$50 minimum wage

[Red Front]

Denying reality is common among communists.

Denying your bullshit, not reality, you fucking pathetic retard.

 

[DudleySmith]

Glad you agree illegal immigration hurts Americans.
Now why do you vote to support it?

Where did I vote to support it? You have trouble understanding positions that don't fit your narrative too?

 

[DudleySmith]

I just went to $20/hr California. Eating out is 50% higher than it is here in Virginia.

Only an idiot thinks restaurants have huge margins and don’t care about making ends meet.

Still way too low especially for Cali. It should be around $28 and change nationwide. Deporting illegals, anchor babies, and assorted deviants until the population is back down to around 180 to 200 million would be good. or go the other way and pare down the money supply and create deflation; doesn't matter to me, they both look the same. All loans and interest can be adjusted in which ever direction we take. Drain the massive water in the stock markets out and reduce the ridiculously fake 'equity' valuations from loose accounting standards works well too. if it hurts some deadbeat speculators, well they can go get real jobs same as as they snivel all about what others should be doing.

Restaurants are prime labor markets for illegals; don't care if they go broke, especially fast food chains, there are too many of them already, fuck them.

 

[Couchpotato]

Who decides which private property exploits or dehumanizes others? Do I get to decide? You? Who?

It's pretty obvious what properties are used by capitalists to exploit other human beings for a profit. Adam Smith the father of capitalism calls capitalists "masters". Eventually capitalism will be replaced with a non-profit system of mass production and private property will be abolished. Only personal property will remain. Society will be forced by necessity to adopt socialism due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence. It will be obvious that socialism is the successor of capitalism, in the not-too-distant future.

Obvious to whom? Again who gets to decide? Why are you afraid to just answer the question?

If you abolish private property then you dont own anything. No one does.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Private property is essentially businesses owned by a capitalist, who exploits workers for a profit. Private property isn't your home, car, computer, clothing, toothbrush, firearms..etc. That's your personal property. So saying we won't own anything is ridiculous and only shows your ignorance of socialism.

I privately own my house. That's private property.

Ok so everyone gets a house. Who gets the beach front property? Who gets the houses in the best places?

Everyone has a right to housing or even a house, but if you already own a house now, you would simply keep it. In a modern high-tech, marketless communist society there could be ways a person could earn the right to a water-front mansion through a credit system. They could work more, or serve society in such a way that they would have the right to those types of special possessions.

In high-tech communism, everyone will have a high standard of living and will be able to work less since production is mostly automated.

And what about all the people who dont? And how long before we hear how unfair it is that I live on the beach and you dont?

What happens when person A takes care of their home, maintains it etc, and person B doesnt? Does person B just get another house for free? Does everyone get the exact same house?

What do you mean by a person not taking care of their home? Can you be more specific? No, everyone doesn't have to get the same home or live in the same type of building necessarily. If you already own a home, you would just keep the home you're living in now.

You obviously have never owned anything. Houses require maintenance. That shit doenst happen by magic and if it's not done the home will fall into disrepair and given enough time (not nearly as long as you might think) that house will become uninhabitable. So when 1 person lets their house fall into disrepair what happens? Do they just get a new house?

And who pays to have these mythical houses built?

In a modern, high-tech mostly automated, marketless communist society systems would be developed to quickly build housing with both robots and people supervising the work. People will have to work 20 hours weekly (for example), and in return, they have access to goods and services.

LOL Right because there's more incentive for this mythical entity to develop at robot that builds houses than there is for a private entity.

What happens if I dont show up to work? Do I just starve?

How many goods and services? Can I just go to the supermarket and take all the Rib Eye steaks for myself? Who decides how much "stuff" I get?

Who produces all the materials to build them?

Mostly, intelligent automated systems under human supervision and guidance.

Who does the actual building of these houses?

Mostly robots:









Working with human beings. The more we advance with robotics, the less work human beings will have to do. Eventually, the role of human beings will simply be to supervise and manage the automated system. After a person works their 20 hours weekly they can do whatever they want. Learn a new language, go explore or do something to improve yourself. Maybe you're a Christian who wants to engage in ministry, well you can do that. American communism of the Red Front isn't anti-religion or anti-Christian. Go start a church and the government will actually build a chapel for you.

How much property comes with each house?

What do you mean? Each house can come with appliances, amenities..etc. Sure.



What happens to the house when I die?

In the Soviet Union, your children would keep it, if they wanted it. Here in America, we can do the same. When you die, your children and grandchildren keep the house.

As the population grows does the amount of property given to each person shrink?


What do you mean? Clarify for me, that way I can answer your question.


If not wont we run out of space? If so then wont the newer generations inherently be getting less than the older ones which will create a disparity?

