Is the United States too reliant on free-market capitalist principles, or not reliant enough?
I apologize to all I offended sincerely.
I love polls like this that shows just how much Democrats hate American values.
Back in the 1850s during the industrial revolution and before the civil war the Irish famine brought in great immigrant work for the north in the textile mills. The Lowell factory girls were the first workers to publish the term "wage slavery". Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party made no differentiation between selling yourself to an owner or renting yourself to one. The civil war was fought because of how the industrial revolution was changing the definition of liberty and justice Abraham Lincoln and the factory girls could easily foresee the accumulation of industrial technology by the 1 percent.
Republican newspaper during this time published
"those who work in the mills ought to own them".
"The spirit of new age: gain wealth forgetting all but self"
You know the Republican Party of Lincoln's time is the Democratic Party of today right?
Yes. Were the republicans against American values during that time? Probably but I agree with them if American values mean subjecting yourself to the owners who can mass produce with expensive machinery.
The "American values" cowboy is talking about were developed before industrial revolution and during slavery.
So anything a person thought of before slavery was abolished is automatically a bad ideal? Even if it isn't really connected to slavery at all?
What? Did you not see the multiple question marks? I'm asking you. Since that's what you were implying. You implied the American values he's talking about are bad simply because some people had the values before slavery was abolished
I never said they were bad they were just different economics based on slavery. There were no mass producing machines. People sold things in a public commodity market and had soft commodities like wheat and hard ones like gold.
You made more money by owning more slaves to increase production.
Machines made it possible to rent the worker and manipulate the profit margin by firing the employee and maintaining the machine. In the beginning, being a slave was much more comfortable than being a wage worker.
Economic regulation is unnecessary. Period. The Jungle was written by a socialist who wanted to make the meat packing industry look bad. Anti trust laws neither work nor make sense. The U.S. has fallen so far behind in the drug research market precisely because of regulation. Good god show me one positive instance of regulation in the history of the U.S..
Some regulation is definitely necessary
Are you a troll. Regulations are the backbone of thr United States. "tried to make the meat industry look bad" god you're a grade A idiot. You mean preventing child labor, environmental destruction and poisonous food?
THE Term FREE Market gives you the impression of choice. You want to believe you have real choice. Your choices are paper or plastic that's your choice. In a capitalist Society it's Rich or poor no middle one or the other. As For those who don't like government regulations. I suggest you do a little history research. Antitrust laws or should they just disappear. Hell let's see how real free and regulated capitalism works. These are the same folks that honestly believe trickle down economics works and cutting taxes on businesses frees up capital. A perfect state to show it doesn't work is Kansas the current Governor Sam BrownBack Roll back regulation and cut Business taxes it the hope of spurring investments it didn't work out well. Kansas has one hell of a deficit there in the whole big because businesses pocketed the money as profit and did not reinvest. Who suffers the people of Kansas. Please ask the people of Kansas how that's working out for them.
True.....mike drop! Excellent read; thank you for the post.
The most prosperous times in U.S. history have always been under the tenure of conservative presidents. Anti trust laws are a joke and frankly illogical.
No such thing as trickle down economics. You're an economic illiterate
Who says there are no such thing as trickle down economics, Keynes, Marx, who?
My god the arrogance to presume a dissenting opinion must come from a place of ignorance.
Any economist worth their salt. It's a strawman argument
Both of you lose out on making your point with the name calling. It simple, state your opinion, make it strong...if you disagree, agree to disagree and move on.
There's a trickle down system. Where the worker is ultimately gets urinated on. That's the trickle. It's like saying tax cuts produce a wealth of new job.
It amazes me how people that are not wealthy become proponents of trickle down...when has it ever worked? Also, how one uses over regulations as proof to get rid of all regulations.
They do. They've been proved to do so
Supply side economics works and has proven to work. Look at 1983 tax cuts and the economic boom afterwards.
Look at the Clinton capital gains tax cuts. It exploded growth.
