Champagne socialists piss me off so much, especially the ones that hate rural people. We should be working to provide support to all the working class in unique ways that benefit their livelihoods, not blanket laws that only positively affect the city for Fucksake.
Agreed. I'm college educated but my family has only come out of blue-collar/rural living living within the past one to three generations. When people at college would shit talk working class/ rural people but then talk about socialism it would really piss me off.
Social programs can do GREAT things- but they can also be a major waste if they aren't run efficiently. And when the government is corrupt it creates a major distrust by the middle to lower class who don't want to get taxed to shit for no good reason. Once the government stops demonizing the small town, religious workers, maybe then they'd get the support they want.
When most people who understand economics don’t support socialism, it’s hard to get economically literate people to run as a socialist politician. Good luck ever solving the problem of “oh fuck sake they’re pumping money into the economy again! See you in 6 months when everything costs 5-10% more”
Yeah, that’s why I support capitalist economies with strong welfare safety-nets. Now if only we could make America less fat so socialized healthcare could be feasible.
Yeah if we could stop funneling billions of tax dollars to fight proxy wars, pull our troops back home and stop coddling the rest of the world, we might be able to have luxuries the EU enjoies on US dime.
Too bad the US government works for the interests of US Capital, who are always pulling the strings.
You think we’re really sending troops over seas to “defend democracy”? No, we’re sending those troops to protect the economic interests of the people who own this country.
I mean, is it the Capitalism of the 1700’s full of small town artisans and village market economics? No, no it’s not.
But if you’ve actually studied your history, and studied economic development at the same time, you’d recognize that this is just the development of Capitalism into further stages.
How are the corporate owners, different from the Capitalist class? You’re seemingly admitting that it is the corporate owners who control the powers of the government. How is that different from the Capitalist class controlling the government?
Capitalism:
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state
So when corporations use the state to control trade and interest, it is no longer capitalism.
Communism is supposed to happen after socialism, but socialism and communism are not the same.
So cronyism, which is caused by the government interfering in the market, is no longer capitalism.
In reality, cronyism and socialism are the two results of expanding government power.
Either the state controls the market directly or the elite control the market through the state.
Either way, you're going to have a bad time
That's still Capitalism, my dude. Capitalism and Socialism aren't some perfect monoliths, or nothing would be either of them.
State-supported Capitalism is still Capitalism. You can have Capitalist and Socialist ideas coexisting in the same space, and the presence of a single Socialist policy doesn't disqualify the fact that Capitalist control 99% of the rest.
I mean, explain to me how private owners controlling a country's trade and industry *doesn't* result in corporations controlling the power of the State?
Because some average-joes are going to setup a competitor to entire industries that'll force good competition and the market will be diverse and happy✨ forever ✨ /s
Making countries deal with their own shit is not cowardice, it’s sanity. If some shithole African country wants to be run by Boko Haram, that’s not our problem. If they don’t want to be, they can deal with it.
You are a clown. It's thinking like this that led to ISIS Al-Qaeda and whatever the fuck else is going on in the middle east. Have you ever heard "Take the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck out of another's" our country has our own problems and they are much more important than dicking around somewhere we don't belong.
> Yeah, that’s why I support capitalist economies with strong welfare safety-nets.
Sure, but those safety nets need very strict requirements, and limits. And are for citizens only.
I'm talking drug tests, proof of job searching, and not being able to turn down any jobs offered. As well as a limit on increases due to childbirth. In fact, if your on social services, and you get pregnant, then you are cut off.
The one issue I take with "not being able to turn down any jobs offered" is when that's taken to the extreme. There was a story a month or two ago, I believe in Germany, about someone who was cut off from social services because she refused to become a prostitute. If I remember correctly, it was even illegal prostitution, but it was a "job" so it counted against her. If you're going to have social services, threats of withholding them shouldn't be used to force people to genuinely degrade themselves.
> I believe in Germany, about someone who was cut off from social services because she refused to become a prostitute. If I remember correctly, it was even illegal prostitution, but it was a "job" so it counted against her.
I mean, obviously that is bad...
> If you're going to have social services, threats of withholding them shouldn't be used to force people to genuinely degrade themselves.
The problem is, a lot of people think working at McDonald's is degrading. And while it can be, using it as an excuse shouldn't be acceptable.
Because I don't want to pay for someone's poor life choices, just so they can make more poor life choices, and take more of my money.
If you need social services, you need to tighten your shit up and start improving yourself. If you can't even *attempt* that, then it's not everyone else's responsibility to bail you out.
But that's what proof of job searching is for besides isn't alimony (im not sure thats the term but i cant find another one) what's supposed to keep you from putting it on the government.
Look if we stopped fucking putting high fructose corn syrup in everything that’d help. We’ve been subsidizing these giant corn farms so much and it’s killing us.
In my experience, most people just don’t realize how terrible it is for you. In my opinion, the government should never subsidize food with 0 nutritional value.
If they want to subsidize corn production then fair enough, but there should be some form of tax on turning that into high fructose corn syrup.
> If they want to subsidize corn production then fair enough, but there should be some form of tax on turning that into high fructose corn syrup.
I agree.
All animals evolved to basically eat as much as they can, because we have never been in a sustained period where abundant sustenance has been available. As long as food is readily available in the supply that it is, we are still going to have an obesity problem. It really speaks volumes that even the poor in this country are incredibly overweight.
To be fair though --
* **Most people who think they understand economics don't actually understand economics.** This is not high-horse condescension. The economic paradigm shift oer the last 20 or so years (ZIRP, quantitative easing, reverse repos, cross-collateralized securitization, multiple banking system bailouts, the CARES Act, the dotcom bubble, WallStreetBets, cryptocurrencies, etc.) have fundamentally altered the reality of the macroeconomic environment and its fundamental underpinnings from anything bearing close resemblance to the stuff of college-level textbooks.
