Why should a hamburger flipper make the same as a highly skilled worker???

[Marxist]

Social democracy is the dominant socioeconomic model. Pure capitalism results in great poverty and great wealth and nothing in between. And it relies on brutality stifling the leftists in pretty much the same way as Stalin ended right wing opposition in Russia.

The poorest people under capitalism are better off than the bulk of the population under socialism. What "brutality" has capitalism inflicted on any leftist, arresting them for trespassing on private property?

The closest thing we've seen to pure capitalism is Chile in the 1970's. One of the most repressive dictatorships of the last century.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America with the highest standard of living. Oh those poor poor Chileans! They have suffered so much under capitalism! I'm sure they would much rather live in a country like Venezuela or Cuba. Yeah, Pinochet was far worse than Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Are you serious?

You're a comedy act.

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.

I read history, not propaganda.

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

Those "bubbles" are the result of government following policies endorsed by morons like you. Even taking the bubbles into consideration, the vast majority of people are far better off under capitalism than under socialism.

Virtually all the wealth we enjoy today is the product of capitalism. Computers, flat screen televisions, cell phones, automobiles, electric lighting, anaesthesia, yada, yada, yada. All these advances occurred in capitalist countries, not in some people's republic like Venezuela.

Yeah, tell me more about the great depression, 2008... The vast majority are better off? You're not even looking at real socialism, you're looking at countries with claimed socialism. Look at the paris commune, the free territories of ukraine.. Socialism/anarchism has worked, and did improve the lives of the people until they were violently slaughtered. Ah, the typical innovation bullshit. All of those innovations could happen without capitalism, and I'm pretty sure the motive behind lots of innovations wasn't related to capitalism at all. Oh, not like the USSR sent someone into space.... Venezuela? It's better off then it was before Hugo.

 

[bripat9643]

Yet, flawed capitalism is the dominant socioeconomic model the world has chosen rather than failed flawed communism.

Social democracy is the dominant socioeconomic model. Pure capitalism results in great poverty and great wealth and nothing in between. And it relies on brutality stifling the leftists in pretty much the same way as Stalin ended right wing opposition in Russia.

The poorest people under capitalism are better off than the bulk of the population under socialism. What "brutality" has capitalism inflicted on any leftist, arresting them for trespassing on private property?

The closest thing we've seen to pure capitalism is Chile in the 1970's. One of the most repressive dictatorships of the last century.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America with the highest standard of living. Oh those poor poor Chileans! They have suffered so much under capitalism! I'm sure they would much rather live in a country like Venezuela or Cuba. Yeah, Pinochet was far worse than Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Are you serious?

You're a comedy act.

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.

I read history, not propaganda.

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

As for your picture, what is that supposed to prove? I could go to Detroit and take thousands of pictures that make that place look like paradise.

Here are some pics of the socialist paradise called Cuba:

Venezuela:

 

[bripat9643]

The "flaws" of capitalism haven't included gulags, mass murder or starvation. In fact, all the flaws are the result of creeps like you trying to push it towards socialism.

Yeah they have. Chile in the 1970's: they rounded up all of the lawyers, university professors and other leftists, took them to a soccer stadium and shot them. Thousands of people were killed in the centre of the capital.

That's a communist myth. You're propagating communist propaganda. That's not surprising since you're obviously a communist.

In Argentina people were "disappeared". They would be picked up off the streets in unmarked cars and never seen again. Argentines still hate Ford, who supplied the cars to the regime. It's estimated that 30,000 people were murdered.

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

It's a communist myth??? Are you fucking kidding me! Oh, so it's ok if capitalists kill people in a war, but let's start calling lenin a genocidal maniac when he killed people during a war. Communist propaganda.. I'm not one to deny history, unlike this nut tard. 1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your cite mentions nothing about any soccer stadium where traitors were executed. It also says the number of traitors killed during the civil war was only 3,000. That's a small fraction of Lincoln's 850,000, wouldn't you agree?

Almost everything you believe is a communist myth. It's propaganda.

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

 

[Marxist]

Yeah they have. Chile in the 1970's: they rounded up all of the lawyers, university professors and other leftists, took them to a soccer stadium and shot them. Thousands of people were killed in the centre of the capital.

That's a communist myth. You're propagating communist propaganda. That's not surprising since you're obviously a communist.