"Free market" vs government planning is irrelevant. We have the technology to include everyone in the community as a organizing system of society but first people should take control of their work place. We are in the tech dark ages and one day everyone will be able to benefit. The expansion of technology came at the same time as the expansion of fossil fuels. Self sufficient energy with very low cost and quality commodities that last would be possible without capitalism.
I like the way you think 👍
Wow what an answer. Are you a student of economics?
I think the fact I steered clear of economics in the university is the reason I think the way I do. An economics class teaches you that when you have a problem in society like opium overdose you should let the free market patent a remedy and create competition in the consumer base for quality instead of just producing a remedy that is affordable for everyone and solving it the most efficient way possible with planning
*still doesn't understand economics *
Way too much government regulation when it comes to certain industries: real estate, cutting hair.
I support the amount of regulation in trucking and making food.
Not enough regulation when it comes to false advertising or fake news. Lying should have penalties.
What happened to the first amendment? The truth is very hard to regulate, because issues are often subjective.
Plenty of things are verifiable facts though. For example "grown without pesticides or antibiotics" is easy enough to check. We can argue all day as to the magnitude or presence of any benefits from that statement being true, but if you said you didn't use any pesticides and there is a detectable amount of glyphosate in your product, you lied.
All active users know my position on this one.
What is up with Atheist?
Neither party seems to believe in true capitalism anymore. Sad times we live in
"True capitalism" isn't a thing. The reality of capitalism is what we have.
When it's all said and done, it's basically a battle between private and public sector.
"True capitalism" (not the same as perfect capitalism) is real insofar as you have an educated and involved population. We, unfortunately, have all become idiots, so the public sector is winning.
I don't get the relationship to capitalism, but this "real capitalism" thing is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately, the use of wage labor, and the use of markets as a means of exchange. Our present system meets these requirements. Regulation can change the nature of the market or the wage, but there are still markets and wages. Additionally, every time capitalism is tried, it turns into cronyism. The state in capitalist society represents the private owners of the means of production. These free market utopia is impossible, because the owners of the means of production will always band together and recreate a state and establish cronyism and protect themselves from popular leftist uprising.
What would leftist do that is better? If anything you'd be turning the means of production over to an even more corrupt group of people.
I don't think the proletariat is particularly corrupt
Not nearly as corrupt as the corporate goons and lobbyists that currently bribe their way into political influence. They don't spend millions of dollars on influencing elections for nothing.
See Russia for why it would be worse.
I would like to see a dictatorship of the proletariat. Russia isn't socialist anymore, and by 1991 the dictatorship of the proletariat had already been abolished, slowly by revisionists. But under the real Marxists, thinks were pretty good.
Russia currently has unregulated Capitalism, and yeah, it's worse. A bunch of Oligarchs + Putin run things over there. Why do you think Obama slapped sanctions on a bunch of them over Ukraine? What's needed here is to separate money from politics.
What I'd like to see is real Democracy, not this 'pay to play' nonsense we have now.
Real democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without it the bourgeoisie dominates politics. The dictatorship of the proletariat needs to be institutional, not just an idea about the state.
If you believe that leaning more capitalist results in less individual freedom than leaning more socialist, you're delusional
....Did you just say that Russia has unregulated capitalism? Hahahahahahahah
Do me a favor and look up the economic freedom index
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." - Vladimir Lenin
"It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed."
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
- Vladimir Lenin
When did he say that first quote? What was the context?
Even ignoring the horrible hypocrisy of the things Lenin said, he is hardly the person to go to for economic advise. His policies resulted in famine after famine.
He was talking about a suspension of the freedom of the press.
No hypocrisy has been demonstrated, nor did his economic policies cause famine. There was a small famine during the civil war, which is normal, and he wrote extensively about alleviating hunger. Being the first successful socialist revolutionary, I think he deserves a little slack for the few mistakes he made.
Although suspension is probably not the right word since it never came back.
Show me the document.
The Bolsheviks will do everything to secure this peaceful development of the Revolution
When violence is exercised by the working people, by the mass of exploited against the exploiters — then we are for it!
Point me towards a country with successful socialism.
Yeah, so there was a famine. No one denies that. But Lenin controls the weather?
I want to know the document where your quote about freedom being precious came from.
