking of salaries and workplace conditions. And these are issues which people across the developed world are facing similar. People who 'doing the right thing' but are struggling. Previously conventional thinking to eliminating poverty was getting into work but the majority of families in poverty actually do work but living on the breadline.  I think there's a real feeling since the financial crisis of 2008, the average Joe has been screwed around by the system, it was a crisis caused by the banking system but Joe Public has picked up the cost which generated a greater feeling of disillusionment and criticism of the present economic system.
> 
> Personally, in the future, I would want to see a retreat from such Lassaiz Faire which incorporates stringent regulation and greater state and community ownership in the economy for a mixed economy, I think this can provide a great amount of social good for society to see people have greater charge of their destinies in it be via resident committees, cooperatives or worker-owned businesses. Heck, even something like Local Government making a conscious decision to procure from local vendors can have a transformative impact on its local economy.   The old argument of capitalism vs communism belongs to the scrapheap, I think the question we should be asking is 'what society do we what?' and that will be a better guide in deciding what economic structure we want. Do we incorporate a universal basic income, when it comes to automation, how about the robots are owned by the workers? In assessing a future economic system, there's going to be a great number of flexibilities and need for new ideas.


Well thought and well said


----------



## linuxares (Apr 15, 2018)

Neither, you need to "mix them" and it's mostly called Socialdemocracy today.


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 16, 2018)

Personally I find Capitalism tends to get a free pass far too often. In the US for example, people die every single day due to preventable and or curable illness, injuries, etc. these deaths are often caused not by them refusing help, but being unable to afford health due to the privatized medical system. People are starving, freezing, and just dying every single day in horrible situations because we put money over people. This system is also extremely exploitable and often used to ensure the rich stay on top, while the poor struggle to get anywhere. Capitalism is very much profit over people and dangerous without some form of intervention. 
Now of course Communism has it's flaws, but I personally want to argue that most of the people through out history weren't true "Communists." They had some of the Communist values, but very clearly only used them to abuse them. Stalin (the best example) ran a heavy handed military state that used Communism as a justification to overstep bounties, starve people, and basically put himself in control as an almost God-Like leader. This was a rather clear example of abusing the movement to benefit himself by ensuring everyone was "equal" through suffering. This however does expose a lot of the glaring flaws in Communism, which is an unchecked government can very easily become an overstepping government.
Neither system is perfect and both have blood on their hands and glaring flaws. What people need more is a mix of ideas, not one solid path. Both have their good parts, but alone both can be extremely dangerous and easily abused.


----------



## JellyPerson (Apr 16, 2018)

Come with me comrades, we shall overthrow the capitalist pigs


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 16, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Personally I find Capitalism tends to get a free pass far too often. In the US for example, people die every single day due to preventable and or curable illness, injuries, etc. these deaths are often caused not by them refusing help, but being unable to afford health due to the privatized medical system. People are starving, freezing, and just dying every single day in horrible situations because we put money over people. This system is also extremely exploitable and often used to ensure the rich stay on top, while the poor struggle to get anywhere. Capitalism is very much profit over people and dangerous without some form of intervention.
> Now of course Communism has it's flaws, but I personally want to argue that most of the people through out history weren't true "Communists." They had some of the Communist values, but very clearly only used them to abuse them. Stalin (the best example) ran a heavy handed military state that used Communism as a justification to overstep bounties, starve people, and basically put himself in control as an almost God-Like leader. This was a rather clear example of abusing the movement to benefit himself by ensuring everyone was "equal" through suffering. This however does expose a lot of the glaring flaws in Communism, which is an unchecked government can very easily become an overstepping government.
> Neither system is perfect and both have blood on their hands and glaring flaws. What people need more is a mix of ideas, not one solid path. Both have their good parts, but alone both can be extremely dangerous and easily abused.


You know what pisses me off most about the current US implementation of capitalism?
_What's that, TI?_
It's that it directly contradicts the _second *fucking *line _of the Declaration of Independence, being


> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


For poor people, our current system restricts the right to life in the form of privatized healthcare, liberty in the form of for-profit prisons, and the pursuit of happiness by making people pay out the ass for any form of higher education


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You know what pisses me off most about the current US implementation of capitalism?
> _What's that, TI?_
> It's that it directly contradicts the _second *fucking *line _of the Declaration of Independence, being
> 
> For poor people, our current system restricts the right to life in the form of privatized healthcare, liberty in the form of for-profit prisons, and the pursuit of happiness by making people pay out the ass for any form of higher education


The US is prime example of abusive Capitalism. We like to pretend we are so "free" and "amazing," but live in system that has rendered it nearly impossible to get anywhere in life if you weren't born into wealth. We literally have a class called "The Working Poor," a class of people working a full-time job (sometimes more than one) and yet still can't make over the poverty line. That's just insane to think that someone can actually be working a job, yet still be be living in poverty. It's worse knowing that people feel like defending a system so obviously broken and dehumanizing. This is an example of abusive Capitalism that grossly favors the wealthiest by stepping on the poor.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Apr 16, 2018)

What I don't get is why you guys are getting so attached to specific ideologies? They may all be seen good on paper but prove to be difficult or unreasonable in implementation. It's a bit better to simply learn and understand each individual case and figure out what solution is best for it specifically. It's far easier to implement a proven government system and tweak it a little then to write one from scratch and assume that the people will always adhere to your unwritten intentions.


----------



## Xanthe (Apr 16, 2018)

Ben Shapiro's three rules to avoiding poverty:
Complete at least a High School education
Work full-time
Wait at least until age 21 and get married before having a child.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Apr 16, 2018)

Socialism is as much a synonym for Capitalism as it is for Communism. It's literally the middleground. Neither Capitalism nor Communism work. That much is certain.


----------



## lexarvn (Apr 16, 2018)

Xanthe said:


> Ben Shapiro's three rules to avoiding poverty:
> Complete at least a High School education
> Work full-time
> Wait at least until age 21 and get married before having a child.