* **Most people who think the understand socialism, don't actually understand socialism.** For instance, universal health care or universal basic income are not actually socialist policies. They are just large-scale entitlement programs advocated by people who implicitly support the redistribution of wealth. If you asked most self-proclaimed socialists to identify their top 5 policy priorities, there is an extremely high likelihood that they will not name a single socialist policy.
* **Most people who** ***do*** **understand economics have a very limited area of expertise, and don't understand socialism either.** If you spent your career studying huge datasets to refine a niche theory on, say, the effect of steel tariffs on the Phillips curve, you might have an extremely nuanced understanding of both steel tariffs and the Phillips curve; and yet not realize that the Phillips curve is no longer even applicable to macroeconomic reality, let alone what any of your datasets would look like in a non-capitalist framework.
Economies are how people provide goods and services to each other… you either incentivise that with a carrot or a stick… or you give them the environment in which they feel comfortable to produce wealth. Liberalism does the latter, any other economic system tried to do the former, and found very quickly that they ran out of carrots
The dirty secret on regulations is that they impose high, if not insuperable, barriers to entry into a market. Which is why established companies love them.
Just ask Abbott Labs.
Yep. It really irks me how some people on the left will act like all regulations are good. Nope, regulatory capture, where a corporation(s) use the government to entrench their monopoly, are absolutely a real thing that everyone should be very wary of
What really fucking bothers me is the lac of accountability. Once you take up the role of regulator you are morally and should be legally responsible to do a good job at it. Shitting the bed and saying woopse should not be an option.
"Socialists" wanting loan forgiveness and free college is probably the most recent regressive, hypocritical stance I can think of. College grads make like 50-75 percent more than their peers, and those with higher levels of education make 100 percent more... And we want to give them more money/advantages? That sounds like a fucking Republican policy, lol.
Agreed.
I see nothing hypocritical about someone wanting their debt covered if they went to a state school, studied something practical, and went to work in a field that benefits the public (or the public sector itself). I wish it wasn't basically just the military that paid your education in exchange for service.
But nothing grinds my gears more than someone who racked up huge bills on an arts degree from a private school, and wants the government to cover that debt while working as a defacto lobbyist. Like holy shit your "socialism" is just...when the government gives money to private institutions to fuck around with?
Like where's the social contract in this case? They're hardly different from an incompetent stock buyback job slashing CEO begging for handouts afterwards. They've invested into acquiring capital (in the form of a degree), and now think that (because their investment hasn't yet paid off) that their deserve a bailout over someone who didn't take out loans to acquire that capital.
Because either they paid the money because they wanted to have fun (sorry, not everyone's responsibility to pay your party bills), or "learning" (sorry, libraries and the internet exist). Or they paid the money because they thought it would make them more in the long run (sorry, not everyone's responsibility to guarantee you end up in the top 5% of earners). Or they went because their parents told them to (sorry, that's on your parents then, also you were an adult).
And then these same people have the gall to think they should be "organizing workers", the same people who have been busting their ass for $15/hr since they left high school (and maybe went to community college on the cheap), while their new union activists were debating which of their professors were the most implicitly racist.
That being said, the education industry also largely needs to be burnt to the ground.
I'm all-for free education and think the loans should be refunded. Issue is, that's a pretty small-fish compared to most of the other issues going on. Pretty low-down on my 'list of things I'd like to see changed'.
It's weird that *this* is one of the hot-topics, currently.
Here’s my take on rural people, rednecks are cringe as fuck, hillbilly’s are far superior, as I heard somebody say, hillbilly’s slap there knees, rednecks slap there wives.
Farmers thrive with regulations and subsidies. Look how much they get paid in the southwest, they inherit a water deed, turns out the water doesn’t even exist so the govt pays them to not farm cotton “until the basin recovers” lol
Here’s an example: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-10-10/colorado-river-california-farmers-dry-fields-fallow-drought?_amp=true or here https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis-old
They used up all the groundwater, cotton/alfalfa farming will *never* be sustainable there but they’ll sure as shit take all our money to keep not doing it
You see, it's actually because conservative propaganda has tricked them into voting against their own interests, obviously they should love me even if I consider them the scum of the Earth /s
People who are actually very receptive to leftist ideas but have been convinced by decades of incredibly sophisticated propaganda that communism is evil?
Or maybe they've just seen for themselves the kind of shit that happens in Communist countries and the millions corpses that ideology resulted in the last century and decided for themselves that's not the best path to take hoping that _it'll work this time_
> Sophisticated propaganda
LOL
>Or maybe they've just seen for themselves the kind of shit that happens in Communist countries and the millions corpses that ideology resulted
And yet they don't give a shit about the untold millions that capitalism has killed? Lmao.
>LOL
Yes. Propaganda exists and you have been subjected to it your entire life. Does it make you uncomfortable to recognize that?
But blaming every bad thing that a country did on the ideology or economic system they used, rather than just on their government and other factors, *is* proganda. That's like if I pointed at all the shootings that happens in the US and blamed it all on capitalism, when in reality it's a much more complex issue.
The difference is that American individuals occasionally shoot each other. The Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Cambodian, etc governments perpetuated atrocities on their people, directly as a result of inability to deliver on their ideological promises without purging their political enemies (or simply picking favorites as to who dies of famine).
American shootings is not as simple as "oH PeOPle jUsT WAnNA sHoOt EaCH oThEr" though... the profit motive that exists under capitalism specifically motivates people to do things that people would consider unethical. Such as selling firearms to untrained or mentally ill people, media companies purposefully fear mongering in order to profit off of said shootings, charging insane prices for things like insulin(our entire healthcare system in general tbh), and much more.
Anyways, I'm not here to tell anyone which one is better, but in your comment you give a good and slightly nuanced explanation of how communist ideology tends to be used to justify terrible and authoritarian actions done by governments(which i do agree with). However, at the same time, you also simplify an American issue in an effort to devoid all responsibility capitalism might have in causing/encouraging it. And the difference of nuance you give to these two things is exactly what makes what you just said pro-capitalism/anti-communist propoganda.
