Anti-Socialism Thread

[VlaRiSsiA]

Socialist here.

That said, I have a message to my fellow socialists ranting at their screen looking at this thread: Sorry if you are offended comrade, but this thread has every right to exist no matter if you agree or disagree with it. It’s a thing called freedom of expression and no entity should be able to restrict that. You can debate the topic of the thread, but please try not to be toxic. People should be able to say whatever they want so long it isn’t threatening the liberty or safety of others.

Now I’m just going to roll back and let everyone here discuss their political beliefs. Or maybe get sucked into a capitalism vs socialism debate against my will.

[Cloud-Cuckoo-Land]

Go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. Many of these organizations are run by private individuals or firms, which is better than the government anyway.

North America could be like that, but other places have welfare programs for homeless and impoverished people. They are not perfect, obviously. But so are not private-run charities.

Also what AN nation said. Intellectual honesty is of highest value, regardless of what point is being made. The truth is a blind force which does not care for political consistency.

[Kowani]

Socialist here.

That said, I have a message to my fellow socialists ranting at their screen looking at this thread: Sorry if you are offended comrade, but this thread has every right to exist no matter if you agree or disagree with it. It’s a thing called freedom of expression and no entity should be able to restrict that. You can debate the topic of the thread, but please try not to be toxic. People should be able to say whatever they want so long it isn’t threatening the liberty or safety of others.

Now I’m just going to roll back and let everyone here discuss their political beliefs. Or maybe get sucked into a capitalism vs socialism debate against my will.

Interesting how you have "a message for your fellow socialists" yet it's directed at a position nobody took.
Hm yes this is not suspicious at all

[Matatic and The Principality of Surkis]

I can tell this will be a terrible thread with extreme stupidity from both sides, why'd you have to make this.

[Eurasies]

Socialist here.

That said, I have a message to my fellow socialists ranting at their screen looking at this thread: Sorry if you are offended comrade, but this thread has every right to exist no matter if you agree or disagree with it. It’s a thing called freedom of expression and no entity should be able to restrict that. You can debate the topic of the thread, but please try not to be toxic. People should be able to say whatever they want so long it isn’t threatening the liberty or safety of others.

Now I’m just going to roll back and let everyone here discuss their political beliefs. Or maybe get sucked into a capitalism vs socialism debate against my will.

I'm not a socialist, but well said friend

[VlaRiSsiA]

Socialist here.

That said, I have a message to my fellow socialists ranting at their screen looking at this thread: Sorry if you are offended comrade, but this thread has every right to exist no matter if you agree or disagree with it. It’s a thing called freedom of expression and no entity should be able to restrict that. You can debate the topic of the thread, but please try not to be toxic. People should be able to say whatever they want so long it isn’t threatening the liberty or safety of others.

Now I’m just going to roll back and let everyone here discuss their political beliefs. Or maybe get sucked into a capitalism vs socialism debate against my will.

Interesting how you have "a message for your fellow socialists" yet it's directed at a position nobody took.
Hm yes this is not suspicious at all

I’m directing my message to the inevitable swarm of toxic nations. It’s not happening yet, but always threads get jacked

[-Ra-]

Go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. Many of these organizations are run by private individuals or firms, which is better than the government anyway.

North America could be like that, but other places have welfare programs for homeless and impoverished people. They are not perfect, obviously. But so are not private-run charities.

I'm from the UK...

[Sanghyeok]

Socialist here.

That said, I have a message to my fellow socialists ranting at their screen looking at this thread: Sorry if you are offended comrade, but this thread has every right to exist no matter if you agree or disagree with it. It’s a thing called freedom of expression and no entity should be able to restrict that. You can debate the topic of the thread, but please try not to be toxic. People should be able to say whatever they want so long it isn’t threatening the liberty or safety of others.

Now I’m just going to roll back and let everyone here discuss their political beliefs. Or maybe get sucked into a capitalism vs socialism debate against my will.

Interesting how you have "a message for your fellow socialists" yet it's directed at a position nobody took.
Hm yes this is not suspicious at all

They are a libertarian socialist from my conversations with them.
There is no need to friendly fire, comrade.

[All Wild Things]

So how come it's ok for us all to share a road but not a gas pipeline?

And how come it's okay to provide universal healthcare, but not to provide healthy food that would reduce the need for that healthcare?

