Buckleys Angel

5y

No social mobility in the US? You’re projecting your own shortcomings. You’re still just bitter and cynical because you are a failed blogger that thought you’d make it big that way.

Wage stagnation is a huge problem, but our entire education system is basically a simple and easy track for social mobility. You can literally do the bare minimum and achieve financial stability.

Synopsis

5y

Once again, socialism is not "when the government runs things"

And we aren't heading towards "capitalism with some socialist ideas" either. No idea what would lead any sane person to thinking this. We can't even get a minimum wage increase lol. Like, you would have to ignore nearly all actual data about America, completely disregard those not in the imperial core, and just live with your head in the sand generally in order to make that last statement.

jg33

5y

Oh cool right I forgot I have to find "the research"

more than willing to respect your OPINION but don't sit here and say to me that there is any way that your stance is the objective truth

provide me with evidence that there is no social mobility amongst the poor, you've yet to do anything but talk in an extremely patronizing manner

please at least point me in the right direction if you want me to do research, I'm more than willing to look, that's the only reason I'm engaging in conversation with you in the first place.

If you have "the truth" then tell me where to go

rozco

5y

But communism is, which is what you want.

I think Bernie and some of the progressives have some good ideas that should be integrated and those are considered socialist ideas right? Democratic socialism? So that would be integrating some socialist ideas into capitalism, which will happen little by little.

rozco

5y

But communism is, which is what you want.

I think Bernie and some of the progressives have some good ideas that should be integrated and those are considered socialist ideas right? Democratic socialism? So that would be integrating some socialist ideas into capitalism, which will happen little by little.

KOL Meezy Mestizo

5y

Bernie and co are NOT advocating for democratic socialism, lol. They've appropriated the term to push for their platform

Synopsis

5y

No that is also not what communism

And we are never going to get those things. Not without a fight. And even then it's not enough

THANOS

5y

i know this isn't in relation to your topic but are you a celtics fan?

jg33

5y

Oh cool right I forgot I have to find "the research"

more than willing to respect your OPINION but don't sit here and say to me that there is any way that your stance is the objective truth

provide me with evidence that there is no social mobility amongst the poor, you've yet to do anything but talk in an extremely patronizing manner

please at least point me in the right direction if you want me to do research, I'm more than willing to look, that's the only reason I'm engaging in conversation with you in the first place.

If you have "the truth" then tell me where to go

rozco

5y

Interesting points in this thread and I really like reading this stuff and talking about it, but at the end of the day I believe we're better off giving the basic means of production to individuals and not letting the government run everything.

I think the government needs to provide some basic services without questions because other wise what's the point of it's existence, but overall I like capitalism with some socialist ideas. So pretty much just where we're heading.

I love America and I think it's been an amazing experiment and will continue to be successful

spongebob

5y

You mean... individuals, to be in control of where they work, in charge of the means of the production they're working with? like the definition of socialism?

rozco

5y

No, you guys have me talking like a commie.

I just mean it should be how it is now where you get a job based on your qualifications and you keep working and figuring out your own path, not a predetermined government job.

spongebob

5y

'like a commie' lol foh with that corny s*** lol this isn't 1950s john wayne/reaganite cowboy s*** anymore

And I don't disagree with that point, however i'd expand to say people don't often have a chance when they're paid so little to figure out their own path. If the value they're creating in their work gave them more compensation they could figure out that path
but anyway, u seem upbeat so ima leave u be, keep loving the 'successful and amazing experiment'... i ain't tryna rain on ur parade rn

deadacc

5y

under capitalism the incentives of the people who own capital are to squeeze as much money as possible out of the workers and then spend that money on themselves. in the USSR the means of production were owned by the state and the profits were taken by the state, but the incentives of the state were to spend the money on the people: free healthcare, schools, factories, farms, roads, etc.

from a developmental level, from 1922 to 1948 the USSR developed from a rural agrarian society in the wake of both a world war and a civil war into the second largest economy in the world at the time and an international superpower due to its centrally planned economy.

comparatively it took the US 169 years from its independence and the establishment of capitalism to a superpower after world war ii.

the way the government was organized was essentially a house and senate divided by population and nationality. in this way the interests of ethnic minorities were given more representation and were given slightly more power to not be entirely weighed out of the conversation unlike in a direct representation.

also from a nutrition standpoint the CIA had sent spies to the USSR to report on what life was like and in their own words "American and Soviet citizens eat about the same amount of food each but the Soviet diet may be more nutritious.

According to a CIA report released today (8 Jan, 1983)) both nationalities may be eatng too much for good health.

The CIA drew no conclusions about the nutritional makeup of the Soviet and American diets but commonly accepted U.S. health views suggest the Soviet diet may be slightly better."

for the record i'm not exactly a soviet union ☭☭☭! shill but i don't think it hurts to look at what they did right and how these things can be applied to help our people in the us, especially those mostly affected by wealth inequality.

Buckleys Angel

5y

No social mobility in the US? You’re projecting your own shortcomings. You’re still just bitter and cynical because you are a failed blogger that thought you’d make it big that way.

Wage stagnation is a huge problem, but our entire education system is basically a simple and easy track for social mobility. You can literally do the bare minimum and achieve financial stability.

Buckleys Angel

5y

No social mobility in the US? You’re projecting your own shortcomings. You’re still just bitter and cynical because you are a failed blogger that thought you’d make it big that way.

Wage stagnation is a huge problem, but our entire education system is basically a simple and easy track for social mobility. You can literally do the bare minimum and achieve financial stability.

KOL Meezy Mestizo

5y

Because capitalism is not a discrete economic system. Capitalism is a term socialist authors used to describe the economic situation they were critiquing, which unlike socialism was not a deliberate conception stemming from theory, but instead a market progression from the end of feudalism.

Your phrasing of the question suggests that you find the theory to be highly compelling, but theory does not exist in a vacuum. There are concepts that predate the theory, modifications to the theory, and of course opposition to the theory.

Just because you find the theory compelling does not mean everybody will, nor that it has some undeniable argumentative force to everyone who reads and understands it. That is the nature of discourse. Marx for example developed a materialist philosophy. If i'm not a materialist then i'm going to have a hard time taking what Marx says seriously if his basis for proving it is materialism.

With all that out of the way, i'm not a socialist because i think it relies on shoddy philosophy to justify it's veracity and tends to be painted as the best (or only) alternative to "capitalism" which is a premise i reject. Also i feel like it promotes a Eurocentric worldview.

spongebob

5y

oh that buckley mf is real REAL stupid lol i ain't know it was like that

space0cadet

5y

If you aren't a socialist you don't care about people in the global south / third world. They are slaving their lives to transnational corporations for your benefit. That is the end of the story and you should feel bad if you do not have empathy for them.

BadKarma

5y

If I wasn’t religious I would definitely be termed as a socialist but I’m not going to go by that label