Well, that's nice and all except I have some friends that have completed high school or higher, do work full time, and aren't even married let alone have children and are closer to being age 30 than 20, but still can't afford a decent apartment on their own due to the crazy housing market. They are either living with their parents still, living with 2+ room mates, or living in a crap hole of an apartment.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

lexarvn said:


> Well, that's nice and all except I have some friends that have completed high school or higher, do work full time, and aren't even married let alone have children and are closer to being age 30 than 20, but still can't afford a decent apartment on their own due to the crazy housing market. They are either living with their parents still, living with 2+ room mates, or living in a crap hole of an apartment.



Sounds like they have no skills anyone wants to pay for.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 19, 2018)

Neither. I would prefer a mixed system with a bit of capitalism and a lot of socialism.  Also the reason why many people see communism as flawed is that...one it has never actually existed, two it is EXTREMELY inflexible (unlike capitalism) anything that is not specifically communism is socialism here are some examples (ex Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, and China) (of course all of these countries are no longer on the path to Communism anymore and one no longer exists).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> Sounds like they have no skills anyone wants to pay for.


First off, that's a horrible thing to say, because there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only underappreciated and underpaid labor, but secondly I don't think you understand just how high the cost of living is in some parts of America, and just how expensive it is to get up and move if you happen to live in one


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 19, 2018)

Communists spread hate against people who succeed in their life, they want to kill anything tht isn't piss poor, and shit on the pretended "1%". So yeah, no.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Communists spread hate against people who succeed in their life, they want to kill anything tht isn't piss poor, and shit on the pretended "1%". So yeah, no.


What the hell is "pretend" about the 1% richest population, at least in America?


----------



## jimmyj (Apr 19, 2018)

honestly I'll just choose buddhism


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> First off, that's a horrible thing to say, because there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only underappreciated and underpaid labor, but secondly I don't think you understand just how high the cost of living is in some parts of America, and just how expensive it is to get up and move if you happen to live in one




If you have skills people want people will pay you. You are competing in a market that has determined the value of your skills. If you feel like you are not getting paid enough up your skills or go somewhere were you will be paid what you think you are worth.

I understand how expensive homes are. Yeah homes are way overvalued.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> If you have skills people want people will pay you. You are competing in a market that has determined the value of your skills. If you feel like you are not getting paid enough up your skills or go somewhere were you will be paid what you think you are worth.


My friend, may I introduce you to the janitorial position? A labor-intensive job that involves needing to know routines for not only yourself, but the entire facility around you, as well as the ability to use the correct chemicals to clean a given mess? Sure, it's not "skilled" in the traditional "ritzy" sense, but it is an area of work that involves skill that you can only acquire through experience, as well as a LOT of unnoticed labor, and pays like shit


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> My friend, may I introduce you to the janitorial position?


One of those odd things, but the general rule still applies.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> My friend, may I introduce you to the janitorial position?



Nah too busy making money, upping my skills so I can get paid more.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> One of those odd things, but the general rule still applies.


How about retail or fast food? If you want to keep your job (because you ARE expendable) you need to have a great personality and good people skills, as well as the ability to produce such a low turnaround that the people around you don't notice that you even do anything significant


----------



## dpad_5678 (Apr 19, 2018)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Communists spread hate against people who succeed in their life, they want to kill anything tht isn't piss poor, and shit on the pretended "1%". So yeah, no.


Ah, yes, typical conservative response. Playing the precious victim card.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How about retail or fast food? If you want to keep your job (because you ARE expendable) you need to have a great personality and good people skills, as well as the ability to produce such a low turnaround that the people around you don't notice that you even do anything significant


Right, other places that are more upscale are always looking for this type. Retail, all around, is just terrible. You deal with entitled people and the worst ignorance imaginable. However, I'm more appreciated at a place like Verizon where I'm earning a decent wage plus commission, unlike Walmart. Where I'm busting my ass off making just over $11/hr just to be let go because I'm "not working out".

There are "tiers" to the job and skillsets. It just depends on where you place your value. Being unrealistic and demanding $15/hr at a job you don't even do well compared to moving to a better store where the employee satisfaction is higher and the pay is better are different.


----------



## MonkeyDKid (Apr 19, 2018)

what a bad choice to choose, anything else pal?.


----------



## XDel (Apr 19, 2018)

Would not the question be more clearly addressed as something more like: Oligarchy vs Republic Democracy?

Communism as practiced by a family or a small tribe is not the same thing as the Communism of historical China, Russia, or an empire in general. One retains individual sovereignty and the other does not. 

Likewise, Capitalism is a very vague word too as it can on the one hand refer to the natural and timeless exchange of goods for other goods, such as the bartering system, or it can refer to the modern scenario where we are all willingly brainwashed by the tell-lie-visions, radio, magazines, news papers, and the like, which are owned by a centralized monopoly of media and financial conglomerates with political ties and international interest...
...which is itself heading straight towards a sort of Global, Corporate Communism, complete with self created, universal, moralistic religion and all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Being unrealistic and demanding $15/hr at a job you don't even do well compared to moving to a better store where the employee satisfaction is higher and the pay is better are different.


That's a lot to assume, that people that aren't making a livable wage are inherently bad at their job. It certainly doesn't help that most higher-paying jobs require experience that only those lower-paying jobs can supply

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



XDel said:


> Would not the question be more clearly addressed as something more like: Oligarchy vs Republic Democracy?
> 
> Communism as practiced by a family or a small tribe is not the same thing as the Communism of historical China, Russia, or an empire in general. One retains individual sovereignty and the other does not.
> 
> ...


*TotalInsanity4 has super-liked this post*


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2018)

Thats how it works in a free market. You get paid your worth. And people deem your worth.
A musician like Michael Jackson made lots of money. Because many people bought his music. Compared to lets say Novelist that barely sold much.