There are numerous examples of successful socialism. The USSR was incredibly successful before it turned revisionist, as was Cuba and Yugoslavia and Albania and East Germany and the DPRK and so many more. After the fall of the east bloc other socialist countries had a lot of problems, because they no longer had socialists to trade with. Cuba took the route of turning more capitalist in response, whereas North Korea went in a more autarkic direction. Both decisions have their pros and their cons. Most of the economic troubles in socialist countries are easily attributable to residual internal bourgeois influence or external imperial (American) pressure. Central planners can and have made mistakes, but most of the blame falls upon the first two.
Well considering that capitalist nations abolished slavery, I'd think you'd be happy about that.
At what point was the USSR successful? I'm having trouble taking you seriously
Capitalist nations abolished chattel slavery. Socialist nations abolished all forms of slavery and exploitation.
The USSR was successful for much of its history. That's why the Cold War was a thing. Other nations around the world were legitimately considering socialism because capitalism wasn't working for them, and socialism was working elsewhere.
Damn. I've never met an actual historical revisionist. I have expected you to be a troll
So instead of actually engaging with my argument, you're just gonna insult me. Debate over.
At no point in the history of the USSR was it successful at anything other than oppressing its citizens. Over 30 million people were killed as a result of the famine and politically motivated killings during Stalin's reign alone. For about five years at then start of the USSR, socialists were fairly enthused about the USSR, then after it became apparent that it was a nightmare factory, they disavowed it as not a true example of socialism.
Honestly, it is probably good the debate is over because if you are not going to deal in the realm of facts there is no point in arguing anything.
It was actually made into an authoritarian dictatorship by Stalin, who was very foolishly given control of the security services after Trotsky and the others turned it down. The famine was greatly exacerbated by Stalin's ruthless push towards modernization, which many say ultimately saved them from Nazi domination.
The Soviet Union was not a real socialist experiment after Stalin took over...there were many other forces at work here. In real socialism, the government is controlled by and operated for the benefit of the people, not one man. The Soviet Duma was reduced to a mere advisory body.
30 million is most certainly an exaggerated number. Phalnx is right that the emphasis on heavy industry exacerbated the famine (Stalin makes mistakes just like the rest of us). But it's incredibly revisionist to ignore the role the kulaks played in the famine as well.
I haven't studied Stalin's political role as much as his economic one, so I'm not really able to argue about how much he was a dictator or not, but economically he seems like an upstanding socialist.
What is it with the labels- leftist and conservative and Conservative ultra conservative - neocon. Your not going to get far with labeling individuals. If you not open to everyone's ideas. Be closed minded but I'll tell you from experience I've learned a lot about my friends on both sides . It's amazing to be open minded.
Sometimes government needs to have a hand, sometimes not. I'm not going to act like I'm informed enough to determine which scenario is which. All I know is that I don't want corruption or incompetence on either side
Boy, the results sure back-fired on the leftward slanted question.
How is the question left slanted?
Yeah, this question isn't slanted
I see no slant in either direction
Unfortunately live in a Oligarchy that privatizes the profits and socializes the losses.
Look to Europe's sociocapitalist hybrids if you want the answer. Germany and Scandinavia are some of the best models.
Too reliant o theology period.
Yes, I'm say it is treated by some as a religion.
Can you please elaborate on that?
It's the idea that if left alone the free market would correct itself and all would be right with the world. That called faith. A belief without evidence. Actually a belief contrary to evidence.
It is actually not a belief without evidence.
What is happening is the government is breaking it and then saying it will help to fix it.
No corporate influence is destroying it, creating regulations that benefit them over smaller businesses and customers. Regulations are required but must benefit our society as a whole.
That is called corporatism which is the corrupted form of capitalism which is government relationship with corporations.
In short, like I said, the government broke it and is now trying to convince people that government can fix it.
That is not free market. That is corporatism.
I don't disagree that it is corporatism and corrupt.
But, only our government can fix it. There will always be government and it must be fixed. We must make better choices. We need better people in government and we must not be lazy and allow them to become corrupted. If you were to run for office it would not automatically make you corrupt. The thinking that everyone that tries to help is viewed as the enemy is not helpful.