In Argentina people were "disappeared". They would be picked up off the streets in unmarked cars and never seen again. Argentines still hate Ford, who supplied the cars to the regime. It's estimated that 30,000 people were murdered.

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

It's a communist myth??? Are you fucking kidding me! Oh, so it's ok if capitalists kill people in a war, but let's start calling lenin a genocidal maniac when he killed people during a war. Communist propaganda.. I'm not one to deny history, unlike this nut tard. 1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your cite mentions nothing about any soccer stadium where traitors were executed. It also says the number of traitors killed during the civil war was only 3,000. That's a small fraction of Lincoln's 850,000, wouldn't you agree?

Almost everything you believe is a communist myth. It's propaganda.

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

Are you telling me america never put in place a psychopatic dictator in chile who slaughtered his own people? That batista was better off then castro?

 

[Marxist]

Social democracy is the dominant socioeconomic model. Pure capitalism results in great poverty and great wealth and nothing in between. And it relies on brutality stifling the leftists in pretty much the same way as Stalin ended right wing opposition in Russia.

The poorest people under capitalism are better off than the bulk of the population under socialism. What "brutality" has capitalism inflicted on any leftist, arresting them for trespassing on private property?

The closest thing we've seen to pure capitalism is Chile in the 1970's. One of the most repressive dictatorships of the last century.

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America with the highest standard of living. Oh those poor poor Chileans! They have suffered so much under capitalism! I'm sure they would much rather live in a country like Venezuela or Cuba. Yeah, Pinochet was far worse than Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Are you serious?

You're a comedy act.

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.

I read history, not propaganda.

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

As for your picture, what is that supposed to prove? I could go to Detroit and take thousands of pictures that make that place look like paradise.

Here are some pics of the socialist paradise called Cuba:

Venezuela:

Yes, and they're not even socialist, but let's ignore what they were like before this. Show me chile's housing again, for the poor people, not the wealthy.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

""Why should a hamburger flipper make the same as a highly skilled worker???""

A better question is, why don't highly skilled workers get paid better than a hamburger flipper?

 

[bripat9643]

That's a communist myth. You're propagating communist propaganda. That's not surprising since you're obviously a communist.

Chile was fighting a civil war against foreign communists infiltrators and their supporters. These communists were trying to convert Chile into a Soviet client state. During a civil war, people get killed, you know, as in the American Civil war where Lincoln killed 850,000 Americans. Pinochet's methods were positively benign compared to Abraham Lincoln's.

It's a communist myth??? Are you fucking kidding me! Oh, so it's ok if capitalists kill people in a war, but let's start calling lenin a genocidal maniac when he killed people during a war. Communist propaganda.. I'm not one to deny history, unlike this nut tard. 1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your cite mentions nothing about any soccer stadium where traitors were executed. It also says the number of traitors killed during the civil war was only 3,000. That's a small fraction of Lincoln's 850,000, wouldn't you agree?

Almost everything you believe is a communist myth. It's propaganda.

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

Are you telling me america never put in place a psychopatic dictator in chile who slaughtered his own people? That batista was better off then castro?

The United States had nothing to do with putting Pinochet in power, and he was hardly a psychopath. He was a true patriot who saved his country from communist scum like you.

The people of Cuba were most definitely better off than they are under the Castro regime. Just ask any Cuban living in Florida.

 

[bripat9643]

The poorest people under capitalism are better off than the bulk of the population under socialism. What "brutality" has capitalism inflicted on any leftist, arresting them for trespassing on private property?

Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America with the highest standard of living. Oh those poor poor Chileans! They have suffered so much under capitalism! I'm sure they would much rather live in a country like Venezuela or Cuba. Yeah, Pinochet was far worse than Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Are you serious?

You're a comedy act.

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.

I read history, not propaganda.

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

As for your picture, what is that supposed to prove? I could go to Detroit and take thousands of pictures that make that place look like paradise.

Here are some pics of the socialist paradise called Cuba:

Venezuela:

Yes, and they're not even socialist, but let's ignore what they were like before this. Show me chile's housing again, for the poor people, not the wealthy.

Yeah, I know, whenever the socialism is put into practice and the results are too obvious to ignore, it's not "real socialism."

 

[Toro]

Yet, flawed capitalism is the dominant socioeconomic model the world has chosen rather than failed flawed communism.

Well, that doesn't make it any less flawed. Not that we have "capitalism", anyway. You shitheads on Wall Street run the economy into the ground and then expect bailouts..