The more likable a job is the less you get payed.
Working in the shade at a fast food place has more likable conditions then lets say a ditch digger working in the hot sun that gets payed more with higher risk of injury.

Also what deems the jobs pay is supply and demand. More people go for a fast food type job then a ditch digger. More supply of people means you're are easily replaceable, therefore your employer pays you less and doesn't have to worry about hiring and finding a replacement. Compared to a ditch digger where people hardly apply to. So employers offer higher pay to try to attract more people to work that job. If both jobs offered same pay then hardly anyone will pick one that has risk of death over a job with more likable conditions and lower risk of death. Or another example doctors which there is less of so employers offer higher pay to keep what is in limited supply.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's a lot to assume, that people that aren't making a livable wage are inherently bad at their job. It certainly doesn't help that most higher-paying jobs require experience that only those lower-paying jobs can supply
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Its not an assumption, rather a what - if. I see it everyday. People half assing their jobs claiming they're "underpaid".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Working in the shade at a fast food place has more likable conditions then lets say a ditch digger working in the hot sun that gets payed more with higher risk of injury.


You sound like a person that has never worked in fast food, if you think that it's a comfortable and hazard-free work environment. I'm not saying that ditch digging _isn't_, but you're presenting a glorified and idealized version of working at a fast food place, specifically kitchen work.



> Also what deems the jobs pay is supply and demand. More people go for a fast food type job then a ditch digger. More supply of people means you're are easily replaceable, therefore your employer pays you less and doesn't have to worry about hiring and finding a replacement. Compared to a ditch digger where people hardly apply to. So employers offer higher pay to try to attract more people to work that job. If both jobs offered same pay then hardly anyone will pick one that has risk of death over a job with more likable conditions and lower risk of death. Or another example doctors which there is less of so employers offer higher pay to keep what is in limited supply.


Again, not to say you're wrong per se, but ditch digging (and general contract construction work, which is what I feel like you're trying to get at) is seasonal work, and there are DEFINITELY a lot of people who apply over the summer to do it; people who are willing to stand on a roof and pound nails or sand on a highway and rotate a sign back and forth or drive a pilot car are a dime a dozen, so long as you pay them enough. The reason they're able to pay so much, though, is that their services are deemed essential to either the homeowners or governmental departments requesting them, so they can negotiate higher prices.

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



Memoir said:


> Its not an assumption, rather a what - if. I see it everyday. People half assing their jobs claiming they're "underpaid".


If someone is underpaid for long enough, they're going to start doing work that's proportional to what the company values them at. The fact that you see it that way contributes to an ideal that allows a corporate entity to keep a "revolving door" model for low wage employees, rather than incentivising better work ethic with pay proportional to work done


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You sound like a person that has never worked in fast food, if you think that it's a comfortable and hazard-free work environment. I'm not saying that ditch digging _isn't_, but you're presenting a glorified and idealized version of working at a fast food place, specifically kitchen work.
> 
> 
> Again, not to say you're wrong per se, but ditch digging (and general contract construction work, which is what I feel like you're trying to get at) is seasonal work, and there are DEFINITELY a lot of people who apply over the summer to do it; people who are willing to stand on a roof and pound nails or sand on a highway and rotate a sign back and forth or drive a pilot car are a dime a dozen, so long as you pay them enough. The reason they're able to pay so much, though, is that their services are deemed essential to either the homeowners or governmental departments requesting them, so they can negotiate higher prices.


The words I used are more likable and less risk of injury. I never said completely hazardous free. Comparing the two jobs one is more hazardous so therefore that one gets more pay. More people apply to fast food that ditch digging. Because its easier then ditch digging. Its supply and demand. My friend made 25 an hr digging ditches. That was his first job and he got that pay right away.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The words I used are more likable and less risk of injury. I never said completely hazardous free. Comparing the two jobs one is more hazardous so therefore that one gets more pay. More people apply to fast food that ditch digging. Because its easier then ditch digging. Its supply and demand. My friend made 25 an hr digging ditches. That was his first job and he got that pay right away.


It's also a job that requires a strong, able-bodied individual to do, unless you have expensive machinery that you're operating to do it for you. There are many people who don't have that option. Plus, you're comparing something that should reasonably be paid more to something extreme as a way of silencing the conversation. I know you might legitimately think that it's an equal comparison, but they're hardly things that you can compare. If you wanted to do a better comparison, you could use trucking; a job that's heavily stigmatized against as it requires no "skill" other than the ability to sit behind a wheel in air conditioning for hours on end (which, again, is something I'd consider a skill to be able to do both without falling asleep and while meeting a strict timetable, but I digress), but are paid very well because the ability to get a product from one location to another in a timely manor is seen as a necessary service.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You sound like a person that has never worked in fast food, if you think that it's a comfortable and hazard-free work environment. I'm not saying that ditch digging _isn't_, but you're presenting a glorified and idealized version of working at a fast food place, specifically kitchen work.
> 
> 
> Again, not to say you're wrong per se, but ditch digging (and general contract construction work, which is what I feel like you're trying to get at) is seasonal work, and there are DEFINITELY a lot of people who apply over the summer to do it; people who are willing to stand on a roof and pound nails or sand on a highway and rotate a sign back and forth or drive a pilot car are a dime a dozen, so long as you pay them enough. The reason they're able to pay so much, though, is that their services are deemed essential to either the homeowners or governmental departments requesting them, so they can negotiate higher prices.
> ...


Work ethic is something you learn yourself. It's, unfortunately, a truth that the "revolving door" model is all too common. Of course, this is strongly reliant on the aforementioned work ethic. If you can't appreciate your work, your morals, your ethics. How can you expect your employer to? The thing about these low end jobs is that they're not meant to be careers. You choosing to stick there out of self doubt isn't the employers fault.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Work ethic is something you learn yourself. It's, unfortunately, a truth that the "revolving door" model is all too common. Of course, this is strongly reliant on the aforementioned work ethic. If you can't appreciate your work, your morals, your ethics. How can you expect your employer to? The thing about these low end jobs is that they're not meant to be careers. You choosing to stick there out of self doubt isn't the employers fault.