We kinda do already. Go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. Many of these organizations are run by private individuals or firms, which is better than the government anyway.

And none of this has to do with the workers owning the means of production.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens are a far cry from providing healthy food and adequate shelter to every citizen. Any of these that are run by firms - who is paying for the firm?

Okay, I think I'm starting to get it. So socialism relates only to means of production. So the means of transportation (roads, gas pipes, broadband networks) can be owned either publicly or privately, and not affect whether a country is socialist or not.

We live in a very different century. If workers were to own the means of production, presumably they'd own a hell of a lot of PCs and servers. A lot of what is produced is weird stuff, like computer games, location data, and consumer preference data for advertising.

[Kowani]

Interesting how you have "a message for your fellow socialists" yet it's directed at a position nobody took.
Hm yes this is not suspicious at all

I’m directing my message to the inevitable swarm of toxic nations. It’s not happening yet, but always threads get jacked

You...don't spend a lot of time on NSG, do you.

Interesting how you have "a message for your fellow socialists" yet it's directed at a position nobody took.
Hm yes this is not suspicious at all

They are a libertarian socialist from my conversations with them.
There is no need to friendly fire, comrade.

It is not "friendly fire" when I point out that they're attacking socialists for a position taken by nobody.

[-Ra-]

Capitalism: "Universal healthcare and social safety nets are evil because they steal money from the pockets of hard workers and socialism would never work because humans are inherently too selfish!"

Ok, so how do we deal with people who can't afford healthcare or food?

Capitalism: "IDFK. Charity or something?"

Nobody's saying that you have to get rid of universal healthcare and food. Markets are the best allocator of goods. That's a fact of economics and the reason why socialist countries fail. However, a certain amount of government intervention in the economy is good. So sometimes the government should step in, but for most cases it's unnecessary.

Quite ironic that healthcare and food tend to be the shittiest in socialist countries.

[Cloud-Cuckoo-Land]

North America could be like that, but other places have welfare programs for homeless and impoverished people. They are not perfect, obviously. But so are not private-run charities.

I'm from the UK...

US, Canada and UK are still only 3 countries matched up against approximately 190 other countries. Unless you can specifically vouch that all of the remaining countries have private-run charities which work as you are asserting, you aren't really making a point.

Also, giving people manufactured food is not the only way to hand out basic necessities to them. You can also give them raw resources, ready to be transported, which they will process into food on their own.

[-Ra-]

I'm from the UK...

US, Canada and UK are still only 3 countries matched up against approximately 190 other countries. Unless you can specifically vouch that all of the remaining countries have private-run charities which work as you are asserting, you aren't really making a point.

Neither are you. It happens that the US, Canada and the UK are the most prosperous countries in the world. They're also capitalist in nature.

[The Marlborough]

I'm from the UK...

US, Canada and UK are still only 3 countries matched up against approximately 190 other countries. Unless you can specifically vouch that all of the remaining countries have private-run charities which work as you are asserting, you aren't really making a point.

Both America and Canada have welfare, what are you on about.

[Kowani]

US, Canada and UK are still only 3 countries matched up against approximately 190 other countries. Unless you can specifically vouch that all of the remaining countries have private-run charities which work as you are asserting, you aren't really making a point.

Neither are you. It happens that the US, Canada and the UK are the most prosperous countries in the world. They're also capitalist in nature.

...Define "prosperity"

[New haven america]

Capitalism: "Universal healthcare and social safety nets are evil because they steal money from the pockets of hard workers and socialism would never work because humans are inherently too selfish!"

Ok, so how do we deal with people who can't afford healthcare or food?

Capitalism: "IDFK. Charity or something?"

1. Nobody's saying that you have to get rid of universal healthcare and food. 2. Markets are the best allocator of goods. 3. That's a fact of economics and the reason why socialist countries fail. However, a certain amount of government intervention in the economy is good. So sometimes the government should step in, but for most cases it's unnecessary.

Quite ironic that healthcare and food tend to be the shittiest in socialist countries.

1. Those are socialist policies and this is an anti-socialism thread, so...
2. They are not.
3. A capitalist system of resource management says its way is the best and everything else is wrong. Who could've guessed?

[Phaenix]

Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? If by socialist, you meant the NSDAP, then yes. If by actual socialists, then no.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? Nope. Socialism, if implement correctly by a strong government, would have more benefits than downsides. If anything, they should move to pass more socialistic bills.
At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for? Never. Unless, as stated before, the NSDAP reappears and marches on the capitol, armed resistance is never called for.

