Socialism Sucks

[snarlcakes]

@BradStevens this is my official socialism 🟰 donkey balls thread (in case you were confused on the title). Anyhooo, todays energy below 👇



There will be more posts in the future. You have a blessed day.

 

[twenty02]

Not taking anyone seriously that can't even use the correct definition of socialism.

 

[snarlcakes]

Not taking anyone seriously that can't even use the correct definition of socialism.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Not taking anyone seriously that can't even use the correct definition of socialism.

Even self described “socialists” don’t understand what socialism is. A pretty good book with the same title as this thread. Pretty informative on socialism, how it’s applied in various places and gets into faux socialism we see. Yet another sign of crappy education.

https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sucks-Economists-Through-Unfree/dp/162157945X

 

[mrhighlife]

Even self described “socialists” don’t understand what socialism is. A pretty good book with the same title as this thread. Pretty informative on socialism, how it’s applied in various places and gets into faux socialism we see. Yet another sign of crappy education.

https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sucks-Economists-Through-Unfree/dp/162157945X

Who are the prominent self described socialist in our country right now and do they hold any sort of power?

 

[mrhighlife]

@BradStevens this is my official socialism 🟰 donkey balls thread (in case you were confused on the title). Anyhooo, todays energy below 👇

View embedded media

There will be more posts in the future. You have a blessed day.

Pure unregulated socialism does suck. Just like pure unregulated capitalism also sucks. The middle is where we are and it's great. Not perfect. But great. We should add free healthcare and free college education. We would be even greater and would still be firmly in the middle of the two.

 

[Bowlmania]

Who are the prominent self described socialist in our country right now and do they hold any sort of power?

Distract and deflect. The Trump administration is effing up royally so it’s, “Look! Over there! Socialism!”

 

[mrhighlife]

Distract and deflect. The Trump administration is effing up royally so it’s, “Look! Over there! Socialism!”

Correct and I get that. But for sake of amusing these guys... Look at who though?

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Who are the prominent self described socialist in our country right now and do they hold any sort of power?

Bernie Sanders is the de facto leader of the Deomcratic party and is a socialist.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Pure unregulated socialism does suck.

“Unregulated Socialism” is an oxymoron.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Distract and deflect. The Trump administration is effing up royally so it’s, “Look! Over there! Socialism!”

Huh? Any thread that is not a Trump bash is off limits in your world?

You need help. Trump derangement syndrome is no longer a joke.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Pure unregulated socialism does suck. Just like pure unregulated capitalism also sucks. The middle is where we are and it's great. Not perfect. But great. We should add free healthcare and free college education. We would be even greater and would still be firmly in the middle of the two.

No way. Those Scandinavian countries have the most unhappy people in the world 😉

 

[Bowlmania]

Huh? Any thread that is not a Trump bash is off limits in your world?

You need help. Trump derangement syndrome is no longer a joke.

Dude, your posts have become so patently absurd that not even the meltdown man is attempting to defend them anymore.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Dude, your posts have become so patently absurd that not even the meltdown man is attempting to defend them anymore.

Too busy procreating

 

[twenty02]

Should have just posted that from the start....

 

[mcmurtry66]

Huh? Any thread that is not a Trump bash is off limits in your world?

You need help. Trump derangement syndrome is no longer a joke.

He’s obsessed with trump. Anyone who does anything on his own. Outside of the box. Bowl is intensely jealous of. Too dumb. Too unlikable to do anything of any moment. He’d do very well in a society where gov provides for him. Ultimate beta

@Bowlmania career and live is a wart on your ball sack coh

Not a man. A beta. How creepy do you have to be to be a fake Christian lol

 

[Bowlmania]

@Bowlmania career and live

English, please.

And you know nothing about either my career or personal life, but you imagine you do.

Now get back to what YOU do and do very well, 24/7/365 …

 

[mcmurtry66]

English, please.

And you know nothing about either my career or personal life, but you imagine you do.

Now get back to what YOU do and do very well, 24/7/365 …

Shhhh you’re a beta. People have asked a hundred times. Your take on shitty asst prosecutor jobs and lack of knowledge was revealing. You’re a beta jealous of the world. An unlikable creepy beta

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Bernie Sanders is the de facto leader of the Deomcratic party and is a socialist.

I remember when Tim Russert asked Howard Dean about Bernie Sanders on MTP. Russert referred to Sanders as a socialist - and Dean scoffed at this, saying “Bernie’s not a socialist.”

Russert pulled out a book Sanders had written where he described himself as a socialist. Heh.

Calls to mind Upton Sinclair’s comment about this:

The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label.​

​

I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.​

The platforms were the same. So, yeah, Sinclair was onto something. People hate the term more than the stated goals - which are very alluring.

But that’s not the problem with it. The problem with it is that it not only doesn’t achieve its goals, it invariably makes matters worse.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I remember when Tim Russert asked Howard Dean about Bernie Sanders on MTP. Russert referred to Sanders as a socialist - and Dean scoffed at this, saying “Bernie’s not a socialist.”

Russert pulled out a book Sanders had written where he described himself as a socialist. Heh.

