Current Events > If you're not leftist/socialist, why?

(+) Yeah! (+)

PMarth2002 posted...

If you could set up a country democratically that runs off of left-wing principles, and has strong checks and balances against becoming a one party dictatorship like the USSR or china then i'd absolutely be in favor.

how are you defining "democratically" here?

socialism is inherently more democratic than capitalism, though it is not possible to implement it through the bourgeois electoral politics that most countries have

---

It doeasnt work and I'm more then satisfied with our current system and accept the small % who inevitably will fall through the cracks when it affords our bottomline the QoL they have now.

---

Because if it weren't for capitalism, I wouldn't have this crippling debt.

---

3PiesAndAFork posted...

Is this a gimmick or are you actually this stupid?

Ask him if he thinks the Holodomer was a genocide.

---

capitalism gave us anime, the internet, and video games

---

averagejoel posted...

how are you defining "democratically" here?

I just meant a democratic republic.

socialism is inherently more democratic than capitalism, though it is not possible to implement it through the bourgeois electoral politics that most countries have

Not quickly anyway. I think you could swing people more left given enough time and effort, but I doubt it would happen in my life time given the baggage socialism and communism have in america.

---

Because I like money.

---

I prefer being moderate and capitalist for the freedoms and unhindered potential.

Decades of American propaganda :(

---

Will people please stop pretending that remerc's is a serious person who deserves to be taken seriously?

---

Shablagoo posted...

They incentivize profit above all else. Its why climate change is getting worse, workers are being paid less and less, etc. Economies should be planned in a way that makes them efficient and beneficial to all, rather than to a few at the expense of everyone else.

Markets are good but poverty is bad. We should just give people money to address that, especially to families with children. There are going to be tradeoffs in any socioeconomic system but markets with social welfare states seem to be the best if you just kind of look around.

Anyway that's my opinion and why I'm not a socialist

---

In my opinion, there are certain needs that every human being should be entitled to: food, clean water, shelter, education, security, and health care. Society should be obligated to provide those key resources to all citizens through a combination of livable salary (mandated by a livable minimum wage) and social policies funded by taxes. Once all those needs are met, we can let the market determine the wealthy from the working class. I almost forgot, but a reasonable retirement pension should also be provided for those who have worked their lives (Canada has the CPP, but imo it should be enough to cover the aforementioned needs).

---

FYI socialism hasn't been taken seriously as an economic system since well before any of us were alive. Like there's no real debate anymore on it.

If you still take Marx seriously you're basically the left-wing version of that dude who reads Ayn Rand and becomes a libertarian.

Ozovzk posted...

the way I see it, socialism encourages personal freedom rather than restricts it. I encourage you to consider whether your idea of personal freedom includes consumption choices

I agree that more regulation can result in greater freedom.

Libertarian capitalist types will never understand this tho.
---

Cause you guys wear ugly brown suits with elbow patches

---

"because I am a greedy selfish bastard" is really the only answer.

Even though nobody here is actually really a socialist. That word just gets thrown around too much.

---

Why? Because I still have free will...

3PiesAndAFork posted...

In my opinion, there are certain needs that every human being should be entitled to: food, clean water, shelter, education, security, and health care. Society should be obligated to provide those key resources to all citizens through a combination of livable salary (mandated by a livable minimum wage) and social policies funded by taxes. Once all those needs are met, we can let the market determine the wealthy from the working class. I almost forgot, but a reasonable retirement pension should also be provided for those who have worked their lives (Canada has the CPP, but imo it should be enough to cover the aforementioned needs).

Everyone is entitled to food, water, housing, education, security, and health care?

How did the US become the most powerful country in the world by offering None of that until the last .. what? Proly started with Great Leap Forward , i be generous and say 70 years. In some cases never.

And yet now we offer more than ever before and the country is belly flopping into catastrophe. Thoughts?

"Because fuck you got mine".

---

because i have money

---

Southernfatman posted...