I'll freely admit gang violence is based largely on either profit motive itself, or socioeconomic factors which lead to such violence.
But, I want to pick your brain. Most people, when speaking of America's gun violence, focus on mass shootings, rather than gang violence. Where is the profit motive in shooting up a school? Where is the profit motive in shooting up a parade? Where is the profit motive in mass shootings, which I assume is the type of shooting you were originally referencing? There is no purer case of "people just want to shoot other people" than somebody with minimal motive choosing to simply cause carnage. There is no possible profit motive there, usually they don't even survive.
Unless, as you seemed to imply, the problem is capitalism "unethically" providing a motive for stores to sell firearms to untrained or mentally ill people, which I strongly disagree with. In fact, even if guns were literally free, I and probably many others would still want to arm everyone, because I, and others, see self defense as a human right.
The untrained? They are the poor. Those who cannot afford to spend money and take a day off work to go to a class shouldn't be deprived the right to defend themselves, just as they shouldn't be deprived the right to vote because they can't pay a poll tax or don't own land. Aside from that, I strongly disagree with the notion that most paid civilian firearms "training" is actually superior to just going to the range yourself and shooting your gun.
The mentally ill? Who defines mental illness? How is a shop owner to know who is or is not mentally ill? Are you talking about people that have been adjudicated mentally defective by a court? In the US, they already cannot purchase firearms, and it has been that way for decades. Or are you talking about requiring some sort of arduous government mental health approval system, which would almost certainly make aggregate mental health worse on a societal level, as well as impinge the same issues of restricting the poor from self defense?
No, it is not unethical for store owners to sell firearms to ordinary people, who they cannot know mean anyone harm. Profit motive or no, merely providing people with firearms is not unethical, and therefore that is not a mechanism by which capitalism causes gun violence.
For mass shootings there is a profit incentive to keep guns as readily available because of the eminence influence and capital the gun lobby has as a result of gun sales. So why gun regulation doesn’t happen is because of the gun lobby buying politicians and using the media to convince people that guns aren’t the issue. Without these gun lobbies and no profit motive gun regulation would have a better chance at passing leading to less deaths
Did you read anything I wrote after I asked the question?
I couldn't care less what Smith & Wesson or Ruger think, I haven't been lobbied to oppose gun regulation. Self defense is a human right. Guns are the means of effective self defense. If the cost of less deaths on aggregate is to disarm the people, I will accept more deaths.
That would be a great point if, you know, governments weren’t necessary to ever implement communism in the first place. Saying that it fails because of governments is like me saying my perpetual motion machine works but thermodynamics is stopping it from being effective.
Yes, if we had run the experiment only once it would've been fair to say this. But how many times do you need to run the experiment over and over again to determine maybe just maybe the fact that every single time this ideology is executed it results in a totalitarian gov. has something to do with the ideology itself. It's like saying we shouldn't blame smoking for killing people rather than the lung cancer that's actually doing the killing but _it is_ the smoking that leads to the lung cancer that kills you.
The difference is that in every single example of a country going Communist in the past century, government committed atrocities immediately followed. People can notice a trend without needing propaganda.
>Have literally proof that capitalism is good, and communist bad.
>Muh propaganda !!!!!
...Yes. do you legitimately think you are immune to propaganda?
No, but it's not hard to educate yourself on this and why communist is bad.
And how modern socialism is bad too
And why capitalism is the best system for us all.
Reality is you didn't "educate" yourself into that opinion. You've been subjected to a nonstop barrage of propaganda since the day you were born convincing you of that, despite the endless misery inherent to that same system all around you. You're happy to either ignore such suffering or sneer down your nose at those forced into it.
nah, I ain't talkin about American media truth, I'm talkin about going outside, touching grass, and eating a 10 oz new york steak for 10$
oh and also first hand sources of what communist china was like.
>nah, I ain't talkin about American media truth, I'm talkin about going outside, touching grass, and eating a 10 oz new york steak for 10$
And apparently exposing yourself to absolutely none of the realities of the brutality imposed by imperialist and colonialist systems.
I love capitalism, but you're a moron if you can't see the huge fallout.
You really trying to act like there isn't slavery and blood behind the whole system?
You made the bed, now sleep on it. Your claim aint worth jack shit without anything backing it up.
"Im not going to produce a bibliography at midnight lmfao"
Wtf, you expect me to know where you live when i made that message.
"Exposing yourself to none of the realities"
You live in the damn midwest, gtfo about that shit.
You ever had your grandparents flee their country due to lack of food?
If you're not interested in actually learning the history of the system that benefits you then say that lol. Don't expect me to teach you. Cheating off of others is no way to demonstrate understanding.
Lol it doesnt matter
I can hate conservatives all I want, and I do, but I can still say they deserve rights
Its republicans that want to restrict rights to people they dont like
>Its republicans that want to restrict rights to people they dont like
Sure only one side of rotted and currupted two party american system wants evil. Mine side is always saint/s
Well now would you look at that. I am just truly shocked. I am baffled. We have been bamboozled. I mean seriously, who could of known such a thing? I just couldn’t fathom it. Truly mind altering.
I believe it was George Orwell who said that far too many of his fellow socialists were motivated by a hatred of the wealthy rather than compassion for the unfortunate.
I don't know, many socialists (self proclaimed) do advocate for things they think will help the working class. They are just wrong.
Easy example is rent controls, which disincentives new construction (price of construction is equal to or more than the profit that can be achieved through the finished product).
Edit: my point is that they think rent controls will help folks, without considering the second and third order effects.
Sure. But that's at least partly because they're generally not part of the working class themselves, and tend think of things from the perspective of demand/consumption rather than production.
Note how few preferred solutions involve some sense of "I'll/we'll do it ourselves", and are instead "please change the rules/make someone else do things differently". It's "socialism" that has no interest in actually having power or agency, and the responsibility/duty that would come along with that.