But everybody that is pro-establishment is part of the problem.
Not all. There are some that are just paralyzed by the overwhelming weight of those that are but mostly by misguided constituents. Trump is an extreme example.
Free markets are an oxymoron.
Communism has killed more people in history than any other single ideology.
I don't think we can really say that an ideology killed anyone, people kill people. But if we're gonna say that ideologies to kill, capitalism has killed 1.6 billion, so that's kinda a lot...
Communism has killed millions of people.
I'm not sure when you get the billion from.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system, by far. Also, I think you're confusing capitalism with imperialism. Also, that number is still way too high. Also, we can directly attribute more deaths to Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot than any combination of capitalist leaders.
The billion is made up, but "capitalism has killed 1.6 people" just doesn't sound as impressive.
Your video is stupid. It double counts and recursively defines things. It uses unreliably large estimates, defines capitalism too broadly, and lies outright.
Capitalism and free markets reduced worldwide starvation by 70% in the last 30-40 years.
The kulaks deserved to die.
Maybe 1.6 billion is exaggerated, but the profit motive has certainly killed many people in the course of history.
Yes, but the profit motive is part of human nature, not part of capitalism. Additionally, capitalism turns that profit motive to good, and has been ending starvation all across the globe.
70% in 40 years, DW. Free markets are feeding the starving and saving lives by the millions. Lives that communism and socialism put in jeopardy in the first place.
I understand that 1.6 billion is exaggerated. Exaggeration is necessary for a liberal to make a point 😜
You don't do things selflessly, or are all of your actions just to look out for yourself?
This number seems like bullshit, you should provide a source. But socialism has lifted millions of workers in the third world out of starvation.
Socialism works for a short time. It is no solution.
It worked for a long time in many places. Russia, Cuba, Albania, Yugoslavia, East Germany, etc. Too bad it didn't last in east Asia, they succumbed to capitalism...
I feel bad for people like you that are socialists. You have such a disdain for capitalism and yet capitalism has so many benefits.
No it doesn't.
Well I have to heavily disagree with you on that.
Socialism can keep people from going into starvation, but what is the incentive for self-improvement?
Self-improvement? The same as it is in any society, the desire to better one's self.
Look on my numbers ye communist and despair:
This comes almost exclusively from the replacement of socialist, communist, and Marxist economic practices with capitalist practices.
Socialism feeds the poor, but unfortunately it's going to keep them there.
Socialism is about the collective instead of the individual.
The strive for excellence is secondary to the collective.
Socialism isn't about the suppression of the individual in order to strengthen the collective. Just like all things, it should be a balance.
Socialism does suppressed individual. Take a look at the nations that are known for socialism. I take a look at Russia and China for instance. Russia is known for its powerful government. The people are not known to be very powerful at all. People brag about the Chinese but only some rise up and those are select some. They are essentially chosen. Unfortunately, socialism also requires high taxes.
With capitalism with a limited social safety net, people live as they choose to and can accumulate they desire to. Capitalism does not require high taxes.
Russia, at least in the early years, was a vibrant democracy. China was never fully socialist. The revolutionary government was full of capitalists. They ran the country essentially from the day Mao died till today, and even in times when the expelled Mao from the government.
Unfortunately the socialist aspect of those countries made it crippling.
How would you make America a sustainable socialist country?
It's only real socialism until it fails. Then it was never real socialism!
@Doopy are you saying true socialism doesn't fail?
What do you mean that those nations were crippling?
I'm saying no true Scotsman allows socialism to fail.
I cannot agree with you on that.
I would say no true Scotsman would allow socialism 😜
Please tell me how to implement socialism in a sustainable way in America.
Are you unfamiliar with the No True Scotsman fallacy?
I looked it up but I'm really not interested in splitting hairs.
The basic idea is that you disqualify from evidence any examples that show socialism failing.
Can you tell me how to make socialism work in America?
The standard of living in the United States is artificially inflated through imperialism, so I doubt American workers would be willing to meaningfully change the system.