Where's a good guilotine when you need one?

We bought them all in a leveraged buyout. We've made millions.

lol

 

[Marxist]

It's a communist myth??? Are you fucking kidding me! Oh, so it's ok if capitalists kill people in a war, but let's start calling lenin a genocidal maniac when he killed people during a war. Communist propaganda.. I'm not one to deny history, unlike this nut tard. 1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your cite mentions nothing about any soccer stadium where traitors were executed. It also says the number of traitors killed during the civil war was only 3,000. That's a small fraction of Lincoln's 850,000, wouldn't you agree?

Almost everything you believe is a communist myth. It's propaganda.

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

Are you telling me america never put in place a psychopatic dictator in chile who slaughtered his own people? That batista was better off then castro?

The United States had nothing to do with putting Pinochet in power, and he was hardly a psychopath. He was a true patriot who saved his country from communist scum like you.

The people of Cuba were most definitely better off than they are under the Castro regime. Just ask any Cuban living in Florida.

He was hardly a psychopath? We may actually have a forum idiot of the year. I don't even bother to defend atrocities done by Lenin these days, let alone Mao, but you're an idiot if you're trying to support pinochet. The people of cuba were better off? The cubans in florida were mostly from the upper class, affected by castro's policies. The key is the improvement in regards to those in poverty.

Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialistUnidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule.

From its beginning, the new military government implemented harsh measures against its perceived opponents.[8] Various reports and investigations claim that between 1,200 and 3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 people were interned andas many as 30,000 were tortured during the time Pinochet was in government.

Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign including murder and torture of political opponents. According to a government commission report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.[101]

Professor Clive Foss, in The Tyrants: 2500 Years of Absolute Power and Corruption (Quercus Publishing 2006), estimates that 1,500–2,000 Chileans were killed ordisappeared during the Pinochet regime. In October 1979, the New York Times reported that Amnesty International had documented the disappearance of approximately 1,500 Chileans since 1973.[102] Among the killed and disappeared during the military regime were at least 663 Marxist MIR guerrillas.[103] The Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front, however, has stated that only 49 FPMR guerrillas were killed but hundreds detained and tortured.[104] According to a study in Latin American Perspectives,[105] at least 200,000 Chileans (about 2% of Chile's 1973 population) were forced to go into exile. Additionally, hundreds of thousands left the country in the wake of the economic crises that followed the military coup during the 1970s and 1980s.[105] Some of the key individuals who fled because of political persecutionwere followed in their exile by the DINA secret police, in the framework of Operation Condor, which linked South American military dictatorships together against political opponents.

Yeah, batista was obviously better off...

Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[5] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large multinational American corporations that had invested considerable amounts of money in Cuba.[5][6] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his anti-Communist secret policeto carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from 1,000 to 20,000 people.[7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9]

 

[Marxist]

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.

I read history, not propaganda.

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

As for your picture, what is that supposed to prove? I could go to Detroit and take thousands of pictures that make that place look like paradise.

Here are some pics of the socialist paradise called Cuba:

Venezuela:

Yes, and they're not even socialist, but let's ignore what they were like before this. Show me chile's housing again, for the poor people, not the wealthy.

Yeah, I know, whenever the socialism is put into practice and the results are too obvious to ignore, it's not "real socialism."

But socialism has been put into practice. It has worked, and wonderfully, you can refer to my signature for something I've repeated 50 times already that no one wants to look at. Oh yeah? The results when compared to the past are still an improvement, but I won't lie and say it's socialism, tell me the definition again?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Your pay scale should be relative to the value of the work you do. How much can your employer sell your work for versus the total cost of production, including your labor? If you make hamburgers which sell for an average of $3.00 each, and you can make 100 burgers in an hour, the value of your work is $300.00 per hour. There are other costs associated with the production of the burgers, such as the cost of the ingredients and packaging, lease payments for the buildings, equipment costs, advertising and promotion, etc. If you are paid minimum wage, you are paid 7 cents for each burger you make. If your wages were to increase to $10.00 per hour, you would be receiving 10 cents for each burger you make.