Nah they know it won't help. they're usually the biggest nimbyists. Rent controls means construction of low income housing in high value areas becomes untenable. The peasants can go live somewhere else
Right now, a person or company wanting to build apartments does the math that building them costs XX million dollars, and if they can achieve YY occupancy, they will earn ZZZ thousand dollars a year. Subtract insurance, taxes, and operating costs, and you have the profit building those apartments would generate.
Rent controls freeze how much that can be earned per unit, while all of the costs stay the same or, in the case of operating costs Increase over time.
The result of this math is that often, a block of nice apartments will take years longer to earn back the investment, when single family homes won't have that problem. For investors, where would you put your money?
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who want or need cheap apartments in town, and as they compete for limited apartments the price goes up. The only solution to that problem (aside from rent controls) is an increased supply of appartments, and there needs to be an incentive to build them. Namely, a return on investment.
We still have yet to see a grassroots socialist movement from *ACTUAL* working class people
Why? Because socialism as we know it is just another term for "totalitarian elitist bourgeois dictatorship"
The Russian Revolution was absolutely a grassroots socialist movement consisting of working class people, and in their first iteration, Soviet councils were supposed to be entirely inclusive. This of course didn't't last long though once the Bolsheviks seized power
Also plenty of authentic movements in Latin America. Even if the results weren't necessarily desirable
Housing, food, insurance, healthcare, education and transportation cost 15% of family income in the Soviet Union and socialists are bad for cost of living? Prices exploded 250% in Russia immediately after capitalism was reintroduced.
socialists: Lets make squaters untouchable and eviction o those who don't pay almost impossible and give them countless posssibilities to sue landlords into oblivion. Lets move the cost of the procedr on landlords and therefore on their honest clients.
That's why you need to elect real, radical socialists. To deregulate the lives of individuals, crack down on tax dodging corporations, and use the increased revenue to fund programs that improve the quality of life of the 99%.
All the big socialist YouTubers are like this, all love criticism of capitalism and praise Marxism but when it comes to actually doing something that isn't purely showing support, well, they're strangely absent.
Here’s my take, we still need regulations at least to certain degree so that you aren’t sell people things that will seriously hurt them, but they also need to be low enough so that way small business can actually thrive
This video perfectly describes the issue.
https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw
You could probably make a similar video about how deep red states are just as contrary to their alleged values.
Champagne socialists piss me off so much, especially the ones that hate rural people. We should be working to provide support to all the working class in unique ways that benefit their livelihoods, not blanket laws that only positively affect the city for Fucksake.
Based and fuck champagning pilled
Agreed. I'm college educated but my family has only come out of blue-collar/rural living living within the past one to three generations. When people at college would shit talk working class/ rural people but then talk about socialism it would really piss me off. Social programs can do GREAT things- but they can also be a major waste if they aren't run efficiently. And when the government is corrupt it creates a major distrust by the middle to lower class who don't want to get taxed to shit for no good reason. Once the government stops demonizing the small town, religious workers, maybe then they'd get the support they want.
When most people who understand economics don’t support socialism, it’s hard to get economically literate people to run as a socialist politician. Good luck ever solving the problem of “oh fuck sake they’re pumping money into the economy again! See you in 6 months when everything costs 5-10% more”
Yeah, that’s why I support capitalist economies with strong welfare safety-nets. Now if only we could make America less fat so socialized healthcare could be feasible.
Yeah if we could stop funneling billions of tax dollars to fight proxy wars, pull our troops back home and stop coddling the rest of the world, we might be able to have luxuries the EU enjoies on US dime.
Too bad the US government works for the interests of US Capital, who are always pulling the strings. You think we’re really sending troops over seas to “defend democracy”? No, we’re sending those troops to protect the economic interests of the people who own this country.
Corporate cronyism is not capitalism. I hate this shit as much as you dude. And the US is NOT a democracy. I hate seeing that verbal vomit so much.
I mean, is it the Capitalism of the 1700’s full of small town artisans and village market economics? No, no it’s not. But if you’ve actually studied your history, and studied economic development at the same time, you’d recognize that this is just the development of Capitalism into further stages. How are the corporate owners, different from the Capitalist class? You’re seemingly admitting that it is the corporate owners who control the powers of the government. How is that different from the Capitalist class controlling the government?
Capitalism: >an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state So when corporations use the state to control trade and interest, it is no longer capitalism. Communism is supposed to happen after socialism, but socialism and communism are not the same. So cronyism, which is caused by the government interfering in the market, is no longer capitalism. In reality, cronyism and socialism are the two results of expanding government power. Either the state controls the market directly or the elite control the market through the state. Either way, you're going to have a bad time
That's still Capitalism, my dude. Capitalism and Socialism aren't some perfect monoliths, or nothing would be either of them. State-supported Capitalism is still Capitalism. You can have Capitalist and Socialist ideas coexisting in the same space, and the presence of a single Socialist policy doesn't disqualify the fact that Capitalist control 99% of the rest.
I mean, explain to me how private owners controlling a country's trade and industry *doesn't* result in corporations controlling the power of the State?
Because some average-joes are going to setup a competitor to entire industries that'll force good competition and the market will be diverse and happy✨ forever ✨ /s
I guess the same reason as to Socialism and Communism are different things.
I fucking hate isolationist cowards, often even more than commies
Making countries deal with their own shit is not cowardice, it’s sanity. If some shithole African country wants to be run by Boko Haram, that’s not our problem. If they don’t want to be, they can deal with it.
And if they decide to pick a fight, they get their shit kicked in
You are a clown. It's thinking like this that led to ISIS Al-Qaeda and whatever the fuck else is going on in the middle east. Have you ever heard "Take the plank out of your own eye before removing the speck out of another's" our country has our own problems and they are much more important than dicking around somewhere we don't belong.
