Anti-Socialism Thread

[Odreria]

So you're saying they have less capital but do a better job of eliminating poverty? Socialism must be a good system.

What poverty elimentated? Bolivia is still one of the poorest countries in South America.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Salus Maior]

...What?

Ra and I have been very clear that if someone thinks any country isn't communist, that person is wrong.

Well, I'm not part of that retardation.

I don't adhere to that.

[Stylan]

Yes it literally does. Would you like me to show you the proof from the UN and other global entities that starvation kills 9 million a year?

That starvation does not have to do with capitalistic policies, whereas the Great Famine resulted from communist policies. Democratic Republic of the Congo capitalism is not what we are trying to emulate. European and American capitalism is.

Holy shit, this is the worst defense of capitalism I think I have ever heard .

>Capitalism gives good standard of life
See ! Capitalism is great!
>Capitalism goes to shit
Uhhhh that wasn't REAL capitalism

Well you have no right to attack anyone on this website who calls the USSR "not real communism," because you have just done the same thing, but with capitalism.

[Kowani]

almost like morales started from a worst place or something and saw a huge reduction in poverty and a huge increase in median incomes
strange how that works

The man who fashioned himself a 29-storey presidential palace was truly a fighting man for the bourgeoisie. You are right that GDP per capita went up during Morales's rule, but it also did so for Bolivia's neighbours and all of South America really. Compare, for instance, with Chile, or Argentina.

i can't facepalm hard enough
it's easier to build wealth when you're already wealthy, saying "well chile and argentina did better" doesn't mean anything
secondly...please stop using bad metrics to drive to an ideologically favorable conclusion

Morales wasn't elected on "raising GDP". That wasn't the aim of his programs, i don't know why you think that's a good discrediting point.
He came into power to reduce poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Most of those things do not contribute to GDP in the way selling off massive copper contracts does.
Socialists aren't trying to raise GDP because, guess what?
You can't eat that.

[Stylan]

China Cuba Vietnam Bolivia Yugoslavia Burkina Faso

China is capitalist with socialist dressing.

Cuba is an oppressive hellhole whose best minds all fled to the US.

Vietnam only fares well because it is propped up by China, and even so has very high food insecurity.

Bolivia is the second poorest nation in South America (just ahead of another socialist paradise, Venezuela)

Yugoslavia doesn't exist, and was never successful when it did.

Burkina Faso has a life expectancy of 61.2

I like how because Cuba has such a high standard of lving and a longer lifespan than the US you have to defer to "Oh well it's oppressive"

It liteally isn't not even by bullshit Western media standards. Even the Western media machine admits Cuba is very democratic.

[Kowani]

...why the fuck would you measure a country's wealth by gdp per capita
that's not...that's not how anyone does it
if you want to look at the citizens' wealth, then look at median income or percentage of the population in poverty
if you want to look at the whole country, use adjusted GDP. You're wrong yet again

Even if you use adjusted GDP per capita, Bolivia is still 2nd only to Venezuela.

Try again.

I don't know how to say this enough: GDP per Capita is not a metric of any value unless inequality among all participants is 0.
stop using it.

[-Ra-]

The man who fashioned himself a 29-storey presidential palace was truly a fighting man for the bourgeoisie. You are right that GDP per capita went up during Morales's rule, but it also did so for Bolivia's neighbours and all of South America really. Compare, for instance, with Chile, or Argentina.

i can't facepalm hard enough
it's easier to build wealth when you're already wealthy, saying "well chile and argentina did better" doesn't mean anything
secondly...please stop using bad metrics to drive to an ideologically favorable conclusion

Morales wasn't elected on "raising GDP". That wasn't the aim of his programs, i don't know why you think that's a good discrediting point.
He came into power to reduce poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Most of those things do not contribute to GDP in the way selling off massive copper contracts does.
Socialists aren't trying to raise GDP because, guess what?
You can't eat that.

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

[Kexholm Karelia]

i can't facepalm hard enough
it's easier to build wealth when you're already wealthy, saying "well chile and argentina did better" doesn't mean anything
secondly...please stop using bad metrics to drive to an ideologically favorable conclusion

Morales wasn't elected on "raising GDP". That wasn't the aim of his programs, i don't know why you think that's a good discrediting point.
He came into power to reduce poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Most of those things do not contribute to GDP in the way selling off massive copper contracts does.
Socialists aren't trying to raise GDP because, guess what?
You can't eat that.

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

I think the president was too busy changing the constitution to keep himself in power indefinitely to worry about that

[Stylan]

i can't facepalm hard enough
it's easier to build wealth when you're already wealthy, saying "well chile and argentina did better" doesn't mean anything
secondly...please stop using bad metrics to drive to an ideologically favorable conclusion

Morales wasn't elected on "raising GDP". That wasn't the aim of his programs, i don't know why you think that's a good discrediting point.
He came into power to reduce poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Most of those things do not contribute to GDP in the way selling off massive copper contracts does.
Socialists aren't trying to raise GDP because, guess what?
You can't eat that.