No, there is plenty of space in America and we will also expand America into other environments, like the ocean, underground, space:

NASA - Space Colonization (1975)

NASA video produced in 1975 in conjunction with publication of Space Settlements: A Design Study. The complete study is here:http://www.nss.org/settlement/na...

www.youtube.com

View attachment 902152​

Other planets..etc.

Those are just a few problems I can think of right off the top of my head. You havent thought this through very well.

You're just an idiot making up stupid, irrelevant "problems" that don't apply or exist. Shithead.

Basically, if the Jetson's world existed maybe your system would work. Maybe. How about we discuss it when that happens. You are basically admitting that socialism doesn't work in our current state of technological advancement that we would have to advance decades and likely farther into the future in order for socialism to even have a chance of possibly working.

 

[Couchpotato]

Who decides which private property exploits or dehumanizes others? Do I get to decide? You? Who?

It's pretty obvious what properties are used by capitalists to exploit other human beings for a profit. Adam Smith the father of capitalism calls capitalists "masters". Eventually capitalism will be replaced with a non-profit system of mass production and private property will be abolished. Only personal property will remain. Society will be forced by necessity to adopt socialism due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence. It will be obvious that socialism is the successor of capitalism, in the not-too-distant future.
If you abolish private property then you dont own anything. No one does.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Private property is essentially businesses owned by a capitalist, who exploits workers for a profit. Private property isn't your home, car, computer, clothing, toothbrush, firearms..etc. That's your personal property. So saying we won't own anything is ridiculous and only shows your ignorance of socialism.


Ok so everyone gets a house. Who gets the beach front property? Who gets the houses in the best places?

Everyone has a right to housing or even a house, but if you already own a house now, you would simply keep it. In a modern high-tech, marketless communist society there could be ways a person could earn the right to a water-front mansion through a credit system. They could work more, or serve society in such a way that they would have the right to those types of special possessions.

In high-tech communism, everyone will have a high standard of living and will be able to work less since production is mostly automated.

What happens when person A takes care of their home, maintains it etc, and person B doesnt? Does person B just get another house for free? Does everyone get the exact same house?

What do you mean by a person not taking care of their home? Can you be more specific? No, everyone doesn't have to get the same home or live in the same type of building necessarily. If you already own a home, you would just keep the home you're living in now.

And who pays to have these mythical houses built?

In a modern, high-tech mostly automated, marketless communist society systems would be developed to quickly build housing with both robots and people supervising the work. People will have to work 20 hours weekly (for example), and in return, they have access to goods and services.


Who produces all the materials to build them?

Mostly, intelligent automated systems under human supervision and guidance.

Who does the actual building of these houses?

Mostly robots:









Working with human beings. The more we advance with robotics, the less work human beings will have to do. Eventually, the role of human beings will simply be to supervise and manage the automated system. After a person works their 20 hours weekly they can do whatever they want. Learn a new language, go explore or do something to improve yourself. Maybe you're a Christian who wants to engage in ministry, well you can do that. American communism of the Red Front isn't anti-religion or anti-Christian. Go start a church and the government will actually build a chapel for you.

How much property comes with each house?

What do you mean? Each house can come with appliances, amenities..etc. Sure.



What happens to the house when I die?

In the Soviet Union, your children would keep it, if they wanted it. Here in America, we can do the same. When you die, your children and grandchildren keep the house.

As the population grows does the amount of property given to each person shrink?


What do you mean? Clarify for me, that way I can answer your question.


If not wont we run out of space? If so then wont the newer generations inherently be getting less than the older ones which will create a disparity?

No, there is plenty of space in America and we will also expand America into other environments, like the ocean, underground, space:

NASA - Space Colonization (1975)

NASA video produced in 1975 in conjunction with publication of Space Settlements: A Design Study. The complete study is here:http://www.nss.org/settlement/na...

www.youtube.com

View attachment 902152​

Other planets..etc.

Those are just a few problems I can think of right off the top of my head. You havent thought this through very well.

You're just an idiot making up stupid, irrelevant "problems" that don't apply or exist. Shithead.

You found that Socialist country that's worked yet?

 

[Weatherman2020]

It's clear you're unable to think rationally and you continue to make irrelevant claims, that simply don't apply. Your objections are dumb. Comparing pilgrims in the 17th century settling a new land with primitive technology to modern American communism. What the hell does that have to do with us today in the 21st century you dumbass? How fucking retarded can you be? You're dumb. Stupid.

A Commie who doesn’t know about the mass murders of commie governments, thinks the USSR is the best government mankind has seen, and refuses to leave Capitalism calls me retarded.

 

[Red Front]

You found that Socialist country that's worked yet?

There are successful socialist countries everywhere according to the American Republican definition of what is "commie" or socialism. Republicans in America are always accusing Democrats of being "communists" because they want to make healthcare a human right and have universal Medicare for everyone. There are Democrats who want tuition-free college to be available to American citizens, among other government resources and services, which Republicans label "commie". So you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you're going to define socialism like that then Western Europe is socialist. Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan are socialist.