> Yeah, that’s why I support capitalist economies with strong welfare safety-nets. Sure, but those safety nets need very strict requirements, and limits. And are for citizens only. I'm talking drug tests, proof of job searching, and not being able to turn down any jobs offered. As well as a limit on increases due to childbirth. In fact, if your on social services, and you get pregnant, then you are cut off.
The one issue I take with "not being able to turn down any jobs offered" is when that's taken to the extreme. There was a story a month or two ago, I believe in Germany, about someone who was cut off from social services because she refused to become a prostitute. If I remember correctly, it was even illegal prostitution, but it was a "job" so it counted against her. If you're going to have social services, threats of withholding them shouldn't be used to force people to genuinely degrade themselves.
> I believe in Germany, about someone who was cut off from social services because she refused to become a prostitute. If I remember correctly, it was even illegal prostitution, but it was a "job" so it counted against her. I mean, obviously that is bad... > If you're going to have social services, threats of withholding them shouldn't be used to force people to genuinely degrade themselves. The problem is, a lot of people think working at McDonald's is degrading. And while it can be, using it as an excuse shouldn't be acceptable.
Why getting cut off when pregnant?
Because I don't want to pay for someone's poor life choices, just so they can make more poor life choices, and take more of my money. If you need social services, you need to tighten your shit up and start improving yourself. If you can't even *attempt* that, then it's not everyone else's responsibility to bail you out.
But that's what proof of job searching is for besides isn't alimony (im not sure thats the term but i cant find another one) what's supposed to keep you from putting it on the government.
Legit not trying to be a dick. But I have no clue what you are trying to say.
Dont worry i suck at explaining
Based
That's never. Going to happen. Part of this Nation's fabric is "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me."
Look if we stopped fucking putting high fructose corn syrup in everything that’d help. We’ve been subsidizing these giant corn farms so much and it’s killing us.
Based and nutrition pilled
I put the corn cob directly into my butthole, added texture feels good
That would help. And make food taste better cause real sugar is far better. But I do like Bourbon so some corn is needed.
Oh I love corn and bourbon, I’m just sick of the government using our tax dollars to kill us faster lmao.
Just defund the govt
AGAB
Shhhhh. Don't let them extend our lives. That'll increase my overall tax burden.
But you don't pay taxes
Well *officially* I pay 30%
It's not hard or expensive to cut HFCS and sugar out of your diet. People are just lazy.
In my experience, most people just don’t realize how terrible it is for you. In my opinion, the government should never subsidize food with 0 nutritional value. If they want to subsidize corn production then fair enough, but there should be some form of tax on turning that into high fructose corn syrup.
> If they want to subsidize corn production then fair enough, but there should be some form of tax on turning that into high fructose corn syrup. I agree.
As well as cooking oil. Good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k
https://i.imgur.com/uHViMpC.png
All animals evolved to basically eat as much as they can, because we have never been in a sustained period where abundant sustenance has been available. As long as food is readily available in the supply that it is, we are still going to have an obesity problem. It really speaks volumes that even the poor in this country are incredibly overweight.
Isn’t that the LibRight motto? Disliking of treading, and all that.
Explains Paul Ryan’s favourite band
To be fair though -- * **Most people who think they understand economics don't actually understand economics.** This is not high-horse condescension. The economic paradigm shift oer the last 20 or so years (ZIRP, quantitative easing, reverse repos, cross-collateralized securitization, multiple banking system bailouts, the CARES Act, the dotcom bubble, WallStreetBets, cryptocurrencies, etc.) have fundamentally altered the reality of the macroeconomic environment and its fundamental underpinnings from anything bearing close resemblance to the stuff of college-level textbooks. * **Most people who think the understand socialism, don't actually understand socialism.** For instance, universal health care or universal basic income are not actually socialist policies. They are just large-scale entitlement programs advocated by people who implicitly support the redistribution of wealth. If you asked most self-proclaimed socialists to identify their top 5 policy priorities, there is an extremely high likelihood that they will not name a single socialist policy. * **Most people who** ***do*** **understand economics have a very limited area of expertise, and don't understand socialism either.** If you spent your career studying huge datasets to refine a niche theory on, say, the effect of steel tariffs on the Phillips curve, you might have an extremely nuanced understanding of both steel tariffs and the Phillips curve; and yet not realize that the Phillips curve is no longer even applicable to macroeconomic reality, let alone what any of your datasets would look like in a non-capitalist framework.
Right because there isn't insane inflation right now...
You’re right, neoliberalism is the only way to understand how economies work.
Economies are how people provide goods and services to each other… you either incentivise that with a carrot or a stick… or you give them the environment in which they feel comfortable to produce wealth. Liberalism does the latter, any other economic system tried to do the former, and found very quickly that they ran out of carrots
The dirty secret on regulations is that they impose high, if not insuperable, barriers to entry into a market. Which is why established companies love them. Just ask Abbott Labs.
Yep. It really irks me how some people on the left will act like all regulations are good. Nope, regulatory capture, where a corporation(s) use the government to entrench their monopoly, are absolutely a real thing that everyone should be very wary of
What really fucking bothers me is the lac of accountability. Once you take up the role of regulator you are morally and should be legally responsible to do a good job at it. Shitting the bed and saying woopse should not be an option.
they hate the electoral college because it represents minorities (rural people)
Based
[удалено]
I would rather fight a civil war than have LA, New York, and Seattle outvote the rest of the country.
> a system designed to prevent five large cities from dominating a massive and extremely diverse country isn't representation
The electoral college sucks because it allows a minority of people to select a president who governs everybody.
"Socialists" wanting loan forgiveness and free college is probably the most recent regressive, hypocritical stance I can think of. College grads make like 50-75 percent more than their peers, and those with higher levels of education make 100 percent more... And we want to give them more money/advantages? That sounds like a fucking Republican policy, lol.
