Poll of the Day > Socialism works

(+) Yeah! (+)

Change my mind

---

Here's tree fiddy.

---

If you're so in favour of socialism, why don't you change OUR minds

Sounds like you prefer individualism with this MY mind business

So much for collectivism

Checkmate liberals

---

faramir77 posted...

If you're so in favour of socialism, why don't you change OUR minds

I already did

---

wear your mask

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snMDGOsziPA&ab_channel=Red-BloodedAmerica

---

captainjeff87 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snMDGOsziPA&ab_channel=Red-BloodedAmerica

Zaire?

When the fuck was this made lol

---

FatalAccident posted...

When the f*** was this made lol

The original clip? The 90s.

---

America will always have capitalism. It's the center of it, after all.

---

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

--- Churchill
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

--- Churchill

I cant believe Gary Oldman said that

---

Mead posted...

I cant believe Gary Oldman said that

I'm pretty sure it was John Lithgow

---

The downfall of socialism is limited resources combined with corruption. The more resources that are available, the more corruption it takes to destroy socialism and create a negative society.

Technology inherently makes socialism more successful, until eventually everyone should be able to live extremely good lives under a socialist society. At this time, in the US, socialism could increase the standard of living of a majority of citizens without negatively affecting almost anyone.

As robots and machines take over much of the menial work force, socialism is going to become almost mandatory, as a work based society will no longer make sense. The current most wealthy of the population will fight this as long as possible, because what is wealth if everyone has it (to them).

Capitalism is doomed down the road unless it is forced apon the people despite technological advances that could make it pointless. Due to wide spread education and information exchange, this is highly unlikely to happen as the masses will notice and not put up with it.

---

The dumbest people always point to how socialism affects non-Western countries. Obviously places like Russia, China, and Venezuela are going to handle it differently than Scandinavia or Canada, etc. The analogy of "America would end up like (insert failed third-world state here)" is so fucking moronic that opinion should include a warning label that the holder of it causes brain damage. A developed, free market, democratic nation with long-standing institutions is not going to end up the same as a place that just shed its status as a colony in the 1970s or sprung up from the ashes of a revolt in an authoritarian state. Anyone that wants to "ackshully" at that point is intellectually incapable of discussing the matter properly, as they're bringing a blade of grass to a knife fight.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

--- Churchill

POs back lol

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

--- Churchill

Churchill had some fantastic quotes. One from 1933 that aged like milk? "Thank god for the French army!" Oof. The one with that woman (Lady Astor?) saying "if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea" only for him to reply with "if you were my wife, I'd drink it." Or "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

I may be drunk, but tomorrow I will be sober, and you will still be ugly.

---

Raddest_Chad posted...

Or "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

"Democracy is the worst form of government... except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
---

socialism works good, now enforce it so only your citizens receive it


---

Step 1: Are you in favour of euthanizing the poor, feeble, invalid, etc
Step 2: Ifnot, what methods do you propose to protect them?
Step 3: If nothing, see Step 1

---

Lokarin posted...

Step 1: Are you in favour of euthanizing the poor, feeble, invalid, etc
Step 2: Ifnot, what methods do you propose to protect them?
Step 3: If nothing, see Step 1

No

The same methods already used to protect people and their rights

---

I won't change your mind. However, I will say that there needs to be balance.

Societies tend to get violent, collapse, rebel, and so forth when the lowest class of society reaches the point where they are want for even basic needs such as food and shelter despite efforts at jobs and such.

Socialism should be present to such a state that it prevents this from happening, even in light of the usual corporate greed. Oh, rampant capitalism should have limits to what they can do too, of course (otherwise they will do everything they can get away with to make profit), but you can't over-restrict them and still expect people to actually be able to succeed at something new. Socialism is a method to protect the ability to succeed, while giving a safety net that doesn't directly interfere with this.

Naturally, socialism can be taken too far too. If taken too far, then there becomes no point in working anymore, and thus you stagnate your society/nation/etc. Not taken far enough though, and it becomes a big issue.

Simple access to shelter, food, water, and enough power/energy for basic needs (and at least a restricted internet access to such a degree that you can use it to look for work) is effectively what should be a universal thing. If you want something more, then work and get money for your entertainment, your more comfortable beds, your fancier houses, and so forth. And there should be nothing preventing you from being able to do better and progress in the world if you wish to. But a baseline degree of living really should be gauranteed at this point. And nothing more than this.

People must WANT to do better, or else they will not.
.


---

Sephiroth C Ryu posted...

However, I will say that there needs to be balance.

for sure

absolutism gets us to the situation that were in nowadays

---

I don't see what's wrong with a hybrid system.

---

Judgmenl posted...

I don't see what's wrong with a hybrid system.

Most level-headed people will prefer such a system too. Its kinda actually why we have a system multiple branches of government and such.

But people have a predisposition to start fearing the worst outcomes of if any part of that system gets too strong. And hey, that is built into our original system too, with checks and balances, and having the active formal military mostly outside the internal leadership roles (that is in part due to the military being a bit of a later add-on after it soon turned out that militia is not enough to protect a nation, but the point is that at that time they still limited how much the military is part of the government).
.

---