At least we agree that the country is artificially inflated. Unfortunately, adjusting it would be a shock to the system.
The system needs a shock, don't you think? The imperialist system has got to end
I don't think the system needs a shock. I would like to see the system corrected without being shocked.
I think global inequality is a big deal. The occidental standard of living needs a shock.
No two ways about it, DW, that's just terrible policy. Economics is not a zero sum game. By lowering the quality of life for the richest, you don't raise the overall quality of life—you lower it.
Wealth equality is not a good in and of itself, and socialism brings equality in misery.
Can you provide some details as to how you would fix the system in America?
I'd like to relaunch American agriculture programs to make us less dependent on the agriculture from third world countries, so that they can actually feed themselves. I would end all military intervention, only using it for the sake of self defense. I would like to see institutions like the WTO and the IMF to be abolished, as they are primary tools by which the west wages economic warfare on the third world, forcing them to adopt pro-business policies in order to receive international trade, etc. for their hungry people. I would prohibit the UN or the US from imposing sanctions against any nation.
I largely agree with that.
The heavy irony about this is that when you are suggesting is not socialism.
I thought you were an Obama supporter if memory served me correctly. Obama would not support what you just proposed.
Well that in itself is not socialism, but ending the oppression of the third world by the first world is the greatest form of inequality. Once imperialism is ended the various proletariats of the world can unite in solidarity against the bourgeoisie and lift up their chains.
Haha I'm no Obama supporter. He's a bourgeois imperialist like all the other politicians.
This is why I like Donald Trump. He is putting America first. We have not had that in a long time.
We need the government to back off and cut ties with the corporations. Those ties are corporatism. We need to do that and let the free market flourish.
I don't want to put America first. Imperialism is in America's interests. I want to put the third world first, and the first step is to stop exploiting their resources for our artificially high standard of living. First world proletarian "revolutionaries" aren't particularly revolutionary, because they only really focus on the domestic class struggle, ignoring the international class struggle. In this international class struggle. The western proletariat is of higher class than the third world proletariat. Some change needs to happen in the culture or among the rhetoric of so-called revolutionaries, because otherwise the western proletariat won't abandon their high standard of living to liberate the rest of the proletariat.
Since this cultural change is likely impossible at this point, I believe the third world needs to wage wars of national liberation from imperialism, and liberated nations need to create their own economic blocs and wage an economic war on the west.
I think we need to strengthen America before we can help other nations. That is what putting America first is about.
What good are we helping other nations, if we can't help ourselves?
America is already strong. That's how it maintains the largest empire in history. America needs to be weakened so that it stops exploiting almost the entire world. The only way it'll be weakened is through third world resistance, both militarily and economically.
What country do you live in?
You don't seem to talk like an American.
American is nothing more than my legal status. I don't believe in so-called American values.
You make that quite apparent.
I, on the other hand, am a patriot that cares about my country.
Why are you in America?
I was born here, and the opportunity hasn't arisen for me to leave yet. But if I'm in any first world country I'm gonna have the same opinion. One day I'd like to move to a third world country and participate in resistance, but that opportunity has also not shown itself.
I am not a fan of un-American attitudes or mentalities.
So long as you want this country to weaken, we will not be on the same page.
I never anticipated being on the same page 😅 in fact I already conceded that even the United States' working class isn't particularly anti-imperialist, which is why I think third world resistance is the only viable option at this point.
Well you can count on me not standing with you on any agenda against the United States.
What you are saying sounds almost like terrorism.
It's terrorism to fight against an invading army, or to wage an economic war against nations, something the United States does often? Sanctions on Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
If it's terrorism for the third world to do it, I'll be waiting for you to condemn the US and the U.K. and France, etc as terrorist nations.
It is terrorism to desire harm to innocent people which is what you are suggesting.
Which innocent people have I suggested it's okay to harm?
Crippling the United States means harming innocent people. But what do you care. You don't even like the United States.
Your banner says Islamic Marxist. At least you're not being a hypocrite.
Crippling the American state is not the same as crippling the American people. I don't want genocide against the American people or anything like that. Military resistance against invading armies, economic resistance against the nation. That's not terrorism.