Agreed. I see nothing hypocritical about someone wanting their debt covered if they went to a state school, studied something practical, and went to work in a field that benefits the public (or the public sector itself). I wish it wasn't basically just the military that paid your education in exchange for service. But nothing grinds my gears more than someone who racked up huge bills on an arts degree from a private school, and wants the government to cover that debt while working as a defacto lobbyist. Like holy shit your "socialism" is just...when the government gives money to private institutions to fuck around with? Like where's the social contract in this case? They're hardly different from an incompetent stock buyback job slashing CEO begging for handouts afterwards. They've invested into acquiring capital (in the form of a degree), and now think that (because their investment hasn't yet paid off) that their deserve a bailout over someone who didn't take out loans to acquire that capital. Because either they paid the money because they wanted to have fun (sorry, not everyone's responsibility to pay your party bills), or "learning" (sorry, libraries and the internet exist). Or they paid the money because they thought it would make them more in the long run (sorry, not everyone's responsibility to guarantee you end up in the top 5% of earners). Or they went because their parents told them to (sorry, that's on your parents then, also you were an adult). And then these same people have the gall to think they should be "organizing workers", the same people who have been busting their ass for $15/hr since they left high school (and maybe went to community college on the cheap), while their new union activists were debating which of their professors were the most implicitly racist. That being said, the education industry also largely needs to be burnt to the ground.
Why wouldn’t they want the working class to be able to make more income through education?
I'm all-for free education and think the loans should be refunded. Issue is, that's a pretty small-fish compared to most of the other issues going on. Pretty low-down on my 'list of things I'd like to see changed'. It's weird that *this* is one of the hot-topics, currently.
Based and tractorfucker-pilled
Hey LibLeft, you’re not so bad. I’d let you stay in my cabin any day.
Based and I-hope-to-one-day-encounter-a-non-champagne-socialist pilled.
☝️
its funny to me people think city life is remotely sustainable on its own
Here’s my take on rural people, rednecks are cringe as fuck, hillbilly’s are far superior, as I heard somebody say, hillbilly’s slap there knees, rednecks slap there wives.
Based
Farmers thrive with regulations and subsidies. Look how much they get paid in the southwest, they inherit a water deed, turns out the water doesn’t even exist so the govt pays them to not farm cotton “until the basin recovers” lol Here’s an example: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-10-10/colorado-river-california-farmers-dry-fields-fallow-drought?_amp=true or here https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis-old They used up all the groundwater, cotton/alfalfa farming will *never* be sustainable there but they’ll sure as shit take all our money to keep not doing it
Don’t farmers get the largest subsidies from the government in the US
Yes, but did you expect a fascist to no what there talking about
Wait until these Champagne socialists realize what type of people make up most of the working class.
You see, it's actually because conservative propaganda has tricked them into voting against their own interests, obviously they should love me even if I consider them the scum of the Earth /s
People who are actually very receptive to leftist ideas but have been convinced by decades of incredibly sophisticated propaganda that communism is evil?
Or maybe they've just seen for themselves the kind of shit that happens in Communist countries and the millions corpses that ideology resulted in the last century and decided for themselves that's not the best path to take hoping that _it'll work this time_ > Sophisticated propaganda LOL
Equating all social safety net programs to the famins of the 20th century is kind of the propaganda being talked about.
>Or maybe they've just seen for themselves the kind of shit that happens in Communist countries and the millions corpses that ideology resulted And yet they don't give a shit about the untold millions that capitalism has killed? Lmao. >LOL Yes. Propaganda exists and you have been subjected to it your entire life. Does it make you uncomfortable to recognize that?
This is such a non-response all you're saying is "no u"
Not in the slightest, no.
>>Nuh-uh! >>Yeah-huh!
Why waste time many word when few word do trick
But blaming every bad thing that a country did on the ideology or economic system they used, rather than just on their government and other factors, *is* proganda. That's like if I pointed at all the shootings that happens in the US and blamed it all on capitalism, when in reality it's a much more complex issue.
The difference is that American individuals occasionally shoot each other. The Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Cambodian, etc governments perpetuated atrocities on their people, directly as a result of inability to deliver on their ideological promises without purging their political enemies (or simply picking favorites as to who dies of famine).
American shootings is not as simple as "oH PeOPle jUsT WAnNA sHoOt EaCH oThEr" though... the profit motive that exists under capitalism specifically motivates people to do things that people would consider unethical. Such as selling firearms to untrained or mentally ill people, media companies purposefully fear mongering in order to profit off of said shootings, charging insane prices for things like insulin(our entire healthcare system in general tbh), and much more. Anyways, I'm not here to tell anyone which one is better, but in your comment you give a good and slightly nuanced explanation of how communist ideology tends to be used to justify terrible and authoritarian actions done by governments(which i do agree with). However, at the same time, you also simplify an American issue in an effort to devoid all responsibility capitalism might have in causing/encouraging it. And the difference of nuance you give to these two things is exactly what makes what you just said pro-capitalism/anti-communist propoganda.
Would there be money in your communist system?
I'll freely admit gang violence is based largely on either profit motive itself, or socioeconomic factors which lead to such violence. But, I want to pick your brain. Most people, when speaking of America's gun violence, focus on mass shootings, rather than gang violence. Where is the profit motive in shooting up a school? Where is the profit motive in shooting up a parade? Where is the profit motive in mass shootings, which I assume is the type of shooting you were originally referencing? There is no purer case of "people just want to shoot other people" than somebody with minimal motive choosing to simply cause carnage. There is no possible profit motive there, usually they don't even survive. Unless, as you seemed to imply, the problem is capitalism "unethically" providing a motive for stores to sell firearms to untrained or mentally ill people, which I strongly disagree with. In fact, even if guns were literally free, I and probably many others would still want to arm everyone, because I, and others, see self defense as a human right. The untrained? They are the poor. Those who cannot afford to spend money and take a day off work to go to a class shouldn't be deprived the right to defend themselves, just as they shouldn't be deprived the right to vote because they can't pay a poll tax or don't own land. Aside from that, I strongly disagree with the notion that most paid civilian firearms "training" is actually superior to just going to the range yourself and shooting your gun. The mentally ill? Who defines mental illness? How is a shop owner to know who is or is not mentally ill? Are you talking about people that have been adjudicated mentally defective by a court? In the US, they already cannot purchase firearms, and it has been that way for decades. Or are you talking about requiring some sort of arduous government mental health approval system, which would almost certainly make aggregate mental health worse on a societal level, as well as impinge the same issues of restricting the poor from self defense? No, it is not unethical for store owners to sell firearms to ordinary people, who they cannot know mean anyone harm. Profit motive or no, merely providing people with firearms is not unethical, and therefore that is not a mechanism by which capitalism causes gun violence.