[The Marlborough]

US, Canada and UK are still only 3 countries matched up against approximately 190 other countries. Unless you can specifically vouch that all of the remaining countries have private-run charities which work as you are asserting, you aren't really making a point.

Neither are you. It happens that the US, Canada and the UK are the most prosperous countries in the world. They're also capitalist in nature.

In terms of GDP(PPP) per capita the US is 10th, Canada 20th, and the UK 27th.

[-Ra-]

1. Nobody's saying that you have to get rid of universal healthcare and food. 2. Markets are the best allocator of goods. 3. That's a fact of economics and the reason why socialist countries fail. However, a certain amount of government intervention in the economy is good. So sometimes the government should step in, but for most cases it's unnecessary.

Quite ironic that healthcare and food tend to be the shittiest in socialist countries.

1. Those are socialist policies and this is an anti-socialism thread, so...
2. They are not.
3. A capitalist system of resource management says its way is the best and everything else is wrong. Who could've guessed?

1. They are not socialist policies. Kinda telling that you don't know what socialism is.
2. They are.
3. Economics is not capitalism. This is like saying that science prefers vaccines, therefore science is biased towards vaccines and against anti-vaxxers. Socialism is the anti-vaxx movement of economics.

[Cloud-Cuckoo-Land]

US, Canada and UK are still only 3 countries matched up against approximately 190 other countries. Unless you can specifically vouch that all of the remaining countries have private-run charities which work as you are asserting, you aren't really making a point.

Neither are you. It happens that the US, Canada and the UK are the most prosperous countries in the world. They're also capitalist in nature.

Prosperity is not a highest priority, though. It is essential to have a working economy, sure, but sufficient is enough, or even better than superior, if other things are also taken into account. You can say prosperity is of highest importance to you and you have every right to do so. But most people don't really care about numbers but just the ability to live their life in peace. As long as an average person can manage, their economy can be inferior to some other country's economy.

You can live off 200K dollars annually. Just because someone else earns 300K does not automatically mean they are better in every single regard than you are. Stable 200K dollars in a healthy society is IMO better than 300K dollars in an oppressive, chaotic environment.

But hey, maybe that's what makes makes me into a socialist. My respect for people who want to choose either option, as long as they pick it themselves instead of asserting that their option should be embraced by everyone.

[Phaenix]

1. Those are socialist policies and this is an anti-socialism thread, so...
2. They are not.
3. A capitalist system of resource management says its way is the best and everything else is wrong. Who could've guessed?

1. They are not socialist policies.
2. They are.
3. Economics is not capitalism. This is like saying that science prefers vaccines, therefore science is biased towards vaccines and against anti-vaxxers. Socialism is the anti-vaxx movement of economics.

...But science does prefer vaccines. You just contradicted yourself in your own argument.

[Eurasies]

Neither are you. It happens that the US, Canada and the UK are the most prosperous countries in the world. They're also capitalist in nature.

...Define "prosperity"

Higher quality of life, higher life expectancy, higher human development index, less corruption, strongest economies in the world, higher nominal GDP?

[Phaenix]

...Define "prosperity"

Higher quality of life, higher life expectancy, higher human development index, less corruption, strongest economies in the world, higher nominal GDP?

Then that's not the US.

[-Ra-]

Neither are you. It happens that the US, Canada and the UK are the most prosperous countries in the world. They're also capitalist in nature.

Prosperity is not a highest priority, though. It is essential to have a working economy, sure, but sufficient is enough, or even better than superior, if other things are also taken into account. You can say prosperity is of highest importance to you and you have every right to do so. But most people don't really care about numbers but just the ability to live their life in peace. As long as an average person can manage, their economy can be inferior to some other country's economy.

You can live off 200K dollars annually. Just because someone else earns 300K does not automatically mean they are better in every single regard than you are.

Thankfully we live in a capitalist system that lets most people live their lives in peace. That's kind of the point. The people of Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia didn't get to live their lives in peace. They were starved to death or hacked up by machetes in open fields.

[Eurasies]

Higher quality of life, higher life expectancy, higher human development index, less corruption, strongest economies in the world, higher nominal GDP?

Then that's not the US.

Canada, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands?