Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[the other mike]

I'm hearing excuses. "Socialism could succeed, if the real world would just stop existing! It's the US's fault!"

Never mind that, by your own admission, you're advocating something that has no actual track record of succeeding, based solely on your belief that it COULD work.

US hegemony is the root of all evil and
will lead to our own downfall as well.

Protecting the empire is an unsustainable endeavor.

 

[dblack]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

Free if you're lucky ?

Not in the mood for a video, but private prisons are utterly wrong. They have nothing to do with capitalism. And certainly not freedom.

 

[the other mike]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

Free if you're lucky ?

Not in the mood for a video, but private prisons are utterly wrong. They have nothing to do with capitalism. And certainly not freedom.

Banks like Wells Fargo investing in for-profit prisons has nothing to do with freedom or capitalism ?
What about when those same banks also legally bribe most of our lawmakers ?
No. Surely no conflicts of interest there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

Free if you're lucky ?

Not in the mood for a video, but private prisons are utterly wrong. They have nothing to do with capitalism. And certainly not freedom.

Banks like Wells Fargo investing in for-profit prisons has nothing to do with freedom or capitalism ?
What about when those same banks also legally bribe most of our lawmakers ?
No. Surely no conflicts of interest there.

Banks like Wells Fargo investing in for-profit prisons has nothing to do with freedom or capitalism ?

You're free to invest in for-profit prisons, or not.

What about when those same banks also legally bribe most of our lawmakers ?

You're free to legally bribe most of our lawmakers, or not.

 

[dblack]

Capitalism is unstable, unequal and fundamentally undemocratic.

Yep. That's the nature of freedom.

Free if you're lucky ?

Not in the mood for a video, but private prisons are utterly wrong. They have nothing to do with capitalism. And certainly not freedom.

Banks like Wells Fargo investing in for-profit prisons has nothing to do with freedom or capitalism ?

Not really, no. It's a result of widespread confusion regarding the role of government. We are "privatizing” things that only government should do, and socialising things government shouldn't be involved in.

What about when those same banks also legally bribe most of our lawmakers ?
No. Surely no conflicts of interest there.

That's corruption. It is, and should be, illegal. If you're simply making the point that out current government is corrupt, I'd have to agree.

 

[the other mike]

That's corruption. It is, and should be, illegal. If you're simply making the point that out current government is corrupt, I'd have to agree.

I'm not 'simply making' any one point.

Socialism was working here until it was systematically dismantled over
the last four decades.

The 90% marginal tax rate ,(that they're always quoting in order to scare everyone), of the very wealthiest was only meant to be in place temporarily. But instead of allowing the great FDR experiment to continue succeeding they killed the antitrust laws, shredded the tax codes and rigged the system so that we live in an oligarchy instead of a democracy, lead the planet in homelessness and our life expectancy, once on the rise, is going down.

 

[the other mike]

"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."
( when it's taken over by greedy corporations )

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."
( when it's taken over by greedy corporations )

Screw those greedy corporations, shrink government!!!

 

[the other mike]

 

[the other mike]

and communism is socialism

That's a lie and the reason why Marxism is not taught in most US schools.
Marx wanted workers rights- that's all.

marx is taught in all us colleges,,,
and communism is the highest form of socialism

Yeah. Um no it isn't.

 

[progressive hunter]

and communism is socialism

That's a lie and the reason why Marxism is not taught in most US schools.
Marx wanted workers rights- that's all.

marx is taught in all us colleges,,,
and communism is the highest form of socialism

Yeah. Um no it isn't.

which one??

 

[bripat9643]

If socialism depends on trade with capitalism....socialism is a failure.

If capitalism depends on having 900 military bases around the world, including the one in Cuba, then maybe it's too expensive .....therefore also a failure.

The free world depends on that, moron.

 

[the other mike]

The free world depends on that, moron.

Coming from someone who probably works for Lockheed Martin.

 

[dblack]

That's corruption. It is, and should be, illegal. If you're simply making the point that out current government is corrupt, I'd have to agree.

