Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

People call me crazy when I say we should try a trickle-up approach where you give money to the poor.

Yet, for the last 40 years trickle-down economy has been accepted as the "status quo". Cut taxes for the wealthy and reduce social programs. But it has done nothing to combat poverty.

Yet I am seen as the crazy one.
 
Capitalism and communism have created missery when their governments grow corrupt, but Capitalism has managed to starve out the other alternatives through multiple means, so that's why people think it is somehow the less bad one.
 
Crni Vuk said:
People call me crazy when I say we should try a trickle-up approach where you give money to the poor.

Yet, for the last 40 years trickle-down economy has been accepted as the "status quo". Cut taxes for the wealthy and reduce social programs. But it has done nothing to combat poverty.

Yet I am seen as the crazy one.
Click to expand...


Uuummm, no. World poverty is at record lows.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-rate-drops-to-record-low.html

I keep seeing people saying that poverty is getting worse, but there are no statistics anywhere that actually prove that, maybe as outliers in some areas but the world is far better today than it was 40 years ago.
 
We need more communism to make capitalism look better in comparison again.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Uuummm, no. World poverty is at record lows.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-rate-drops-to-record-low.html

I keep seeing people saying that poverty is getting worse, but there are no statistics anywhere that actually prove that, maybe as outliers in some areas but the world is far better today than it was 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
It's obviously a lot more complicated than that. You could google elephant chart for example which says that globalisation has indeed lifted some people out of the most extreme poverty in to ... well "normal" poverty, but we're not even talking about food-stamp poverty here we're still talking about the kind of poverty that you see in Bangladesh or Rio. Their living standards are still piss poor. However the middle class is the one that lost the most in income while the wealthiest have gained more wealth. People like to forget this.

But can you prove that "capitalism" - or what you see as capitalism - is actually the cause for this improvement? We are talking here about well, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many more dictatorship. While living standards are dropping in western democracies. Maybe the reason is autocratic rule and not capitalism? Or could it be that correlation is not always causation?

I don't know it. And I am pretty confident that you don't know it either.

Besides I never said that we should get rid of free markets and install planed economies. I wish you people would stop always falling back to fallacies and creating straw man here talking about communism and socialism like as anyone here would actually support dictatorships. If you guys are not interested in any serious debate than so be it. But stop wasting your and my time by pretending to have one. The point is that that certain ideas, particularly neoliberal ones, are taken to the extreme today. And this is having severe effects for a lot of people. Social democracies didn't pop up after WW2 because everyone in Western Europe was becoming a die hard socialist, you guys know that, right? Many conservatives actually supported social programs. Like Eisenhower who what a shock pretty much created medicare. But this was the 1950s when rich people paid more than 90% in income tax. The horror! Can you remember? All those images of rich people begging for money. Today they don't even pay half of that in income tax.

No one here is talking about to dispossess of anyones property. But very wealthy people should simply pay their fare share to society. It's not only the poor that profit from free education, fire fighters, police, jurisdiction, infrastructure and all that other useless crap I suppose.
 
it-just-works-stalin-explaining-the-virtues-of-communism-1933-41900149.png
 
I mean, isn't that the same with capitalism? The growing inequality and poverty are also sold as a feature of capitalism.
 
Crni Vuk said:
It's obviously a lot more complicated than that. You could google elephant chart for example which says that globalisation has indeed lifted some people out of the most extreme poverty in to ... well "normal" poverty, but we're not even talking about food-stamp poverty here we're still talking about the kind of poverty that you see in Bangladesh or Rio. Their living standards are still piss poor. However the middle class is the one that lost the most in income while the wealthiest have gained more wealth. People like to forget this.

But can you prove that "capitalism" - or what you see as capitalism - is actually the cause for this improvement? We are talking here about well, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and many more dictatorship. While living standards are dropping in western democracies. Maybe the reason is autocratic rule and not capitalism? Or could it be that correlation is not always causation?

I don't know it. And I am pretty confident that you don't know it either.