It shouldn't matter how many others people would be willing to do your job for less, or the skill level required to do the work, what should matter is the value of your work. When you produce a product for sale, such as making burgers, it's relatively easy to calculate the value of your work. What we have seen is that while the retail price of the burgers has risen, as have all of the other costs associated with their production and sale have risen, the wages of the people making the burgers has not. Management pay has risen, and executive pay has skyrocketed, although management and executives aren't being more massively more productive than in the past, but the frontline workers who make the products sold, have not. It's not jealousy or envy for workers to ask that their wages go up as well.

Thats not a valid argument. I understand what things should be like but thats not how it works. Some people simply are more valuable than others when it comes to producing income and value for their employers. Basically what you are saying is that it should always be perfect weather but thats not how it works out in reality.

Under capitalism, the laborer cannot receive what he is worth, and usually way less.

Thats true. The laborer has options like upgrading his/her skills or leaving to find someone that will pay what he/she is worth.

The problem is, the capitalist cannot afford to pay the labor what he is actually worth, ever heard of surplus value? The idea of people just needing to get skilled doesn't really hold for me, people will always have to fill the jobs that require hard labor, fast food jobs, grocery jobs. Society demands that they exist, and people will work them.

Yes they can afford to pay but the laborer sets the market. If laborers stopped accepting shit wages capitalists would have no choice but to pay what the labor market demands. They would then pass on the cost to the consumer in order to maintain their profit margin. Until workers and consumers come together they will always make other people wealthy.

What many who are against capitalism fail to understand is that businesses must compete in a "global" market to sell their product and consumers dictate how much they are willing to pay as a majority of consumers (by nature) shop under the most cost savings budget. Consumers dictate how much they are willing to pay, and places like Walmart are a prime example of consumer habits. Try convincing the public to pay more for the high cost of "made in America" labor verses a cheaper foreign model, and just see how important the consumer really thinks about wanting higher labor costs. Then look at where all our jobs go when another American plant closes, because that business can't compete to sell a product with what is being offered in other countries at a lower cost.

 

[Ame®icano]

Chile was a socialist country, not communist. But the U.S. feared another repeat of what happened in Cuba and backed the overthrow of the democratically elected government by Pinochet, who turned Chile into a free market capitalist utopia. But in order to do so, Pinochet killed anyone opposed to his reforms.

Close to 200,00 were killed or imprisoned and tortured.

Extreme Right wing dictatorships are every bit as brutal and repressive as extreme leftist governments. The only way extreme governments can survive is by killing those who oppose them.

Communism never came peacefully, it was always forced on people. In 1964 Chile had communist revolution, right? You can call them socialists, and thats fine... remember, USSR was socialist too.

Allende was the democratically elected President of Chile. There was no revolution. Pinochet overthrew the elected government with the backing of the CIA. Milton Friedman himself provided the Pinochet government with the economic framework for the new Chile.

You're talking about Allende and ignoring what was happening in whole Latin America, including Chile, before he won elections in 1970 on his fourth run. Forgetting Cuba, Venezuela, Brasil, Argentina and whole guerrilla tactics to take over the power. But no, lets ignore all that and focus on CIA involvement and Pinochet.

The truth is, Pinochet saved Chile from communism, otherwise they would end up just like most of other South American leftist countries.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The history of the labor movement in this country, USA, shows how any and all companies can and will take advantage of any worker. Even if they band together and form a Union. However, the best option for all workers is to form band and form a Union to combat the Union of CEO"s from large multi-corporations. They band together to help their profit margin.

Under capitalism, the laborer cannot receive what he is worth, and usually way less.

Thats true. The laborer has options like upgrading his/her skills or leaving to find someone that will pay what he/she is worth.

The problem is, the capitalist cannot afford to pay the labor what he is actually worth, ever heard of surplus value? The idea of people just needing to get skilled doesn't really hold for me, people will always have to fill the jobs that require hard labor, fast food jobs, grocery jobs. Society demands that they exist, and people will work them.

Yes they can afford to pay but the laborer sets the market. If laborers stopped accepting shit wages capitalists would have no choice but to pay what the labor market demands. They would then pass on the cost to the consumer in order to maintain their profit margin. Until workers and consumers come together they will always make other people wealthy.

I agree they need to come together, but they're always demonized and ridicules if they try to.

Today's unions are only interested in acquiring more union paying employees to profit the President of the AFL-CIO's pockets.

Tell me, what NEW work benefit labor bill have they pushed Congress to pass towards the benefit of all workers within the last 15 years? Can you name any work conditions progress they have accomplished during that time? If it's like others I've met, you will move the issue onto something else regarding unions rather than answer that question.