I don't think I made it clear enough the first time, but the wage is what degrades the work ethic, not something that reflects it. I work in retail, and I've seen too many people come in "bright eyed and bushy tailed", as the saying goes, and ready to give it their all, but after six months of a stagnant wage that's barely allowing them to scrape by, even after pulling 40+ hours a week (which would reasonably qualify them as "full time", even though they maintain a part-time status), they start to lose that enthusiasm, which will eventually give the company an excuse to let them go in favor of a new part-time employee.

And I'm not talking about high school students, here, I'm talking about night shift college students and middle-aged folks who are in an unfortunate circumstance where the job is really all they have.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't think I made it clear enough the first time, but the wage is what degrades the work ethic, not something that reflects it. I work in retail, and I've seen too many people come in "bright eyed and bushy tailed", as the saying goes, and ready to give it their all, but after six months of a stagnant wage that's barely allowing them to scrape by, even after pulling 40+ hours a week (which would reasonably qualify them as "full time", even though they maintain a part-time status), they start to lose that enthusiasm, which will eventually give the company an excuse to let them go in favor of a new part-time employee.
> 
> And I'm not talking about high school students, here, I'm talking about night shift college students and middle-aged folks who are in an unfortunate circumstance where the job is really all they have.


Y'know? My mom is a prime example as to why this isn't entirely true. When I was younger, she had to work 3 different jobs. Sometimes all running back to back to back. Making at or just above minimum wage. Was it a damper on her morale? Yeah. Did she use it as an excuse to stay there? No. She wanted out. So, she put herself out there. Here we are 13 years later and has a skillet that will get her anywhere she wants to go. "A job is a job" is the most annoying thing I've ever heard when it comes to a career path. However, it's true. If you don't like where you're at, and feel you're worth more you have to PROVE IT. The wage doesn't instill the self doubt. It's not a barricade. I've seen it first hand. I started at retail making $9/hr.. Moved into the oilfield service 4 years later with no prior experience making a living wage doing LESS work than I ever did in retail. It's a mindset that is a horrid one to dive into, when you believe you're stuck.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Y'know? My mom is a prime example as to why this isn't entirely true. When I was younger, she had to work 3 different jobs. Sometimes all running back to back to back. Making at or just above minimum wage. Wasn't a damper on her morale? Yeah. Did she use it as an excuse to stay there? No. She wanted out. So, she put herself out there. Here we are 13 years later and has a skillet that will get her anywhere she wants to go. "A job is a job" is the most annoying thing I've ever heard when it comes to a career path. However, it's true. If you don't like where you're at, and feel you're worth more you have to PROVE IT. The wage doesn't instill the self doubt. It's not a barricade. I've seen it first hand. I started at retail making $9/hr.. Moved into the oilfield service 4 years later with no prior experience making a living wage doing LESS work than I ever did in retail. It's a mindset that is a horrid one to dive into, when you believe you're stuck.


I would agree with you, and in most cases, yes, that IS the way forward. But unfortunately, your experiences are not universal and are, in a way, blinding you as to the issue(s) at hand. The first of which is this; NO ONE should have to work three jobs just to scrape by. If you can't afford to pay a living wage in your area for a job, you can't afford to offer that job in the first place. The second that I _really_ feel like you're overlooking, though, is that if a person is quite literally JUST scraping by (or in some cases, not even and are slowly collecting debt), it's not exactly feasible for them to take extra time searching for another job, especially if the only things in their area require an education (because at that point, you're not only expecting them to effectively work full time to survive, but also throw time and money at a higher education). The "just hit the pavement and start applying!" mentality worked when the minimum wage was enough to at least scrape by on, but I'm not convinced that most people could pull off what your mom did in current-day conditions, and most DEFINITELY can't do what you did unless it's specifically migrant work over the summer; you are in a very unique position of living in an area that offers a higher-than-minimum wage doing work that requires no previous experience.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

@TotalInsanity4 sounds like someone who screwed up their life by not making good choices.

They could move back in with friends or family and have a game plan. Also if you are that poor the government will give you money for school. You got to be in it to win it.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @TotalInsanity4 sounds like someone who screwed up their life by not making good choices.
> 
> They could move back in with friends or family and have a game plan. Also if you are that poor the government will give you money for school. You got to be in it to win it.


It's a twisted reality where you're wasting half your life away just to be able to live it. However, it's still reality. You want something in life you have to earn it. There are virtually an infinite amount of possibilities. People like to convince themselves they're in some imaginary hole due to "unfortunate circumstances". The truth is that they've lost sight of their value and just live content with mediocrity.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> It's a twisted reality where you're wasting half your life away just to be able to live it. However, it's still reality. You want something in life you have to earn it. There are virtually an infinite amount of possibilities. People like to convince themselves they're in some imaginary hole due to "unfortunate circumstances". The truth is that they've lost sight of their value and just live content with mediocrity.




People like to blame other people for their failures in life. Either the jews, white privileged or the patriarchy. I mean I was born in section 8 housing so I have first hand experience with the poor. Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Made bad choices in their lives and they refuse to take responsibility for their own failures and work towards improving themselves.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> @TotalInsanity4 sounds like someone who screwed up their life by not making good choices.
> 
> They could move back in with friends or family and have a game plan. Also if you are that poor the government will give you money for school. You got to be in it to win it.


Currently the government will give you money for a lot of things, but those are programs that either are threatened with being terminated by a certain "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" party or are heavily gimped by restrictions that make it virtually impossible for a person to get out of them. Plus, not that it matters from an economic standpoint, but there is a heavy stigmatization against living with your family past a certain arbitrary age

Also, I think you're mistaking my take on the issue; in this case, it's not the fact that someone didn't go to college, as there are many reasons why a person would either chose not to or be unable to, it's that a lack of a college education is seen as a barrier to many jobs which don't inherently require one; office work, for example, should really only require a good work ethic and the ability to demonstrate that you're capable of handling whatever work it is that you'd need to be doing. There are many jobs that require a college education that really shouldn't, due to the fact that it's an arbitrary requirement to weed out potential employees, is negated by on-the-job training, or both.

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



Memoir said:


> It's a twisted reality where you're wasting half your life away just to be able to live it. However, it's still reality.


That's what I'm saying, I guess, in the long run. I know that our takes on the issue are different, but they share a common theme. Mine just revolves around the fact that, well, nobody should be barred from doing the work they enjoy simply because either it pays shit or the job needed for experience pays shit


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Currently the government will give you money for a lot of things, but those are programs that either are threatened with being terminated by a certain "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" party or are heavily gimped by restrictions that make it virtually impossible for a person to get out of them. Plus, not that it matters from an economic standpoint, but there is a heavy stigmatization against living with your family past a certain arbitrary age
> 
> Also, I think you're mistaking my take on the issue; in this case, it's not the fact that someone didn't go to college, as there are many reasons why a person would either chose not to or be unable to, it's that a lack of a college education is seen as a barrier to many jobs which don't inherently require one; office work, for example, should really only require a good work ethic and the ability to demonstrate that you're capable of handling whatever work it is that you'd need to be doing. There are many jobs that require a college education that really shouldn't, due to the fact that it's an arbitrary requirement to weed out potential employees, is negated by on-the-job training, or both.
> 
> ...


I like to believe that college degrees are just.... Framed paper... That say you can read a book.. 

Specialty jobs should all offer fair tests to see, first hand, what experience you may have. I know most higher end restaurants will have you prepare a meal off of their menu to see your skills.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's also a job that requires a strong, able-bodied individual to do, unless you have expensive machinery that you're operating to do it for you. There are many people who don't have that option. Plus, you're comparing something that should reasonably be paid more to something extreme as a way of silencing the conversation. I know you might legitimately think that it's an equal comparison, but they're hardly things that you can compare. If you wanted to do a better comparison, you could use trucking; a job that's heavily stigmatized against as it requires no "skill" other than the ability to sit behind a wheel in air conditioning for hours on end (which, again, is something I'd consider a skill to be able to do both without falling asleep and while meeting a strict timetable, but I digress), but are paid very well because the ability to get a product from one location to another in a timely manor is seen as a necessary service.


Some ditch diggers get payed 13 hr some 15 hr. My friends was lucky to find one the payed 25. But all of those pay's are higher then minimum fast food wages.
Truck driving is one of the most dangerous profession. With high risk of death. Thats why they get payed more. Same with lumber jacks, prison guards, auto mechanics, steel worker, sewer maintenance, plumbing, fumigation. Notice a trend here? They all have horrible work conditions.

If you want a more equal comparison. Someone working in Emergence medicine makes more than someone working in Family medicine. Thats because there is a lot more risk in emergency medicine. A Surgeon makes more than a Gynecologist. Anesthesiologist makes more than a Psychiatrist. Short order cooks makes more than Waiters. Waiters have more likable conditions because you talk and interact with people. Short order cooks stares at garbage and grease all day. Who gets a thank you more often? The short order cook or a waitress? Jobs with less people contact pay more. Jobs that people less like pay more.

And wages have stagnated. People are earning today the same they earned in 1970. But counting for inflation are earning less. That is mostly due to automation. Its not that people are producing more then their grandparents, its that automation technology got better and producing more, and not people working that much harder then their grandparents.

Now women entering the work force should balance this out and be more then sufficient, since 2 paychecks compared to 1 in 1970. But expenses has gone up. People in 1970 earned less than people today but used half of their pay check for necessary expenses. People today earn more but use 3/4 of their pay check for expenses. Nowadays people are paying more for cars since now women work and they have to support their ability to drive to work. Pay for day care and child care which is an expense previous generations didn't have to deal with. Pay more for taxes because of how progressive tax system works on married couples both working. Paying more for mortgage since people are moving into bigger houses then what people use to live in in 1970.

People nowadays are spending less on food, appliances, and clothing than what people got in 1970. But the difference is that expenses that has gone up for things that are fixed big expenses. Car payments and taxes are fixed. Food and clothing you can adjust depending on your budget. If you make less on a pay check then you can buy less food and clothing. It doesn't mean stop eating completely. But there is a difference between eating steak one night and eating microwavable food.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

@TotalInsanity4 

Yeah the cut to those programs is BS due to the fact that money shouldn't be a barrier to education assuming you show that you can do it/have the willingness.

The whole stigma against living with your family is an issue but tell those people to fuck off and die. I mean if you need to do this to improve your life who cares?

Yeah most jobs don't need a college education but most times without it an employer won even look at your resume. There needs to be a huge culture change before that happends. What employers should do is offer training and then the employees are stuck working for them for X years and if they fail they have to pay back X amount.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You sound like a person that has never worked in fast food, if you think that it's a comfortable and hazard-free work environment. I'm not saying that ditch digging _isn't_, but you're presenting a glorified and idealized version of working at a fast food place, specifically kitchen work.
> 
> 
> Again, not to say you're wrong per se, but ditch digging (and general contract construction work, which is what I feel like you're trying to get at) is seasonal work, and there are DEFINITELY a lot of people who apply over the summer to do it; people who are willing to stand on a roof and pound nails or sand on a highway and rotate a sign back and forth or drive a pilot car are a dime a dozen, so long as you pay them enough. The reason they're able to pay so much, though, is that their services are deemed essential to either the homeowners or governmental departments requesting them, so they can negotiate higher prices.
> ...