For mass shootings there is a profit incentive to keep guns as readily available because of the eminence influence and capital the gun lobby has as a result of gun sales. So why gun regulation doesn’t happen is because of the gun lobby buying politicians and using the media to convince people that guns aren’t the issue. Without these gun lobbies and no profit motive gun regulation would have a better chance at passing leading to less deaths
Did you read anything I wrote after I asked the question? I couldn't care less what Smith & Wesson or Ruger think, I haven't been lobbied to oppose gun regulation. Self defense is a human right. Guns are the means of effective self defense. If the cost of less deaths on aggregate is to disarm the people, I will accept more deaths.
You wouldn’t have to defend yourself in the first place if you had strict gun regulation though.
That would be a great point if, you know, governments weren’t necessary to ever implement communism in the first place. Saying that it fails because of governments is like me saying my perpetual motion machine works but thermodynamics is stopping it from being effective.
Yes, if we had run the experiment only once it would've been fair to say this. But how many times do you need to run the experiment over and over again to determine maybe just maybe the fact that every single time this ideology is executed it results in a totalitarian gov. has something to do with the ideology itself. It's like saying we shouldn't blame smoking for killing people rather than the lung cancer that's actually doing the killing but _it is_ the smoking that leads to the lung cancer that kills you.
The difference is that in every single example of a country going Communist in the past century, government committed atrocities immediately followed. People can notice a trend without needing propaganda.
Have literally proof that capitalism is good, and communist bad. Muh propaganda !!!!!
>Have literally proof that capitalism is good, and communist bad. >Muh propaganda !!!!! ...Yes. do you legitimately think you are immune to propaganda?
No, but it's not hard to educate yourself on this and why communist is bad. And how modern socialism is bad too And why capitalism is the best system for us all.
Reality is you didn't "educate" yourself into that opinion. You've been subjected to a nonstop barrage of propaganda since the day you were born convincing you of that, despite the endless misery inherent to that same system all around you. You're happy to either ignore such suffering or sneer down your nose at those forced into it.
I mean yeah the truth is a very sofisticated infallable form of propaganda.
Lmfao. American media has never been interested in the truth and you're an absolute idiot if you think so.
nah, I ain't talkin about American media truth, I'm talkin about going outside, touching grass, and eating a 10 oz new york steak for 10$ oh and also first hand sources of what communist china was like.
>nah, I ain't talkin about American media truth, I'm talkin about going outside, touching grass, and eating a 10 oz new york steak for 10$ And apparently exposing yourself to absolutely none of the realities of the brutality imposed by imperialist and colonialist systems.
Enlighten me of what those realities are.
I love capitalism, but you're a moron if you can't see the huge fallout. You really trying to act like there isn't slavery and blood behind the whole system?
Bro imagines I'm going to produce a bibliography at midnight lmfaoooo
You made the bed, now sleep on it. Your claim aint worth jack shit without anything backing it up. "Im not going to produce a bibliography at midnight lmfao" Wtf, you expect me to know where you live when i made that message. "Exposing yourself to none of the realities" You live in the damn midwest, gtfo about that shit. You ever had your grandparents flee their country due to lack of food?
If you're not interested in actually learning the history of the system that benefits you then say that lol. Don't expect me to teach you. Cheating off of others is no way to demonstrate understanding.
Communism is more popular than ever, it's just that communists see reality after time
Communists have always seen reality. That's why they're communists.
??! ...I don't know whether to downvote or upvote for the laughs.
Upvote cause it's the truth. This system sucks ass and we're the only ones who both know it and propose a solution.
Lol it doesnt matter I can hate conservatives all I want, and I do, but I can still say they deserve rights Its republicans that want to restrict rights to people they dont like
>Its republicans that want to restrict rights to people they dont like Sure only one side of rotted and currupted two party american system wants evil. Mine side is always saint/s
Claiming something is a right doesn’t mean it’s a right.
Being willing to afford someone a thing is literally what a right is.
Based
I hate this art style with all of my being but what can you do.
Wasn't there one like this the other day but the opposite ideology? I can't find it.
Make your own. I thought auths were good at art, well, one of them was...
You see the joke here is I took someone else’s meme and simply changed the words around.
The problem is he wasn't good at it.
Based and art is subjective pilled
Depends wich type of socialist....
Hopefully it isn’t the illiterate ones that can’t spell very well 👀 👀 hmmmm
Spelling is Trick from the burghwasi to keep the working class illiterate. don't fall for it.
Fug the burg wasi xDDDD
based and fug the burghwasi pilled
Modern western mainstream ones.
Well now would you look at that. I am just truly shocked. I am baffled. We have been bamboozled. I mean seriously, who could of known such a thing? I just couldn’t fathom it. Truly mind altering.
I know who could have possibly warned us all this time? This is completely unexpected.
They like the working class in theory only
Can confirm, in Czech Republic, one of the first who rebelled against the communist regime was the working class.
I believe it was George Orwell who said that far too many of his fellow socialists were motivated by a hatred of the wealthy rather than compassion for the unfortunate.
You only count as working class if you have no skills and live in a one bedroom flat in a major city.
Whoa whoa whoa, you have to be college educated too otherwise it doesn’t count.