The capitalist-run US government imposes economic sanctions upon countries that outwardly identify as socialists or Marxists. As a lover and defender of capitalism, you don't have the ideological luxury of saying socialism doesn't work when you're imposing brutal economic sanctions upon developing socialist countries. You're sabotaging their economies and threatening them with war and sometimes actually bombing and invading them. The US is a capitalist-run empire that owns the world's reserve currency and has an extreme amount of control over the world's economy and banking system. So when the US black-lists a country economically, that country is up the creek.

Furthermore, so what if supposedly no socialist country has ever met your personal standard of success? Does socialism have to replace capitalism overnight or war, to be considered the future successor of capitalism? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class with its Republican ideals to dominate the monarchies of Europe and replace feudalism. It didn't happen overnight, so why does socialism have to take over capitalism in a few years, decades, or even a couple of centuries for it to be a legitimate, effective future system of production that will replace capitalism?

Based on what do you argue for this arbitrary metric that socialism has to meet to qualify as a legitimate contender vs capitalism? You're assuming conditions will remain the same forever and will never be compatible with socialism. This is just as silly as arguing that capitalism would never replace feudalism.

 

[Red Front]

A Commie who doesn’t know about the mass murders of commie governments, thinks the USSR is the best government mankind has seen, and refuses to leave Capitalism calls me retarded.

Because you're an idiot that does nothing but spew groundless capitalist, Cold War propaganda and continually mispresents my position. I never said the USSR is the best government mankind has ever seen. You're just a lying piece of shit. You're not only stupid but you're a liar too.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Still way too low especially for Cali. It should be around $28 and change nationwide. Deporting illegals, anchor babies, and assorted deviants until the population is back down to around 180 to 200 million would be good. or go the other way and pare down the money supply and create deflation; doesn't matter to me, they both look the same. All loans and interest can be adjusted in which ever direction we take. Drain the massive water in the stock markets out and reduce the ridiculously fake 'equity' valuations from loose accounting standards works well too. if it hurts some deadbeat speculators, well they can go get real jobs same as as they snivel all about what others should be doing.

Restaurants are prime labor markets for illegals; don't care if they go broke, especially fast food chains, there are too many of them already, fuck them.

Way too low?
So how’s a family of 4 afford to live?
My lunch meals were around $25 a person just for regular meals.

 

[Couchpotato]

There are successful socialist countries everywhere according to the American Republican definition of what is "commie" or socialism. Republicans in America are always accusing Democrats of being "communists" because they want to make healthcare a human right and have universal Medicare for everyone. There are Democrats who want tuition-free college to be available to American citizens, among other government resources and services, which Republicans label "commie". So you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you're going to define socialism like that then Western Europe is socialist. Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan are socialist.

No they arent. They say they arent. They might be a country that has a robust social safety net that's only made possible by what? Capitalism. Do you even know what socialism is?

The capitalist-run US government imposes economic sanctions upon countries that outwardly identify as socialists or Marxists. As a lover and defender of capitalism, you don't have the ideological luxury of saying socialism doesn't work when you're imposing brutal economic sanctions upon developing socialist countries. You're sabotaging their economies and threatening them with war and sometimes actually bombing and invading them. The US is a capitalist-run empire that owns the world's reserve currency and has an extreme amount of control over the world's economy and banking system. So when the US black-lists a country economically, that country is up the creek.

Furthermore, so what if supposedly no socialist country has ever met your personal standard of success? Does socialism have to replace capitalism overnight or war, to be considered the future successor of capitalism? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class with its Republican ideals to dominate the monarchies of Europe and replace feudalism. It didn't happen overnight, so why does socialism have to take over capitalism in a few years, decades, or even a couple of centuries for it to be a legitimate, effective future system of production that will replace capitalism?

Based on what do you argue for this arbitrary metric that socialism has to meet to qualify as a legitimate contender vs capitalism? You're assuming conditions will remain the same forever and will never be compatible with socialism. This is just as silly as arguing that capitalism would never replace feudalism.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Because you're an idiot that does nothing but spew groundless capitalist, Cold War propaganda and continually mispresents my position. I never said the USSR is the best government mankind has ever seen. You're just a lying piece of shit. You're not only stupid but you're a liar too.

Oh?
Then tell us what the best government is/was.
Is that in your talking points manual?

 

[Red Front]

Obvious to whom? Again who gets to decide? Why are you afraid to just answer the question?


I privately own my house. That's private property.

And what about all the people who dont? And how long before we hear how unfair it is that I live on the beach and you dont?


You obviously have never owned anything. Houses require maintenance. That shit doenst happen by magic and if it's not done the home will fall into disrepair and given enough time (not nearly as long as you might think) that house will become uninhabitable. So when 1 person lets their house fall into disrepair what happens? Do they just get a new house?