Something I've noticed is that many people that manage to get ahead in life will never admit that chance played a role. Knowing the right person or being in the right place at the right time; nope, it's all their own doing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> Something I've noticed is that many people that manage to get ahead in life will never admit that chance played a role. Knowing the right person or being in the right place at the right time; nope, it's all their own doing.


There's a really good comic on this topic that I'll post later. If I don't, remind me


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> Something I've noticed is that many people that manage to get ahead in life will never admit that chance played a role. Knowing the right person or being in the right place at the right time; nope, it's all their own doing.


Even then, you'd still have to prove your competency.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Even then, you'd still have to prove your competency.



100% just because you are lucky...if you provide no value then you will be dropped. There are many people willing to that their spot.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Apr 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> 100% just because you are lucky...if you provide no value then you will be dropped. There are many people willing to that their spot.





Memoir said:


> Even then, you'd still have to prove your competency.


Sure, but there are people who don't get that chance. Only looking at the people who managed to go forward is basically confirmation bias.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Alright, now that I've got more time, here's the comic I was referring to earlier


Spoiler: High-res images





















Source: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate



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



invaderyoyo said:


> Sure, but there are people who don't get that chance. Only looking at the people who managed to go forward is basically confirmation bias.


I think @Memoir's idea is that rather than looking at higher education, assess how they do in on-site training and the first few weeks


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

invaderyoyo said:


> Sure, but there are people who don't get that chance. Only looking at the people who managed to go forward is basically confirmation bias.


That same logic could be applied to those who cling to their "unfortunate circumstances", no?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> That same logic could be applied to those who cling to their "unfortunate circumstances", no?


I wouldn't call it "clinging" if it's a legitimate roadblock, but I get what you mean


----------



## lexarvn (Apr 19, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> If you have skills people want people will pay you. You are competing in a market that has determined the value of your skills. If you feel like you are not getting paid enough up your skills or go somewhere were you will be paid what you think you are worth.
> 
> I understand how expensive homes are. Yeah homes are way overvalued.



You are right about being competitive. Most of my friends are insecure so they don't like to take risks and are very non-competitive, but I don't think that should prevent someone from earning a fair wage. I would actually argue that the reason most millennials seem to not be paid well is not because they can't do skilled jobs, but because they've been taught that they are worthless with unpaid internships, and entry level positions being filled by experienced people so they are only able to get simple jobs like flipping burgers or working retail, which confirms their insecurities so they don't want to risk losing the job they have.

Not saying that people shouldn't be competitive. I certainly am, which is why I am pretty well off. But being competitive should be the difference between mediocracy and affluence, not poverty and affluence imo.

This also doesn't change the fact that most of my friends live in a city though with very high cost of living and are being paid the same amount they would be for the same job in a rural area with less than half the cost of living. Even though most of them are making double or more than poverty level income so are technically not in poverty, not being able to afford a decent place by yourself is still poverty imo.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I wouldn't call it "clinging" if it's a legitimate roadblock, but I get what you mean



It being a legitimate roadblock is a subject on its own. I'm more referring to the people that believe they HAVE to work the low end jobs because it's "what pays the bills". That logic is lowbrow, detestable and arguably wrong.

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



lexarvn said:


> You are right about being competitive. Most of my friends are insecure so they don't like to take risks and are very non-competitive, but I don't think that should prevent someone from earning a fair wage. I would actually argue that the reason most millennials seem to not be paid well is not because they can't do skilled jobs, but because they've been taught that they are worthless with unpaid internships, and entry level positions being filled by experienced people so they are only able to get simple jobs like flipping burgers or working retail, which confirms their insecurities so they don't want to risk losing the job they have.
> 
> Not saying that people shouldn't be competitive. I certainly am, which is why I am pretty well off. But being competitive should be the difference between mediocracy and affluence, not poverty and affluence imo.
> 
> This also doesn't change the fact that most of my friends live in a city though with very high cost of living and are being paid the same amount they would be for the same job in a rural area with less than half the cost of living. Even though most of them are making double or more than poverty level income so are technically not in poverty, not being able to afford a decent place by yourself is still poverty imo.


Things like unpaid internships are the biggest insult to the working class. Oi...

Cost of living is a true to life issue as well. In some areas you can make 80k+ a year and still be considered within the poverty level. Doesn't that just speak for how poor our economic systems are?


----------



## lexarvn (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Cost of living is a true to life issue as well. In some areas you can make 80k+ a year and still be considered within the poverty level. Doesn't that just speak for how poor our economic systems are?


Yeah, and those places still need burger flippers, janitors, garbage collection services, etc. That is also my one problem to just blanket change minimum wage to $15/hr. It really should be scaled against cost of living where the business is since workers should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. In some places, $7/hr probably makes sense as minimum wage, others places, $25+/hr might make more sense. It's a very location specific problem.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

lexarvn said:


> Yeah, and those places still need burger flippers, janitors, garbage collection services, etc. That is also my one problem to just blanket change minimum wage to $15/hr. It really should be scaled against cost of living where the business is since workers should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. In some places, $7/hr probably makes sense as minimum wage, others places, $25+/hr might make more sense. It's a very location specific problem.


I think that roughly $10/hour is the absolute minimum for any location in the US. I live in the Midwest and $7.25 an hour isn't enough to survive off of, even in our rural area. Fortunately most places pay at least $8.50 an hour, since they know that if they don't then they'll lose workers to detassling companies over the summer. It's not ideal, but it's a start


----------



## invaderyoyo (Apr 19, 2018)

Memoir said:


> That same logic could be applied to those who cling to their "unfortunate circumstances", no?


I didn't say ignore the cases where people got ahead. 

Most people don't "cling" to shitty jobs. They're stuck there. Occasionally through no fault of their own.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Apr 19, 2018)

lexarvn said:


> Yeah, and those places still need burger flippers, janitors, garbage collection services, etc. That is also my one problem to just blanket change minimum wage to $15/hr. It really should be scaled against cost of living where the business is since workers should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. In some places, $7/hr probably makes sense as minimum wage, others places, $25+/hr might make more sense. It's a very location specific problem.