Calls to mind Upton Sinclair’s comment about this:



The platforms were the same. So, yeah, Sinclair was onto something. People hate the term more than the stated goals - which are very alluring.

But that’s not the problem with it. The problem with it is that it not only doesn’t achieve its goals, it invariably makes matters worse.

Spot on

 

[BradStevens]

Spot on

It's not. We have lots of socialism-like projects in the United States--from progressive tax rates to social security. All those projects do not "invariably" make a problem worse. All were labeled socialism at the time and still considered so by people today.

No society is purely laissez-faire capitalist, thankfully. It would be an ugly, ugly world.

But I agree that the larger scale, socialist projects mixed with totalitarian governments have been abject failures and produced as much misery as has ever been seen in human history. Those programs that act to cut off incentives from action to a large degree (which can be debated and should be tested) are the ones that probably don't work as well as others and I've come around to Hayek's notion of the importance of a price system. But a priori rejection of programs and efforts is anti-scientific.

As the argument proceeds, you'll go back and forth on what is defined as capitalism, what is defined as socialism, what socialist thought and classical economics gets wrong about inherent human nature, what Marx actually said, Hayek's retorts, etc. I used to read and study these things deeply and debated this topic ad naseum with philosophy, law, and economics profs. Those who start the debate with fixed ideas and most want to argue are the least likely to listen or think about the counter arguments or examples and others just don't care that much.

I'll also throw this out: people who think they've got human economic organization all figured out are fooling themselves and their hubris is palpable. Among other things, a good liberal arts education teaches you the history of ideas in the Western world and that many very smart, educated people in the past also thought they had everything figured out.

But thanks, snarl. I'll start using this thread to post various articles about socialism I come across.

 

[snarlcakes]

Should have just posted that from the start....

You're going to be a terrible Bitcoiner in the future( we're a fun bunch). I started the thread as an ode to Brad. I wanted to be able to occasionally talk shit to him. I don't care if the dudes post is correct. I care about the energy.

 

[ALBSUBDUDE]

Pure unregulated socialism does suck. Just like pure unregulated capitalism also sucks. The middle is where we are and it's great. Not perfect. But great. We should add free healthcare and free college education. We would be even greater and would still be firmly in the middle of the two.

 

[ALBSUBDUDE]

Nothing is free.

 

[BradStevens]

Nothing is free.

All you need is love.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's not. We have lots of socialism-like projects in the United States--from progressive tax rates to social security. All those projects do not "invariably" make a problem worse. All were labeled socialism at the time and still considered so by people today.

No society is purely laissez-faire capitalist, thankfully. It would be an ugly, ugly world.

But I agree that the larger scale, socialist projects mixed with totalitarian governments have been abject failures and produced as much misery as has ever been seen in human history. Those programs that act to cut off incentives from action to a large degree (which can be debated and should be tested) are the ones that probably don't work as well as others and I've come around to Hayek's notion of the importance of a price system. But a priori rejection of programs and efforts is anti-scientific.

As the argument proceeds, you'll go back and forth on what is defined as capitalism, what is defined as socialism, what socialist thought and classical economics gets wrong about inherent human nature, what Marx actually said, Hayek's retorts, etc. I used to read and study these things deeply and debated this topic ad naseum with philosophy, law, and economics profs. Those who start the debate with fixed ideas and most want to argue are the least likely to listen or think about the counter arguments or examples and others just don't care that much.

I'll also throw this out: people who think they've got human economic organization all figured out are fooling themselves and their hubris is palpable. Among other things, a good liberal arts education teaches you the history of ideas in the Western world and that many very smart, educated people in the past also thought they had everything figured out.

But thanks, snarl. I'll start using this thread to post various articles about socialism I come across.

A few observations.

I think there are more or less constants when thinking about socialism and capitalism.

For example.

Government benefits, or the welfare state, are not examples of socialism notwithstanding many believe both are.

Anti-monopoly laws are not anti-capitalist. Those laws recognize and protect free markets which is the heart of calitalism

The financial market misdeeds of 2008 were not capitalism run amuck. They were not a product of calitalism.

When Biden said things like “I’m capitalist and I believe people should make as much money as they can, but pay their fair share” he showed me he didn’t know what capitalism is.

Unfortunately, people of all stripes use the words socialism and capitalism as pejoratives without regard to what they are talking about. That messes up the definitions.

 

[snarlcakes]

A few observations.

I think there more or less constants when thinking about socialism and capitalism.

For example.

Government benefits, or the welfare state, are not examples of socialism notwithstanding many believe both are.

If the government increases benefits that requires it to increase taxes to 95% to pay for the benefits, is it socialism?

Anti-monopoly laws are not anti-capitalist. Those laws recognize and protect free markets which is the heart of calitalism

There are no such things as monopolies in free markets. The purpose of capitalism is to create more value for others. How would a free market create one? Monopolies are created by control systems, not free markets.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Spot on

I’ve always been fond of this cartoon. So simple, yet so accurate.

 

[DANC]

No way. Those Scandinavian countries have the most unhappy people in the world 😉

Because they have some of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in the world.

 

[twenty02]

I’ve always been fond of this cartoon. So simple, yet so accurate.