 

[bripat9643]

That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?

Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.

I read history, not propaganda.

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

As for your picture, what is that supposed to prove? I could go to Detroit and take thousands of pictures that make that place look like paradise.

Here are some pics of the socialist paradise called Cuba:

Venezuela:

Yes, and they're not even socialist, but let's ignore what they were like before this. Show me chile's housing again, for the poor people, not the wealthy.

Yeah, I know, whenever the socialism is put into practice and the results are too obvious to ignore, it's not "real socialism."

But socialism has been put into practice. It has worked, and wonderfully, you can refer to my signature for something I've repeated 50 times already that no one wants to look at. Oh yeah? The results when compared to the past are still an improvement, but I won't lie and say it's socialism, tell me the definition again?

All your examples are short lived, lasting little more than a year. Why is that? I haven't studied any of them, but I'm sure upon further investigation I'll find that these examples all collapsed because the members were starving to death.

The definition of socialism is "government control of the means of production." Any other claims are bullshit. The term "socialist anarchy" is an oxymoron.

 

[Ame®icano]

Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.

Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.

You need to study history and economics.

It's hard to get facts into your thick head. Under Pinochet, Chile was controlled by military. You keep talking about capitalism and there wasn't. It was necessity to prevent communist from taking power. It happened in Brasil, Bolivia, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Peru... and they all pretty much ended up military rule and returned to democracy and constitutional republics.

 

[Toro]

It's a communist myth??? Are you fucking kidding me! Oh, so it's ok if capitalists kill people in a war, but let's start calling lenin a genocidal maniac when he killed people during a war. Communist propaganda.. I'm not one to deny history, unlike this nut tard. 1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your cite mentions nothing about any soccer stadium where traitors were executed. It also says the number of traitors killed during the civil war was only 3,000. That's a small fraction of Lincoln's 850,000, wouldn't you agree?

Almost everything you believe is a communist myth. It's propaganda.

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

Are you telling me america never put in place a psychopatic dictator in chile who slaughtered his own people? That batista was better off then castro?

The United States had nothing to do with putting Pinochet in power, and he was hardly a psychopath. He was a true patriot who saved his country from communist scum like you.

The people of Cuba were most definitely better off than they are under the Castro regime. Just ask any Cuban living in Florida.

Pinochet was a psychopath.

And yes, we did help him gain power.

Chile is an economic success story - especially when you compare it to Cuba, as both were roughly about as wealthy as each other in 1960. But whitewashing history doesn't help your argument.

 

[Ame®icano]

You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.

Bubbles first need to get inflated before they burst. You ignore how and why they get inflated. When they burst, pretty much everyone is having bad time for some period and then get back up. However, in communism that bad time never ends.

 

[bripat9643]

Your cite mentions nothing about any soccer stadium where traitors were executed. It also says the number of traitors killed during the civil war was only 3,000. That's a small fraction of Lincoln's 850,000, wouldn't you agree?

Almost everything you believe is a communist myth. It's propaganda.

History isn't propaganda.

True, but you read the later, not the former.

Are you telling me america never put in place a psychopatic dictator in chile who slaughtered his own people? That batista was better off then castro?

The United States had nothing to do with putting Pinochet in power, and he was hardly a psychopath. He was a true patriot who saved his country from communist scum like you.

The people of Cuba were most definitely better off than they are under the Castro regime. Just ask any Cuban living in Florida.

Pinochet was a psychopath.

And yes, we did help him gain power.

Chile is an economic success story - especially when you compare it to Cuba, as both were roughly about as wealthy as each other in 1960. But whitewashing history doesn't help your argument.

If you have any evidence aside from your opinion that Pinochet was a psychopath, please post it. I'm interested in seeing it.

And, no, the U.S. government did nothing to help Pinochet gain power. That's a left-wing myth. during the election where Allende was elected the CIA gave some of the opposition parties assistance with their campaigns. That's the extent of U.S. involvement.

Before Castro came to power, Cuba was the wealthiest country in Latin America.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, you did endorse the Bolsheviks. You also endorsed the murder of an entire family.

What a fucking prick.

The incompetence of the Romanovs killed MILLIONS of Russians in World War I. (and for that matter, a lot of other people because Russia escalated a war between Serbia and Austria into a world war.)

No great loss, there.