"Because fuck you got mine".

yeah, this
thanks that's much more eloquent than what i was going with

---

Because I live in the real world

FrankJaegr posted...

Thoughts, 3 Pies?

Shit we know you want three hots and a cot. You'll vote for whoever the fuck promises you dont have to work anymore. Just own it. Mark Zuckerberg owes you a PlayStation 5.

I've got to say it's quite nice to live in a country where "but exactly how much money should we devote to these public services" is the question and not "but do people deserve public services at all" as it appears to be in america

---

pinky0926 posted...

I've got to say it's quite nice to live in a country where "but exactly how much money should we devote to these public services" is the question and not "but do people deserve public services at all" as it appears to be in america

Must be nice to live in a country that sees and treats non-rich people as actual people too.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Everyone is entitled to food, water, housing, education, security, and health care?

How did the US become the most powerful country in the world by offering None of that until the last .. what? Proly started with Great Leap Forward , i be generous and say 70 years. In some cases never.

And yet now we offer more than ever before and the country is belly flopping into catastrophe. Thoughts?

You're powerful on the world stage economically and militarily, sure. But you treat 99% of your citizens like shit. Healthcare is a joke and used as a vehicle to make the rich richer. You've got cops killing citizens for pretty much no reason, and rioting on the streets. Tap water in some parts of the country is undrinkable, making people reliant on bottled water (which, surprise surprise lines Nestle's pockets). The education system is obviously a joke, considering how many fans Donald Trump still has. More and more people are starting to understand how messed up the system is for the everyman, that's why it's belly flopping into catastrophe.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Thoughts, 3 Pies?

Shit we know you want three hots and a cot. You'll vote for whoever the fuck promises you dont have to work anymore. Just own it. Mark Zuckerberg owes you a PlayStation 5.

Don't be an idiot. I said everyone should be entitled to all that through a combination of taxes and a livable minimum wage. Nowhere did I say people shouldn't work or otherwise not contribute to society.

---

3PiesAndAFork posted...

You're powerful on the world stage economically and militarily, sure. But you treat 99% of your citizens like shit. Healthcare is a joke and used as a vehicle to make the rich richer. You've got cops killing citizens for pretty much no reason, and rioting on the streets. Tap water in some parts of the country is undrinkable, making people reliant on bottled water (which, surprise surprise lines Nestle's pockets). The education system is obviously a joke, considering how many fans Donald Trump still has. More and more people are starting to understand how messed up the system is for the everyman, that's why it's belly flopping into catastrophe.

Don't be an idiot. I said everyone should be entitled to all that through a combination of taxes and a livable minimum wage. Nowhere did I say people shouldn't work or otherwise not contribute to society.

99% of our citizens huh? our homeless citizens have cell phones. You should thank Christ that we exist. guess more European liberalism is the cure for what ails us. I mean, Europe is mostly collapsing and if it werent for the US they never would have recovered after ww2. Youre just another doom monger that is either un or under employed. Make a strong point or stop talking

Where you from 3piez?

Keith_Valentine posted...

guess more European liberalism is the cure for what ails us

Definitely. There is no reason to give up freedom or prosperity to help the poor. Most first world countries manage to do both, the US just would rather be the disaster it is now. Just because some whackjobs advocate for dictatorships and mass killings doesn't mean the social democratic option isn't a viable and tested measure for actually helping workers and reducing poverty. I would never want to return to the US the way things are now. You should really consider actually traveling to another first world country and seeing how things can be.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

I mean, Europe is mostly collapsing

they're doing better than us right now

---

Government and universities innovate because that is their purpose.

Corporations steal taxpayer innovation and sell the least amount of it back to you for the most they can because that is their purpose. Then build moats and squash anyone that tries to innovate and disrupt their business model.

The same people gushing over how great and smart the market is are the same people that have been crying about how irrational and emotion based the stock market is for years.

---

REMercsChamp posted...

Because I have a good job and life

No you don't lmao

---

Godnorgosh posted...

Does capitalism, on a global scale, trend toward social welfare states, is the underlying question that needs to be addressed for anyone who holds this view

The only states with good social welfre are capitalist, so it's kind of a moot question. We would need to see an alternative economic model state that provides meaningful social welfare.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

guess more European liberalism is the cure for what ails us. I mean, Europe is mostly collapsing

ThyCorndog posted...

they're doing better than us right now

enlightenment liberalism is the west's thorn and rose

china may inherit the earth because our petty partisan and ideological squabbles are a tremendous setback with respect to our ability to play the long game

foreverzero212 posted...

Government and universities innovate because that is their purpose.

Corporations steal taxpayer innovation and sell the least amount of it back to you for the most they can because that is their purpose. Then build moats and squash anyone that tries to innovate and disrupt their business model.

The same people gushing over how great and smart the market is are the same people that have been crying about how irrational and emotion based the stock market is for years.

corporations also innovate, but they keep the knowledge under lock

you are correct, however, that there's also a propensity to anticompetitive behavior on behalf of large private institutions by way of regulatory capture and IP

---

ssjevot posted...

The only states with good social welfre are capitalist, so it's kind of a moot question. We would need to see an alternative economic model state that provides meaningful social welfare.

i'd love to see what rojava would look like in peacetime

---

Godnorgosh posted...

Does capitalism, on a global scale, trend toward social welfare states, is the underlying question that needs to be addressed for anyone who holds this view

I don't know the answer to that, but then my position is neither do you. I feel like the way societies develop over time is a lot more radically random and contingent than it seems to me most socialists do

---

Godnorgosh posted...

You can't see an alternative model without the development of one

Its very easy to say this when you can play No True Socialism at any time to deflect from criticism.

---

Balrog0 posted...

I don't know the answer to that, but then my position is neither do you. I feel like the way societies develop over time is a lot more radically random and contingent than it seems to me most socialists do

the answer is No

---

ssjevot posted...

Definitely. There is no reason to give up freedom or prosperity to help the poor. Most first world countries manage to do both, the US just would rather be the disaster it is now. Just because some whackjobs advocate for dictatorships and mass killings doesn't mean the social democratic option isn't a viable and tested measure for actually helping workers and reducing poverty. I would never want to return to the US the way things are now. You should really consider actually traveling to another first world country and seeing how things can be.

Oh really? Would those be first world countries that have a dying, aging population and are defended by American power?

ThyCorndog posted...

they're doing better than us right now

You sure? I think were still the greatest economy in the world. Maybe you want to compare us to a Nordic countey with s standard of living of a homogenous white population , a fraction of the people who arent inundated with violence and sex like we are?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Oh really? Would those be first world countries that have a dying, aging population and are defended by American power?

Is your entire argument that America can't afford welfare because it needs to provide military spending for its empire? Why not just abandon all these leaching countries and take care of Americans then if that's how you feel? Why does everywhere first world that isn't America get to prosper?

I don't buy your premise, but if you really feel that way it makes it even stranger to defend the US not taking care of its citizens.

---

averagejoel posted...

the answer is No

I have no respect for your understanding of reality, sorry man

---

Godnorgosh posted...

I guess any skeptic can argue convincingly that there's very little we actually know, but the evidence seems to point toward no. Most countries in the context of global capitalism aren't what we would consider social welfare states and never have been. That could change in the future, of course, but I don't know why we would expect that.

I'm just not sure what that's supposed to prove even if it is true.

---

ssjevot posted...

Is your entire argument that America can't afford welfare because it needs to provide military spending for it's empire? Why not just abandone all these leaching countries and take care of Americans then if that's how you feel? Why does everywhere first world that isn't America get to prosper?

I don't buy your premise, but if you really feel that way it makes it even stranger to defend the US not taking care of its citizens.

We do have welfare.

I totally agree. US first, second and third.