+1.. Adjust wages and costs accordingly per economic needs for the location. $19/hr where I live is enough to live and afford a home. In some areas on the west coast it's enough to share a rundown apartment  with a coworker or two. Makes me sad.


----------



## Stercate79 (Apr 19, 2018)

Nationalsocialism should work!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 19, 2018)

Stercate79 said:


> Nationalsocialism should work!


Ha! Funny! Now leave.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 19, 2018)

bitjacker said:


> In communism, Where is the incentive to excel? Before anyone else has the right to comment, refute that. Why be a doctor? Why rise to the top?


To get paid better. Second, we don't want full blown communism. when the left talks about nets and what not. It's intended to make it that they can't live forever on that net. And there are quite a few things that make NO SENSE. Like, why is America, the only THE ONLY country where you have to pay for your health care. And this leads into what I call the collage pay problem. that problem goes something like this. Government makes it so collages have to paid for/ funding doesn't go to collages. Government adds a lending system, aka student loans, collages then see all the money they can make. Collages then gouge the person going to that collage, making the price unreasonably high and people then have to be stuck in never ending debt, just to get a decent job. How do you fix that? Make the government either set the max a collage can cost, or, fund the collages themselves, which remove the whole debt situation, collages are getting their funding, and students aren't gouging their or their parents pockets. I don't think collages need all that money from every single person, the bar is raised so high that the poor will rarely ever make it. And scholarships sometimes won't be enough. So now lets apply this into healthcare. Somebody is piss poor, and is unable to afford insurance but a home, and he is going to die within the next 6 hours. But cannot afford the very surgery he needs to live without healthcare. So he asks for a loan, to pay for it. But because he doesn't have insurance, he has to gouge himself into a deeper hole than he already was in.  Pay all that loaned money back.This person that got sick, could of been trying his entire life trying to get into a better situation. But it never improves because every single job he had worked, fucked him over, or, he never got a raise, not because he never asked, not because he wasn't a good employee. But because his employer wouldn't. So here is this man who literately cannot get out of the hole he digged by his own body, and he cannot do a thing to fix it, is that fair? 
My point that I want to make is their still would be a structure, there still should be capitalism at it's core. But people have to gouging themselves to have a basic right to live? or a basic right to decent education?  No. And not only that but, there still would be poor, there still will be middle class, (assuming the middle class isn't going extinct) and there will still be rich people. It's not a matter of evening the ground, it's about giving everyone a fair chance. I don't want the poor able to easily get what the rich has, but I don't want the poor to have no chance at all. And to rise to the top, that should be on you. If you don't like being middle class and you want to become, rich or have something expesnive. then your earn it. But the poor are more than kissing the pavement, scrapping their asses against the pavement not because they aren't good enough, or they have no work ethic, it's because they literately cannot since they are being smothered by the rich, and the rich continue to gouge them.


----------



## weatMod (Apr 20, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> I've always been a strong supporter of capitalism and have failed to see the beauty of communism as described by some people on the left. Communism has never worked and seems like a flawed system that could never be able to work. Also, it's been attributed to more deaths than fascism yet people constantly place Hitler as being more evil than Stalin or Mao.


neither


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Apr 20, 2018)

First of all, Stalin and Mao weren't communist as it is defined, they just believed in some of the ideals.

Both of them were influenced by Marxist ideas, but both adapted it to their surroundings. Stalin adopted Marxist and Leninist ideals to make a Marxist-Leninist one party system. It was based around the working/labor class revolting against the empire. Mao flat out rejected the Leninist ideals that Russia had put in place and said that the peasants would revolt. Thus, Maoism formed.

Castroism, Juche and Hoxhaism are more isolated forms, but they are still lumped in with Communism, even though they are mainly based on a personality cult.

If you take a step back and actually look at what the world has done with "Communism" You will see that none of the governments are actually communist.

Communism as it is defined today mainly refers to a one party system with collectivization of industries by the state.


Capitalism mainly refers to how a country runs its economy and Communism is an ideology. I believe that a better comparison to make would be Communism or Representative Democracy.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Alright, now that I've got more time, here's the comic I was referring to earlier
> 
> 
> Spoiler: High-res images
> ...



Some of the stuff in right column are common issues that affects all of us and we need to improve on. The underfunded smaller classes is a problem for everyone. Many people have been discussing to invest more in schools and reduce class sizes.

Also house full of people? Aren't humans social creatures meant to be around each other. And being around lots of people means lots of interaction for the kid which is essential for proper development, learning proper social skills and lower risk of depression. And what about going to a public school which every child gets exposed to way more people and the flu. And being exposed to dirt is good for kids, germs builds a stronger immune system because it gets practice. Kids also have less risk of developing allergies, asthma, and eczema. Humans evolved to live in much dirtier conditions. The guy on the left will realistically have more problems with a hyper sensitized immune system.

Households nowadays are richer than in the past because of 2 paychecks instead of 1. But they have more expenses. Maybe raise wages? But then you'll also have to raise wages for everyone else. Including high deadly jobs. A person working a high risk job will be pissed off that he's working an incredibly dangerous job putting his life on the line for his family and is getting same pay as a fast food place. Maybe he and lots of others will quite that job and work at a fast food place instead since much easier for same pay. But then you'll have too many people applying for that job, and not enough for the dangerous one.

And can start up employers keep up with higher pay? Many have shut down because they couldn't keep up. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs, it'll affect many. Smaller buisnesses are expected to loose lots of money with a higher minimum wage. Lots of people are only focused on big businesses but not smaller ones. Maybe make it area specific instead of a federal level wage. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshach...5-minimum-wage-new-site-reports/#6be368a711ad


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 20, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Ah, yes, typical conservative response. Playing the precious victim card.