I'm still waiting for your condemnation of western nations as terrorists.
I will condemn you for wanting to weaken my country. That's what ISIS wants to do.
Don't be dramatic, I don't support any of the various manifestations of Islamic fundamentalism.
I am not being dramatic.
You are condoning harm to my country and I cannot condone that.
So I support terrorism because I "condone harm to your country" but you don't support terrorism if you support harm to anyone else's country? Afghanistan, Korea, Syria, etc. If you advocate any harm being done to any of these countries, then you're a terrorist. Right?
How's the wife and kids?
Asking about your wife and kids is funny? Ok lol
Got no wife or kids 😉
I am guessing you're a fairly young guy?
So you are quite young.
On the younger end yeah haha
I was very different at your age compared to who I am now.
That's normal, but that doesn't make my ideas wrong.
I am saying that you are an idealist that has a lot to learn.
I know what you're saying, I find it condescending and logically fallacious.
You can declare whatever you want about what I said. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. I have been on this planet more than twice as long as you have.
Maybe you should stop acting like a teenager and realize that someone who's older than you might actually know more than you.
I respect people older than me more than you would care to acknowledge. I just don't care for condescension. Stop acting like your age gives you the warrant to dismiss my argument.
Except for those that disagree with you.
Again, false. Most of my family are Republican sympathizers. I respect their views, especially those who can defend their views, as long as they don't resort to the logical fallacy of assuming that your age makes you more right. I'm sure you've heard of the expression that wisdom comes from the mouths of children? I thought you'd be one of the better ones who wouldn't resort to condescension. Too bad.
You are an interesting one.
Wisdom comes from the mouth of children?
I am more inclined go to my elders for wisdom and then to rely on children for wisdom. Children have very little experience in this life compared to the elders. I am done going back-and-forth with a teenager.
Have a nice day.
America is the greatest good this planet has ever experienced in the form of a nation.
The left has cultivated a fear that the free market will allow capitalists to rule the world.
They already do!!!
We need actual free market capitalism, not crony capitalism.
There's a difference?
There's moral communism?
Gunfighter, that's a no true Scotsman argument. Every time capitalism has been tried, it turns into cronyism, because those who own the means of production own the state.
No its not a no true scotsman because corporatism isn't a form of capitalism as it involves government subsidies to businesses and is actually not a free market (in this way, corporatism is actually closer to socialism than to capitalism).
Corporatism is a form of capitalism, just not your preferred form. And every time this "free market" utopia is tried, it turns into corporatism. It only works in the theoretical.
Also, if you're allowed to make this argument, you better stop accusing socialists and communists of making a no true Scotsman argument if they denounce certain examples of socialism.
Not enough. Socialism is for the weak while capitalism is for the strong.
Keep telling yourself that buddy. Both capitalism and socialism are flawed.
Too reliant. My preference is a market-based system that incorporates the reward structure of capitalism but doesn't allow anyone to fall through the cracks.
Everyone gets a trophy!
Yeah, cuz not letting people starve is the same as giving trophies to little kids who suck at sports.
I'm all for a safety net so people don't starve, but so is almost everyone. The ones who harp on 'not falling through the cracks' usually want to go way beyond a safety net
45 million Americans are living below the poverty line, 20% of households with children face food insecurity, 11% of adults still don't have health insurance. Our safety net is clearly inadequate.
So how do you keep anyone from "falling thru the cracks"???
I think he meant keep them from smoking crack
And Obama phones are part of that Safetynet.
Maybe free unicorns while we're at it?
What is the poverty line?
Those same people below the poverty line have cell phones, cable television, heat, electricity, hot and cold running water, automobiles and a guaranteed income regardless of their work output.
The "poverty line" in the US is the upper class in the majority of nations in the vaunted and venerated UN.
11% of American still don't have health insurance so that is roughly 40 million - so after trillions spent on Obamacare the net output was what - reducing the uninsured by 12 million leaving 40 million still uninsured?
And people are going to die because of a Trump budget cut?
They were not going to die from Obamacare - those 40 million were okay under Obama but under Trump they will die?