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

Bold of you to attack Bolivia's presidential HQ. Have you seen the White House?

[-Ra-]

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

Bold of you to attack Bolivia's presidential HQ. Have you seen the White House?

Yes, but most people in America don't live below the poverty line now do they? You can afford to be extravagant if the majority of your people are doing well financially, especially if they aren't starving to death in garbage dumps.

[Picairn]

It's all the same capitalist system.

No, European and American capitalist system is quite different to African "capitalism" (if you can even call it that) in terms of management and institutions at large. African countries suffer from bad leadership, colonial institutions, civil wars, corruption and lack of transparency. Many revolutions to chase off Western imperialists only replaced one despot with another.

We live in a global, connected economy, the starvation and famines in Africa are a direct result of western countries and industries using Africa's arable land for cash crop production and refusing to give sufficient food to African nations.

Actually, the Western countries gave them very generous aid in billions of dollars every year. But distribution of that aid is the real problem. In some cases, the aid is pocketed by corrupt leaders and bureaucrats as a source of funding to keep their power, while in others the aid destroys local industry and creates more unemployment and poverty.

Starvation in the modern world is an entirely man-made disaster, we produce enough food to feed approximately 10 billion people under current production. We only struggle because we'd rather let half of it rot to keep prices high than distribute it to the hungry or allow prices to drop so the poor can afford it. To claim it is not a result of capitalism and capitalist policy is misinformed at best.

We have exported our food to Africa as international aid. But they have only created more problems. And the distribution of it entirely depends on the leaders and bureaucrats, who are not really the best and brightest.

The conditions in Africa are entirely the fault of capitalism trampling them and keeping them down, in order to prop up wealthy states in the west.

I would say that the conditions are due to corrupt leaders and rotten institutions, not capitalism. In many cases, capitalism is even stifled from developing due to corruption and red tape.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/its- ... e%20region.

https://www.transparency.org/en/news/ci ... in-africa#

Capitalism does not create wealth, it just redistributes it from the poor to the rich.

That doesn't explain the global eradication of poverty in the last several decades.

It is the extraction of value from one group to prop up life in another, and Africa is the direct result of that. The global south, with all its starvation, poverty, and death, is capitalism working as intended from very deliberate policy choices that we lump together to call colonialism and imperialism.

Actually, it is a result of terrible institutions holding capitalism back. Imperialism and colonialism are related to mercantilism, which hinders capitalism and free trade. Using wars and extortion to benefit your nation at the expense of another is not really capitalism, which emphasizes free trade and mutual benefit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercant ... hat%20goal.

Just as you cannot expect to simply take all of a nation's wealth under capitalism and evenly distribute it amongst all its citizens without the effective purchasing power of the currency collapsing and leaving everyone poor (something that no socialists actually propose, by the way), neither can every country be rich, or even moderately well off, without the system as a whole collapsing.

That's weird, the world as a whole is getting richer and capitalism hasn't collapsed yet. Asian countries have developed from colonial hellholes of the 20th century into modern, industrialized states.

Poverty, starvation, and human suffering are inherent attributes of capitalism, and a prerequisite to the system's survival.

Poverty, starvation, and human suffering seem to be inherently present in any system, not just capitalism. And the latter is just plain incorrect.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Bold of you to attack Bolivia's presidential HQ. Have you seen the White House?

Yes, but most people in America don't live below the poverty line now do they? You can afford to be extravagant if the majority of your people are doing well financially, especially if they aren't starving to death in garbage dumps.

Again, I think you are expecting too much from Mr. Morales. He was too busy destroying democracy and changing the constitution to worry about petty things like food security

[Odreria]

Yes, but most people in America don't live below the poverty line now do they? You can afford to be extravagant if the majority of your people are doing well financially, especially if they aren't starving to death in garbage dumps.

Again, I think you are expecting too much from Mr. Morales. He was too busy destroying democracy and changing the constitution to worry about petty things like food security

Is it too much to ask for both?

[Senkaku]

i can't facepalm hard enough
it's easier to build wealth when you're already wealthy, saying "well chile and argentina did better" doesn't mean anything
secondly...please stop using bad metrics to drive to an ideologically favorable conclusion

Morales wasn't elected on "raising GDP". That wasn't the aim of his programs, i don't know why you think that's a good discrediting point.
He came into power to reduce poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Most of those things do not contribute to GDP in the way selling off massive copper contracts does.
Socialists aren't trying to raise GDP because, guess what?
You can't eat that.