Man, I'm a full-fledged liberal and progressive, but I hate both the far-left and the far-right, that's all. I have my card at LaREM's Macron's party. I am pro-business AND pro-humanity, that's all.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> What the hell is "pretend" about the 1% richest population, at least in America?


If you earn 2500 bucks a month you're in the world's 1%.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Some of the stuff in right column are common issues that affects all of us and we need to improve on. The underfunded smaller classes is a problem for everyone. Many people have been discussing to invest more in schools and reduce class sizes.


Since schools are tied to property tax, that won't happen until it's swapped over to federal. The system we're currently in inherently ties the quality of the education to the social class of the neighborhood



> Also house full of people? Aren't humans social creatures meant to be around each other. And being around lots of people means lots of interaction for the kid which is essential for proper development, learning proper social skills and lower risk of depression.


I don't quite understand what you're getting at here, unless you're implying that poor people with big families are less prone to depression, in which case I'd have to say that is categorically false... 



> And what about going to a public school which every child gets exposed to way more people and the flu. And being exposed to dirt is good for kids, germs builds a stronger immune system because it gets practice. Kids also have less risk of developing allergies, asthma, and eczema. Humans evolved to live in much dirtier conditions. The guy on the left will realistically have more problems with a hyper sensitized immune system.


I don't think that you realize that the guy on the left can AFFORD to get sick; if he's ill, he probably has great health insurance through his family and most likely has money saved up to cover time off. You saw what happens with the girl on the right when her DAD got sick, imagine what it'd be like for HER



> Households nowadays are richer than in the past because of 2 paychecks instead of 1. But they have more expenses. Maybe raise wages?


Now you're getting it!


> But then you'll also have to raise wages for everyone else.


Oh I'm so proud of you, now you're speaking like a true socialist 


> Including high deadly jobs. A person working a high risk job will be pissed off that he's working an incredibly dangerous job putting his life on the line for his family and is getting same pay as a fast food place. Maybe he and lots of others will quite that job and work at a fast food place instead since much easier for same pay. But then you'll have too many people applying for that job, and not enough for the dangerous one.


And if nobody is taking the comparatively low-paying "dangerous" job, the owner would have one of two options to entice potential employees: you wanna take a stab at what those are?



> And can start up employers keep up with higher pay? Many have shut down because they couldn't keep up. Small businesses provide 55% of all jobs, it'll affect many. Smaller buisnesses are expected to loose lots of money with a higher minimum wage. Lots of people are only focused on big businesses but not smaller ones. Maybe make it area specific instead of a federal level wage. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshach...5-minimum-wage-new-site-reports/#6be368a711ad


There's a saying going around that I heartily subscribe to, which is "if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you can't afford to be in business," which is to say that if, to keep your business afloat, you have to pay people sub-poverty wages, then you're an incredibly unethical business owner and it's time to board up the windows

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



StarTrekVoyager said:


> Man, I'm a full-fledged liberal and progressive, but I hate both the far-left and the far-right, that's all. I have my card at LaREM's Macron's party. I am pro-business AND pro-humanity, that's all.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Hilarious, since the countries bringing down that average are inherently impoverished themselves. However, you bring up a good point; the UN could probably use some more money from people who can afford it. Like AMERICA'S 1%


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Apr 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Hilarious, since the countries bringing down that average are inherently impoverished themselves. However, you bring up a good point; the UN could probably use some more money from people who can afford it. Like AMERICA'S 1%


I don't support fucking with private property and stealing money. Also, no, the 1% can't afford anything. Bezos could afford paying 50 bucks to every inhabitant on the planet and then he'd already be broke. The amount of money possessed by people is ridiculously small compared to money flows and production. If the top 100 richest guys in the earth united, they could pay a low wage to every person on Earth for a month and then they would all be fucking pennyless.

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

Also the "if you become rich you make other people poorer" theory is bullshit. You people act as if there was still the same amount of money in circulation in 2018 as in 1850.


----------



## Cubuss (Apr 20, 2018)

Both


----------



## bodefuceta (Apr 20, 2018)

I'm in favor of the perfect balance, be the most capitalistic possible to favor the economy, and strongest government possible to make sure none fucks over others while doing capitalism. A.k.a. heavily regulated capitalism, governed with strong moral standard, chosen democratically by the few % who are truly CHOSEN, as in the glorious ROMAN REPUBLIC. If you use Facebook, watch porn, TV, no (or humanities) degree, no child, pump and dump, etc, then no voting right for you. Because there is always a LOW-FUNCTIONING MAJORITY that undermines the system by being able to vote.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 20, 2018)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I don't support fucking with private property and stealing money. Also, no, the 1% can't afford anything. Bezos could afford paying 50 bucks to every inhabitant on the planet and then he'd already be broke. The amount of money possessed by people is ridiculously small compared to money flows and production. If the top 100 richest guys in the earth united, they could pay a low wage to every person on Earth for a month and then they would all be fucking pennyless.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Also the "if you become rich you make other people poorer" theory is bullshit. You people act as if there was still the same amount of money in circulation in 2018 as in 1850.


I don't think that you understand just how much Bezos is worth, nor do I think you understand how little he pays in taxes (it's none, by the way). I'm not saying, also, that The Rich should pay for EVERYONE in the world, literally all I'm asking is that they fairly contribute to the general welfare of society for once. Honestly the only "elite" people I've actually seen doing good are the Gates family, and even they do everything they can to weasel out of paying taxes

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't think that you understand just how much Bezos is worth, nor do I think you understand how little he pays in taxes (it's none, by the way). I'm not saying, also, that The Rich should pay for EVERYONE in the world, literally all I'm asking is that they fairly contribute to the general welfare of society for once. Honestly the only "elite" people I've actually seen doing good are the Gates family, and even they do everything they can to weasel out of paying taxes


Sounds like socialism, minus that dystopian bit where you want to regulate who votes


----------