You can't make this stuff up - it has become way too easy to debunk the lefties.
Oh shit. We have no idea what we're doing. Lol
Even the poorest Americans are still in like the top 5% globally. A much more important issue is ending imperialism.
I agree DW 👍
About right. Not enough free trade, not enough health, social and environmental safeguards.
82% of democrats???? Jesus Christ....
? Social democracy is still capitalism, which is what the Democratic party seems to be shifting towards.
More like neutered capitalism
The Democrats are shifting towards what Venezuela has.
Funny joke lol. If only the Dems did that.
Waaaay too much.
Wow, you must be really far to the left. We are so over regulated by the Government now.
Oh yes, the poor corporations deserve to be free! The tyrannical government is restricting human rights by not letting corporations enslave their workers!
On yet another poll question Democrats show themselves to be cluelessly out of touch and out of sync.
How to debate like a republican.
Step 1: disagree with their point of view
Step 2: insult opponent
Step 3: never support what you say
*important always degrade anyone with an opposing view
To be fair, its not just republicans that do that, its most people with any belief ever XD
How to celebrate like a Democrat:
Step 1 - call opponents Nazis
Step 2 -call opponenents genocide enablers and neaderthals
Step 3 - riot and burn down property
Step 4 - shut down free speech
Step 5 - celebrate your inclusiveness
Step 6 - lose elections
Step 7 - blame everyone else
Step 7 - repeat as neccessary
Again, I say, yes and no, u aren't wrong but republicans have their own stupid way of doing things too. :P You aren't entirely wrong tho XD
Republicans: We love our Christian faith. Fuck poor people and the most vulnerable. Jesus taught us to use a gun and ignore the poor since it's their fault! Derkerder!
I see the humor and elements of truth but like most of the comments in this thread one sided and not very accurate overall :P
Bobby ... if only you were right, it might justify being a hypocritical leftist. Nope, there's simply no excuse ... and your irrational and inaccurate view of Christians is wrong to boot. It's just not your year, is it.
Oh boy time to watch the most irrational of all arguments transpire, the ________ political perspective is so much dumber because they are dumber argument :P hope and bobby have fun with that XD
Need to try some free market principles in health care - costs are completely out of control as a result of decades of governmental interference and from linking health insurance with employment.
No they're too high from lack of regulation greed, they are what caused these high prices. You take something like medical care, something we all need to live, then unregulate it and put greedy people in charge then they charge whatever they want because people will pay anything they can to stay alive. Remember what happened to that aids drug not too long ago? Thats a result of capitalism not too much regulation.
I wish people were kind enough and could be trusted enough to have a free market and I wish it worked like all the supporters of it say it will but it never has and never will, the human element makes it flawed. We need regulation
It nearly enough. There are far too many prohibitions/restrictions/regulations against what people can legally do with their own property and money.
Too much. Human health should not be on the market.
By far the greatest health advances of the past 100 years (actually the past 100,000,000 years) have come from the modern pharmaceutical industry. The vast majority of these have been the fruit of Capitalism because Capitalism incentives people to bust their butts to do the research required.
The most recent data I have seen shows that the US still annually develops 90%+ of the new drugs. As for biomedical research papers, the US far out produces the next 5 countries. To find a non-capitalist nation producing bio-medical research you have to go all the way to #12 on the list China (And who here believes that China now is anything other than a thoroughly Capitalistic country?)
Other than weapons and indusrialized death camps, who can list 5 significant modern technological advancements produced by a Socialist/Comunist nation?
Come on - Socialists of SOH stand up for yourselves: Put together a list of life enhancing technological advancements created by Socialists or Comunists.
It absolutely should. Social Darwinism has considerably lengthened the average lifespan of humans as a whole.
Wrong....good sanitation practices are the primary reason we have a longer life expectancy! You've bought the big Pharm and industrialized medicine crap
Wrong. Social Darwinism breeds out the lazy genes by denying lazy people access to healthcare.