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

...huh? How is this a response to anything Kowani said? MAS has measurably improved Bolivia's metrics on poverty and food security, and their GDP growth hasn't been terrible (everybody wants that lithium). What are you actually arguing?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

What do you know about Chile and Argentina? Is this comparative analysis actually founded on anything, or are those just the only three Spanish-speaking South American countries you've heard of, so you've just assumed they're all pretty much the same? The fact you're encouraging the idea that other countries should adopt the free-market policies of Argentina suggest to me that maybe you have some learning to do about the region.

[-Ra-]

Even if you use adjusted GDP per capita, Bolivia is still 2nd only to Venezuela.

Try again.

I don't know how to say this enough: GDP per Capita is not a metric of any value unless inequality among all participants is 0.
stop using it.

This is objectively incorrect, but if you want to use a measure that is adjusted for inequality, the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI) places Argentina and Chile at 45 and 50, while Bolivia sits at 95.

[Stylan]

Bold of you to attack Bolivia's presidential HQ. Have you seen the White House?

Yes, but most people in America don't live below the poverty line now do they? You can afford to be extravagant if the majority of your people are doing well financially, especially if they aren't starving to death in garbage dumps.

70 percent of American worker say they struggle financially, while 80 percent say they are living paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... bert-reich
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/70-america ... nancially/

[Kowani]

i can't facepalm hard enough
it's easier to build wealth when you're already wealthy, saying "well chile and argentina did better" doesn't mean anything
secondly...please stop using bad metrics to drive to an ideologically favorable conclusion

Morales wasn't elected on "raising GDP". That wasn't the aim of his programs, i don't know why you think that's a good discrediting point.
He came into power to reduce poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc. Most of those things do not contribute to GDP in the way selling off massive copper contracts does.
Socialists aren't trying to raise GDP because, guess what?
You can't eat that.

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

it's funny how you keep getting blown the fuck out on everything so you have to revert back to "well they're poor lol" as if we hadn't addressed that already

[Kexholm Karelia]

Again, I think you are expecting too much from Mr. Morales. He was too busy destroying democracy and changing the constitution to worry about petty things like food security

Is it too much to ask for both?

Uh oh, another "libertarian" leftist speaking the quiet parts loud?

[-Ra-]

Yes, but most people in America don't live below the poverty line now do they? You can afford to be extravagant if the majority of your people are doing well financially, especially if they aren't starving to death in garbage dumps.

70 percent of American worker say they struggle financially, while 80 percent say they are living paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... bert-reich
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/70-america ... nancially/

That isn't living below the poverty line. People saying they feel financially pinched doesn't mean that they are actually poor. The poverty line in the US is $12,760 for just one individual. The vast majority of Bolivians live below that line. A poor American is like an upper class Bolivian.

[Stylan]

Is it too much to ask for both?

Uh oh, another "libertarian" leftist speaking the quiet parts loud?

Pretty sure he isn't a libertarian leftist at least juding by his political test results

[-Ra-]

Can't exactly eat anything when you're in an oppressive socialist hellhole can you? Especially not when your president is cooped up in a 29-storey palace now is he?

Seems like the Chileans and Argentinians have much better food security. If only the Bolivians had adopted free-market policies like them, maybe they'd be better off financial and food-wise?

it's funny how you keep getting blown the fuck out on everything so you have to revert back to "well they're poor lol" as if we hadn't addressed that already

Getting blown out about what? Being blown out by your defense of a petty authoritarian? I think not lol.

[Stylan]

70 percent of American worker say they struggle financially, while 80 percent say they are living paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... bert-reich
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/70-america ... nancially/

That isn't living below the poverty line. People saying they feel financially pinched doesn't mean that they are actually poor. The poverty line in the US is $12,760 for just one individual. The vast majority of Bolivians live below that line. A poor American is like an upper class Bolivian.

Living paycheck to paycheck isn't being "financially pinched."

Also, from my quick Google searhc only 36 percent of Bolivians live below the poverty line? A huge number, no doubt, but not the majority.

[Kowani]

I don't know how to say this enough: GDP per Capita is not a metric of any value unless inequality among all participants is 0.
stop using it.

This is objectively incorrect, but if you want to use a measure that is adjusted for inequality, the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI) places Argentina and Chile at 45 and 50, while Bolivia sits at 95.

When you use snapshots, you miss data (like the constant increase of their HDI over time)

[Washington Resistance Army]

it's funny how you keep getting blown the fuck out on everything so you have to revert back to "well they're poor lol" as if we hadn't addressed that already

Getting blown out about what? Being blown out by your defense of a petty authoritarian? I think not lol.

Bud you've been blown out on almost every topic you've tried to argue.

[Grill Pill]

This is objectively incorrect, but if you want to use a measure that is adjusted for inequality, the inequality-adjusted human development index (IHDI) places Argentina and Chile at 45 and 50, while Bolivia sits at 95.

When you use snapshots, you miss data (like the constant increase of their HDI over time)

I'm sorry but data has a leftist bias use a better source that's unbiased.