Say what you want...but at least it's an ethos

 

[mrhighlife]

“Unregulated Socialism” is an oxymoron.

All out and complete Socialism is what I meant.

Still waiting on examples "self described" socialist with notable power in this country.

 

[Mark Milton]

A few observations.

I think there are more or less constants when thinking about socialism and capitalism.

For example.

Government benefits, or the welfare state, are not examples of socialism notwithstanding many believe both are.

Anti-monopoly laws are not anti-capitalist. Those laws recognize and protect free markets which is the heart of calitalism

The financial market misdeeds of 2008 were not capitalism run amuck. They were not a product of calitalism.

When Biden said things like “I’m capitalist and I believe people should make as much money as they can, but pay their fair share” he showed me he didn’t know what capitalism is.

Unfortunately, people of all stripes use the words socialism and capitalism as pejoratives without regard to what they are talking about. That messes up the definitions.

Labels are for simpletons. Just words on a page.

Nobody fits a textbook definition in describing an economic system. China is communist yet operates within free markets. Now we are going to tariff the bejezus out of huge industries.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

We should add free healthcare and free college education.

What are your arguments for each?

 

[mrhighlife]

I’ve always been fond of this cartoon. So simple, yet so accurate.

Yep. And universal healthcare and free college are just a couple centimeters back for the socialist guy. Still plenty of room on that board.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's not. We have lots of socialism-like projects in the United States--from progressive tax rates to social security. All those projects do not "invariably" make a problem worse. All were labeled socialism at the time and still considered so by people today.

No society is purely laissez-faire capitalist, thankfully. It would be an ugly, ugly world.

But I agree that the larger scale, socialist projects mixed with totalitarian governments have been abject failures and produced as much misery as has ever been seen in human history. Those programs that act to cut off incentives from action to a large degree (which can be debated and should be tested) are the ones that probably don't work as well as others and I've come around to Hayek's notion of the importance of a price system. But a priori rejection of programs and efforts is anti-scientific.

As the argument proceeds, you'll go back and forth on what is defined as capitalism, what is defined as socialism, what socialist thought and classical economics gets wrong about inherent human nature, what Marx actually said, Hayek's retorts, etc. I used to read and study these things deeply and debated this topic ad naseum with philosophy, law, and economics profs. Those who start the debate with fixed ideas and most want to argue are the least likely to listen or think about the counter arguments or examples and others just don't care that much.

I'll also throw this out: people who think they've got human economic organization all figured out are fooling themselves and their hubris is palpable. Among other things, a good liberal arts education teaches you the history of ideas in the Western world and that many very smart, educated people in the past also thought they had everything figured out.

But thanks, snarl. I'll start using this thread to post various articles about socialism I come across.

While I agree with most of this, the reality is: our welfare state is a house of cards. The fact that it’s endured as long as it has without collapsing doesn’t mean its early critics were wrong.

The Soviet Union lasted almost 75 years. And then it was gone. For its first 25 or 30 years, many Western scholars and thinkers were very intrigued by it.

And, to this day, there are still people who blame its failure on the personalities who led it or specific mistakes that were made - rather than its fundamental flaws.

However much we may like things like Social Security and Medicare, any discussion about them that leaves out the fact that, according to Janet Yellen, they’re $175 Trillion underfunded over the next 75 years is a discussion that is disconnected from reality.

Our present situation is indisputably unsustainable.

 

[VanPastorMan]

No way. Those Scandinavian countries have the most unhappy people in the world 😉

You ever notice how the countries today who have free stuff like Healthcare do not have a large military? It's because they depend on us. Therefore I suggest those nations pay for our healthcare.

 

[mrhighlife]

What are your arguments for each?

At first, this would just cost a lot of money. However in time, Theoretically, we would...
A. be a healthier society overall. Easier access to preventative care. Regular doctor visits would become the norm for most if not all.
B. be a more educated society top down. The world needs ditch diggers but there is nothing saying that we can't have the smartest ditch diggers in the world. Might get better ditches?
3. I know there is a ton of arguments against programs like this. . Some good ones. Mostly it boils down to money. That doesn't jive with me. We are the richest country in the history of man. No one is this country should go into crippling debt because of healthcare cost or educational cost. No one.

 

[mrhighlife]

Bernie Sanders is the de facto leader of the Deomcratic party and is a socialist.

He is not. He also not a "self described" socialist.

 

[Spartans9312]

At first this would just cost a lot of money. However in time, Theoretically, we would...
A. be a healthier society overall. Easier access to preventative care. Regular doctor visits would become the norm for most of not all.
B. be a more educated society top down. The world needs ditch diggers but there is nothing saying that we can't have the smartest ditch diggers in the world. Might get better ditches?
3. I know there is a ton of arguments against programs like this. . Some good one. Mostly it boils down to money. That doesn't jive with me. We are the richest country in the history of man. No one is this country should go into crippling debt because of healthcare cost or educational cost. No one.

This would cause dilution. Makes them not worth anything.

 

[mrhighlife]

This would cause dilution. Makes them not worth anything.

Unless specialized, degrees are fairly useless already in the job market. Always have been. A better educated and more informed society isn't just about jobs though.