@sickofit - In the so called 1st World (aka Capitalist World) increased life expectancies were driven during the 19th and early 20th century by improved sanitation. But those benefits were mostly in place by the 1920's. Thereafter increases were driven mostly improved drugs. Prontosil, the first of the sulphidimide antibiotics was developed by the very capitalist IGFarbin in the early 1930's. Penicilin came into common usage in 1942. Since then Big Pharma has saved even more people than Big Socialism (between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, PolPot, Saddam, the KimDynasty, etc.) has murdered.
Granted, the non-First World is running behind the 1st World in gaining the humongous health benefits of Capitalism, but the closer they are to Capitalism the sooner they do get it.
Also - I don't yet see a list of even 1 life enhancing developement arising out of Socialism.
Come on SOH Socialists - let's get that list going.
I'll start with item 1 on the list - the Nazis (aka National Socialists) developed the jet airplane. (But only so that they could better murder people.)
Capitalism needs a better PR guy. If someone skins their knee, capitalism is blamed. It's gotten pretty ridiculous
Free market capitalist principles are fine but we don't have that in the US. We have a corrupted form of capitalism that is the antithesis of a free market. Our Defense Industry, Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies along with our banks and financial institutions have thoroughly corrupted our government. They have literally written the legislation that gives them license to steal from the American taxpayers.
Corporations are our version of big brother!!!!
Because they are in bed with the Government. It is called Crony Capitalism and that is part of Socialism.
Idk, irrelevant to anything.
Obviously not enough. There's too much Marxism coming from the Republicans.
Ha ha ha no.
You don't even know that Barry Soetoro, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are out of the closet Marxists, so what would you know about Marxism? 🙄
They're not, you twit. There is a colossal gap between Marxism and neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is the OPPOSITE of Marxism. Marxism is far-left, neoliberalism is far-right.
That you for proving my point.
I have to agree with commie, even tho I am more right leaning, it still annoys me when other rightists like republicans or conservatives say "The left is communist" or "the left is Marxist". Most American left wing people would not be tolerated by a Marx or a Lenin. All us Americans are "Kulaks" :P
It's just a fact that the Democrat Party's playbook contains the ten pillars of Marxism. And some RINOs too.
I can't speak to that specifically, but I can say with certainty, as I am currently taking a comprehensive course in the history of the Soviet Union that social democrats and leftist capitalists were viewed as enemy's by the bolsheviks just like rightist capitalists. While I can see slight similarities American democrats aren't nearly as left as the bolsheviks and those striving for a true communist system.
Well I can speak about because I've been studying the Communists almost my whole life since the 80s.
Right, hotshot. You can't prove that, and I doubt that it's true (since you dub anybody who disagrees with you, such as the May Day protesters and liberals, communists).
I prove it every day here. Have been since 2011.
You've been hating commies since the red scare! Cowboy are you in your 30s? I thought you were in your 50s.
We really had the Communists on the run then. Those were good days for America. 🇺🇸
Even Democrats loved Reagan. Those days are sadly gone though.
Haha no. You're an idiot.
You're a Communist that hates American values. Your opinion means nothing to me.
Well this thread went down hill real fast! XD
That often happens with Godless Communists on this app and in real life.
That's not a one sided statement that clearly does not show an us vs them mentality! Nope, doesn't do that at all! XD (note heavy use of sarcasm :P)
As an American you should be against Communists. I know your Commie professor probably hates Joseph McCarthy and Ronald Reagan, so you're only getting one side of the coin there.
Earth to Cowboy. It says "religious" right in my name. I'm not "godless" in any sense of the word.
What kind of drugs are you on?
Worshipping Stalin and Lenin doesn't make you religious. 🙄
I think both of those people were terrible, and it refers to Catholicism.
Ok Commie. 🙄
People are too reliant on government.
US and free market don't belong in the same sentence. We have nothing even close to a free market.
We have a very 'free' market smh. And that's the sad part.
You're kidding right
I mean, the bureaucracy isn't quite to oppressive "left communism" levels so it might seem free from leftist crazy land where you live but it's anything but.
A total free market is impossible
Lol, a libertarian criticizes another libertarian philosophy for being authoritarian.
The free market is the epitome of all oppression.