Besides I never said that we should get rid of free markets and install planed economies. I wish you people would stop always falling back to fallacies and creating straw man here talking about communism and socialism like as anyone here would actually support dictatorships. If you guys are not interested in any serious debate than so be it. But stop wasting your and my time by pretending to have one. The point is that that certain ideas, particularly neoliberal ones, are taken to the extreme today. And this is having severe effects for a lot of people. Social democracies didn't pop up after WW2 because everyone in Western Europe was becoming a die hard socialist, you guys know that, right? Many conservatives actually supported social programs. Like Eisenhower who what a shock pretty much created medicare. But this was the 1950s when rich people paid more than 90% in income tax. The horror! Can you remember? All those images of rich people begging for money. Today they don't even pay half of that in income tax.

No one here is talking about to dispossess of anyones property. But very wealthy people should simply pay their fare share to society. It's not only the poor that profit from free education, fire fighters, police, jurisdiction, infrastructure and all that other useless crap I suppose.
Click to expand...

Many conservatives support social programs that we can afford not consistently taking on more debt in the hope that it will balance out in the future... I said no straw man arguments in my last and I am not talking about authoritarian rule. You started this thread based upon communism, not to talk about democratic socialism as you have stated you where thinking I guess, or the facist ways of a country like China (the more I read about them the more they seem like Nazi Germany then Commies anymore...…). You talk about all these European socialist paradises, but how much debt have countries like Germany and France taken on. Your debt to GDP ratio is insane, and at some point at that level of debt spending your countries will crash and all safety nets will be gone then. Taxing the rich in our new globalist planet is far different now than 80 years ago. The rich have more freedom of movement just like everyone else and you reach a level of diminishing returns too much tax and they leave or find better ways to hide their money. The rich have always hated paying more, from the days of the Roman republic to modern times. There is always a balance to be found and you want to find it, not have it find you.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Many conservatives support social programs that we can afford not consistently taking on more debt in the hope that it will balance out in the future... I said no straw man arguments in my last and I am not talking about authoritarian rule.
Click to expand...
I would not say that this is true for the majority of the Republican party today which favours lowering taxes and cutting most social programs. I don't want to turn this into a republicans are worse than democrats as they both have their issues. However if we only compare main republican policies from the 50s with today there has been a huge change at least in how they see economic policies and human labour. It's ironic that a republican warned from the perpetual war state or what people know as military industrial complex. This idea of fiscality you talk about is immediately thrown out of the window when it comes to one topic. Military spending. I am not saying I am the hugest fan of Eisenhower but hell even some policies of Reagan would seem to far left for the Republican party today. What I am saying is there is a huge difference to how conservatives think today compared to 40 years ago. And it is strange how we always talk about what we can afford and can't when it comes to social programs. But we almost never see this discussion when it comes to wars or the military.

Hassknecht said:
We need more communism to make capitalism look better in comparison again.
Click to expand...
Why did you vote Die Linke again exactly?​
 
Why? Classical Liberalism has a lot of good things going for it and there is more need for it than ever in the face of data giants like Google, Amazon and the like. But even states are a big issue here with their collecting of data and the evolution of making everything digitalised. It's just what I think liberals (Not "luberals", you know free-market supporters) are woefully ignorant on the immense changes that are in front of us due to automation and what it will mean to our very definition of labour. Society is about to go trough very drastic changes and we have simply no clue in what direction it will go. We do experience many social improvements today, workers rights, safety nets, public health care, social democracies and a lot more. But even though the industrialisation 200 years ago gave us those improvements in the end societies went trough an incredible phase of instability due to all the changes which took generations. So the question is what kind of road bumps will society encounter in the next 50 years before we see the next possible social improvements?

At least from a socio economic standpoint we're living in a very interesting time.
 
Last edited:
What some socialists are saying and that conservative can agree on,

1. Responsible social programs that help people who are in a shitty situation NOT of their own making.

2. Social policies in general that are realistic and work.

The problem however pops up when one gets into the real proposals. Social programs that are not realistic and would essentially bankrupt states.

1. Social programs with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Absolutely insane.

2. Like what folks tried to push in Cali. A medicare for all bill, including NON U.S. citizens, which would cost the entire states operating budget, and then some.

Now if we were to combine the two above, it would be a complete fucking disaster.
 
DarkCorp said:
1. Responsible social programs that help people who are in a shitty situation NOT of their own making.
Click to expand...

Chicken or the egg.

Consider a kid born into destitution and poverty - is this his/her fault? This explains the majority of poverty but it's hand-waved because they "didn't apply themselves enough."
 