I'm not 'simply making' any one point.

Yeah. That's what I figured.

Socialism was working here until it was systematically dismantled over the last four decades.

The 90% marginal tax rate ,(that they're always quoting in order to scare everyone), of the very wealthiest was only meant to be in place temporarily. But instead of allowing the great FDR experiment to continue succeeding they killed the antitrust laws, shredded the tax codes and rigged the system so that we live in an oligarchy instead of a democracy, lead the planet in homelessness and our life expectancy, once on the rise, is going down.

But it seemed you were trying to link free markets with private prisons and general corruption in government. And that doesn't make any sense. That's what I was responding to.

 

[bripat9643]

The free world depends on that, moron.

Coming from someone who probably works for Lockheed Martin.

What do you imagine if the US didn't maintain freedom of the seas? Do you even know what that is?

 

[danielpalos]

there is no natural rate of unemployment under socialism only under capitalism. better planning could have made more personnel available to ensure sufficient supply to meet demand.

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

We have a much better understanding of economics, now; and, the former Soviet Union could have pursued industrial automaton instead of wasting their time on a Cold War with us.

Capitalists have a much better understanding of economics.
Socialists.....not so much.

The left need to learn how merely use Capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern economic times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or it could have been the stock was to low to have more workers

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

We have a much better understanding of economics, now; and, the former Soviet Union could have pursued industrial automaton instead of wasting their time on a Cold War with us.

Capitalists have a much better understanding of economics.
Socialists.....not so much.

The left need to learn how merely use Capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern economic times.

The left is too fucking stupid regarding economics.

 

[the other mike]

What do you imagine if the US didn't maintain freedom of the seas? Do you even know what that is?

So I'm pretty sure that after WW 2 the US had complete control of all the major shipping routes and that essentially hasn't changed . So you're argument is that we need a $ trillion+ a year military budget in order to defend against Somali pirates ?

The US is an aggressor protecting corporate interests ( although - what was the excuse for Korea and Vietnam ? "communism's spread"), not the great defender of freedom
we all gleefully sing about at the Army Navy halftime shows.

If all that money had been properly invested here at home in the last 70 years, we wouldn't be needing this conversation right now.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you imagine if the US didn't maintain freedom of the seas? Do you even know what that is?

So I'm pretty sure that after WW 2 the US had complete control of all the major shipping routes and that essentially hasn't changed . So you're argument is that we need a $ trillion+ a year military budget in order to defend against Somali pirates ?

The US is an aggressor protecting corporate interests ( although - what was the excuse for Korea and Vietnam ? "communism's spread"), not the great defender of freedom
we all gleefully sing about at the Army Navy halftime shows.

If all that money had been properly invested here at home in the last 70 years, we wouldn't be needing this conversation right now.

Somali pirates are the worst problem on the seas only because of the existence of the US Navy. Before the British empire rules the seas, and then America, there were these people in North Africa called "the Barbary Pirates." They attacked American and European shipping constantly and took many Americans and Europeans to becomes white slaves. There are also pirates in the straights of Malaya. There was constant warfare on the seas, and it wasn't safe to ship goods or passengers to many areas of the world.

I do agree that we don't need nearly as many bases as we have. We can get rid of all our army bases in Europe, and most of the airforce bases. We can get rid of all our forces in Africa and the Middle East. We need a few Navel bases scattered around the world. We could cut our military spending in half if we were smart about it.

We all not that "properly investing" money is something Congress has never done.

 

[danielpalos]

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

...a bottleneck somewhere up the supply chain could have used more personnel.

Yeah, the bottleneck that occurs where socialists outlaw market signals......the entire economy

We have a much better understanding of economics, now; and, the former Soviet Union could have pursued industrial automaton instead of wasting their time on a Cold War with us.

Capitalists have a much better understanding of economics.
Socialists.....not so much.

The left need to learn how merely use Capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern economic times.

The left is too fucking stupid regarding economics.

lol. Too bad the right wing is worse.