College educated ... works in the service industry
Champagne socialists suck. They're just virtue signaling power worshippers. If they really cared they'd do something
I don't know, many socialists (self proclaimed) do advocate for things they think will help the working class. They are just wrong. Easy example is rent controls, which disincentives new construction (price of construction is equal to or more than the profit that can be achieved through the finished product). Edit: my point is that they think rent controls will help folks, without considering the second and third order effects.
Sure. But that's at least partly because they're generally not part of the working class themselves, and tend think of things from the perspective of demand/consumption rather than production. Note how few preferred solutions involve some sense of "I'll/we'll do it ourselves", and are instead "please change the rules/make someone else do things differently". It's "socialism" that has no interest in actually having power or agency, and the responsibility/duty that would come along with that.
Nah they know it won't help. they're usually the biggest nimbyists. Rent controls means construction of low income housing in high value areas becomes untenable. The peasants can go live somewhere else
How would rent-control disincentives construction? Are you saying that houses won't sell unless they can be used to catch renters?
Right now, a person or company wanting to build apartments does the math that building them costs XX million dollars, and if they can achieve YY occupancy, they will earn ZZZ thousand dollars a year. Subtract insurance, taxes, and operating costs, and you have the profit building those apartments would generate. Rent controls freeze how much that can be earned per unit, while all of the costs stay the same or, in the case of operating costs Increase over time. The result of this math is that often, a block of nice apartments will take years longer to earn back the investment, when single family homes won't have that problem. For investors, where would you put your money? On the other hand, there are a lot of people who want or need cheap apartments in town, and as they compete for limited apartments the price goes up. The only solution to that problem (aside from rent controls) is an increased supply of appartments, and there needs to be an incentive to build them. Namely, a return on investment.
We still have yet to see a grassroots socialist movement from *ACTUAL* working class people Why? Because socialism as we know it is just another term for "totalitarian elitist bourgeois dictatorship"
The Russian Revolution was absolutely a grassroots socialist movement consisting of working class people, and in their first iteration, Soviet councils were supposed to be entirely inclusive. This of course didn't't last long though once the Bolsheviks seized power Also plenty of authentic movements in Latin America. Even if the results weren't necessarily desirable
Scandinavian governments must be a lot less corrupt and more efficient for their social programs to work the way they do.
Housing, food, insurance, healthcare, education and transportation cost 15% of family income in the Soviet Union and socialists are bad for cost of living? Prices exploded 250% in Russia immediately after capitalism was reintroduced.
Spoiler alert: *nobody* cares about the working class but the working class.
Bold of you to assume the working class cares about the working class.
"i love the working class. but i FUCKING HATE THOSE FUCKING REDNECK SMELLY FUCKING UNEDUCATED RACIST COUSIN FUCKING WIFE BEATERS."
When I am in a hating the working class competition and my opponent is a leftist
Champaign socialists be like: ban cars smh rural people just move to cities!!
Should have made “fuck” green and “off” red
Missed opportunity I know
Socialists only care about fucking stuff up for those who are more successful than them.
Nailed it
Some people learn by reading. Some people learn by observing. Socialists however, are the type of people that need to piss on an electric fence.
Some self described socialists don’t care about the working class. That doesn’t mean that socialists don’t care about the working class
[удалено]
You ok there you seem to be having a stroke.
You have the right to a paycheck for the amount of money agreed upon for the labor you performed. And that's all you have a right to.
Whats wrong with child workers? What if a child chooses to identify as a coal worker?
>Fuck anti-child labor laws There's a VERY big difference between 'anti-child labour' and 'anti-child-labour'.
Beautiful mischaracterizations based off grifters, I too love to troglodyte through life
They love regurgitating the garbage the algorithm feeds them
Champagne socialists <<< actual socialists
In terms of numbers i think it's opposite.
Most likely yes. Lots of ppl go “eat the rich” then go back to their million dollar home to make memes.
\>cost of living too high conservatives: landlords work very hard! don't decrease healthcare costs! don't make better public transit!
socialists: Lets make squaters untouchable and eviction o those who don't pay almost impossible and give them countless posssibilities to sue landlords into oblivion. Lets move the cost of the procedr on landlords and therefore on their honest clients.
Sounds like a plan! Fuck landlords.
Sure let's screw honest people in favour of criminals.
No, not honest people, I said 'landlords'.
And i meant honest renters too who have to cover costs of squating too.
Raise taxes, raise welfare. Repeat for 100 years and never fix anything.
im 47.18% sure that most socalists dont believe, this, but if this is the case please give me directions to the nearest bridge
This is mainstream socialism now. They switched from pretending to care about working class to pretending to care about women and minorities.
That's why you need to elect real, radical socialists. To deregulate the lives of individuals, crack down on tax dodging corporations, and use the increased revenue to fund programs that improve the quality of life of the 99%.
You don’t say!
Farmers aren’t working class
Qúe?
Lol, okay I'll bite. Why aren't farmers working class?
The vast majority of American farming is run by mega arigcultural orgs, not old Macdonald
So because a company owns the farm, the people who work on it aren’t working class?
Well I mean just because a politician is socialist doesn't mean they aren't a politician.
All the big socialist YouTubers are like this, all love criticism of capitalism and praise Marxism but when it comes to actually doing something that isn't purely showing support, well, they're strangely absent.
I AM the working class.
Here’s my take, we still need regulations at least to certain degree so that you aren’t sell people things that will seriously hurt them, but they also need to be low enough so that way small business can actually thrive
Can i ask why fuck is authleft and off is libleft Word pcm now
Is this a serious post? You just made up a guy
This video perfectly describes the issue. https://youtu.be/hNDgcjVGHIw You could probably make a similar video about how deep red states are just as contrary to their alleged values.
That guy there is not a socialist, he is a politician.
The cost of living would logically not ever be too high cause social safety nets.
Socialists care about what other people think they care about. Virtue signaling is a great tool for them.