It would depend on a variety of factors. What is the age range for kid? What constitutes being destitute? Does he have parents? Are those parents responsible?

On the other side of your argument, everybody is a victim, no matter how chronically idiotic or selfish the person is.

What I have proposed is a compromise. Essentially, if you are not 'weed boy', then you would be covered, albeit, with limits. I would guess that 70-80 percent will be covered.

Mental services is a must, as nobody should be punished because the creator essentially fucked up in the manufacturing process.

Same with disabilities and handicaps, with consideration on how debilitating the handicap is and if it was by birth, negligence, etc.

Rehab services should be tax payer funded, but with the caveat that service is reasonably good, while making attendance mandatory. No point in funding programs nobody wants to use.

Reforms are needed. Price transparency is one. Menu pricing for medical services would greatly improve competition. Also, supply and demand, who getas what and how much. Basic services are good but more expensive health problems need to be addressed. Is everyone needing an organ transplant going to get one? How about logistics like medical transport? How will drug prices work, is Viagra a right? What about hypochondriacs, who take up time and space from those legitimately in need of service?

While UHC is a good idea and should be discussed, it CANNOT be without limits or no strings attached. Increased accessibility will naturally result in increased demand and cost.
 
Last edited:
BigGuyCIA said:
Chicken or the egg.

Consider a kid born into destitution and poverty - is this his/her fault? This explains the majority of poverty but it's hand-waved because they "didn't apply themselves enough."
Click to expand...

Telling a man to pull him self out of his boot straps when he has no boots is cruelty.

- Martin Luther King.

I am not someone who's opposing personal responsibility. But we have a way to linear and simple look on poverty. Be it in economic terms or with the individual. When you look at history what it often boils down to is redistribution either trough social programs, like free education, improved infrastructure, unions or which happend way more frequently trough conflicts and wars. When ever inequality is growing to large in a society civil unrests, instability and tensions grow, up to a point where it's overturned. Even the United States was a few times quite close to it in the 1920s and 30s with riots and uprisings trough unions, workers and even veterans. And then WW2 happend which pretty much solved the depression leading to the golden 50s with an income tax of more than 90%!

What I would like to see is to get all people at the very least on equal footing ground. And I think considering the fact that we're living in some of the wealthiest societies which have ever existed in history, this should be absolutely no problem. And I can not take ANYONE (!) seriously who's talking about money and financing social programs if he's als not critical about the military budged. With more than 700 Million spend on the Pentagon each year of which a lot also ends up in useless military conflicts while corporate taxes and income taxes are lowered, which then often leads to cuts in education, infrastructure and social programs there is no room for arguments like "Who's going to pay for it!". The money is there. Trillions if done correctly. Walmart made 514,405 Millions in revenue. ExxonMobile 290,212 Million. Apple 265,595 Million. Amazon 232,887. And guess how much they pay in taxes? Almost zero.

At this point I can sadly not take people seriously anymore who babble about fiscal conservatism and lack of money. You can spend uncritically billions on the military that has almost no economic gain and a lot of it isn't even used with the troops but ending as share holder money in arms contractors but when it comes to about actually helping people that struggle it's wrong? And then we even act surprised why there is an opioid crisis, why people give up on democracy and we see riots. More than 40 Million people in the US live in conditions comparable to developing countries. 40% of Americans have less than 400$ in savings. And Even more are just one medical bill away from bankruptcy. America is for the majority not the land of opportunity anymore but of inequality. And this is only going to get worse.

DarkCorp said:
Mental services is a must, as nobody should be punished because the creator essentially fucked up in the manufacturing process.

Same with disabilities and handicaps, with consideration on how debilitating the handicap is and if it was by birth, negligence, etc.
Click to expand...
Why? I mean are they not just a drain on society and the economy?

Would it not make more sense to help those that might have a chance to actually improve on their situation because they are healthy beings instead of wasting it on those that will never recover?

*This isn't meant as provocation, I am just trying to understand you better and playing the devils advocate here.​
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Why? I mean are they not just a drain on society and the economy?

Would it not make more sense to help those that might have a chance to actually improve on their situation because they are healthy beings instead of wasting it on those that will never recover?
Click to expand...
See it doesn't take long for the Stalinist to show their true murderous nature. those who can't contribute 110% to the state must be liquidated, Right Comrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top