LOL Right because there's more incentive for this mythical entity to develop at robot that builds houses than there is for a private entity.

What happens if I dont show up to work? Do I just starve?

How many goods and services? Can I just go to the supermarket and take all the Rib Eye steaks for myself? Who decides how much "stuff" I get?



Basically, if the Jetson's world existed maybe your system would work. Maybe. How about we discuss it when that happens. You are basically admitting that socialism doesn't work in our current state of technological advancement that we would have to advance decades and likely farther into the future in order for socialism to even have a chance of possibly working.

You're a fucking retard, not worth one more minute of my time and energy. A stupid, ignorant piece of shit. Your home is personal property from a socialist perspective, not private. It doesn't matter what I say or how much evidence supports my position, you will just ignore that and continue making stupid objections, because you don't care what the truth is about anything.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are successful socialist countries everywhere according to the American Republican definition of what is "commie" or socialism. Republicans in America are always accusing Democrats of being "communists" because they want to make healthcare a human right and have universal Medicare for everyone. There are Democrats who want tuition-free college to be available to American citizens, among other government resources and services, which Republicans label "commie". So you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you're going to define socialism like that then Western Europe is socialist. Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan are socialist.

The capitalist-run US government imposes economic sanctions upon countries that outwardly identify as socialists or Marxists. As a lover and defender of capitalism, you don't have the ideological luxury of saying socialism doesn't work when you're imposing brutal economic sanctions upon developing socialist countries. You're sabotaging their economies and threatening them with war and sometimes actually bombing and invading them. The US is a capitalist-run empire that owns the world's reserve currency and has an extreme amount of control over the world's economy and banking system. So when the US black-lists a country economically, that country is up the creek.

Furthermore, so what if supposedly no socialist country has ever met your personal standard of success? Does socialism have to replace capitalism overnight or war, to be considered the future successor of capitalism? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class with its Republican ideals to dominate the monarchies of Europe and replace feudalism. It didn't happen overnight, so why does socialism have to take over capitalism in a few years, decades, or even a couple of centuries for it to be a legitimate, effective future system of production that will replace capitalism?

Based on what do you argue for this arbitrary metric that socialism has to meet to qualify as a legitimate contender vs capitalism? You're assuming conditions will remain the same forever and will never be compatible with socialism. This is just as silly as arguing that capitalism would never replace feudalism.

There are successful socialist countries everywhere

The one calling me retarded says that.

 

[BluesLegend]

Only $50? Why not $500 an hour?

 

[Red Front]

Oh?
Then tell us what the best government is/was.
Is that in your talking points manual?

The USSR was in a unique situation and had to centralize power to survive. When the US adopts socialism and later communism, it will be the end of the American capitalist-run empire and a new era for all communists around the world. The US will be able to easily establish a democratic communist government that serves the American public. The best government will be a democratic one where the people rule and mass production is organized by a democratic, centrally planned process.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The USSR was in a unique situation and had to centralize power to survive. When the US adopts socialism and later communism, it will be the end of the American capitalist-run empire and a new era for all communists around the world. The US will be able to easily establish a democratic communist government and society that serves the American public. The best government will be a democratic one where the people rule and mass production is organized by a democratic, centrally planned process.

Ah, I see.
So how does one go from poverty to being a multimillionaire in your Commie utopia?

 

[Red Front]

The one calling me retarded says that.

Yes, you're retarded. Republicans define commies and communists a certain way in their rhetoric against Democrats, and following their own definition of what and who is "commie", there are successful communist countries all over the place. Western Europe is socialist, considering all of the policies that they have which make Republicans start shouting "communism!", "commies!". Yep.

 

[Red Front]

Ah, I see.
So how does one go from poverty to being a multimillionaire in your Commie utopia?

Everyone will have a high standard of living in an American, marketless communist economy. There's no need for money when automation becomes advanced enough, hence there are no "millionaires", just people living well. The vast majority of people will be satisfied with their way of life, except people like you. You'll always be complaining like an idiot.

 

[Mac-7]

What a stupid objection. The likelihood of someone earning a minimum wage and not being able to afford the cost of living goes up significantly if wages aren't at least generally gauged to inflation (Prices). That's not self-evident to you? Then that's no one's problem, other than yours. You're the one suffering from cognitive deficiency.

Wages are based on supply and demand

Libs are flooding America with aliens who drive down wages for working Americans

 

[Weatherman2020]

Everyone will have a high standard of living in an American, marketless communist economy. There's no need for money when automation becomes advanced enough, hence there are no "millionaires", just people living well. The vast majority of people will be satisfied with their way of life, except people like you. You'll always be complaining like an idiot.

Everyone will live in mansions and eat bon bons in this utopia of Communism!

How come 99% of people in commie countries live in shitholes?