Infowars Interviews a Socialist - "You people have worms in your brains."

[ivwshane]

Was that really necessary? Is it impossible for you guys to drive a point home without some sort of jab? Is this how you all operate out in the real world?

By the way, he didn't straw man you. Far left ideology is what leads to dictatorship.

Yes, you fucking tool, any extreme ideology can lead to a dictatorship. I'm not sure why you thought it prudent to limit it to the far left. And yes, he, as well as you, continue to straw man. No one who has pointed to socialism as a policy or as an example of how things can be has pointed to extremes in the ideology.

Now if you want to claim that socialist countries like Sweden, Germany, etc, will lead to a dictatorship by all means back it up buttercup.

 

[tygeezy]

Sorry, have to add this here. Both far left and far right leads to authoritarian-type governments. Assuming conservatism and liberalism here. If you mean right as in libertarian then you have a point that it doesn't lead to dictatorship, but I'm not convinced a true libertarian government is sustainable.

Authoritarianism is on the left. The further you go to the right the less government thus less authoritarianism. It's popular to say that the Nazi's and Italians were far right dictatorships, but they have way more in common with the far left. The National Socialist Workers Party. Mussolini was a socialist.

 

[tygeezy]

Yes, you fucking tool, any extreme ideology can lead to a dictatorship. I'm not sure why you thought it prudent to limit it to the far left. And yes, he, as well as you, continue to straw man. No one who has pointed to socialism as a policy or as an example of how things can be has pointed to extremes in the ideology.

Now if you want to claim that socialist countries like Sweden, Germany, etc, will lead to a dictatorship by all means back it up buttercup.

Now, try and do it without adding insults. You're doing quite well on your own without being a jerk. It's like a inedible garnish on an otherwise good entree.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

Authoritarianism is on the left. The further you go to the right the less government thus less authoritarianism. It's popular to say that the Nazi's and Italians were far right dictatorships, but they have way more in common with the far left. The National Socialist Workers Party. Mussolini was a socialist.

Holy hell man do you not remember history classes? Conservatism (as in going back to previous policy) leads to authoritarian governments just as easily. Also Nazis were no where close to socialists. They didn't try to redistribute anything, they focused on extreme xenophobia and the lost glory of past Germany. They never welcomed immigrants or worked for socialized healthcare or education, not at all a leftist (progressive) government.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Authoritarianism is on the left. The further you go to the right the less government thus less authoritarianism. It's popular to say that the Nazi's and Italians were far right dictatorships, but they have way more in common with the far left. The National Socialist Workers Party. Mussolini was a socialist.

Bullshit. Pure and simple. No matter how many times dishonest folks like you tell that lie the fact remains, fascism/nazis are about as right wing as it gets. This is one lie that you guys really aren't allowed to get away with.

 

[UberNeuman]

ah, it's like the Turd Factory cranked out a new one. lol.

 

[ivwshane]

Now, try and do it without adding insults. You're doing quite well on your own without being a jerk. It's like a inedible garnish on an otherwise good entree.

Sorry bitch, if you aren't capable of reading past bullshit then you aren't capable of saying anything that's not bullshit.

 

[Blackjack200]

The insults keep rolling, but the discussion has halted. This is a very bad look you're giving to fellow liberals and this message board that you resort to insults and ad hominem attacks because you lack the ability to argue in good faith.

Edit:

So very interested in what you have to say and hope to engage in a meaningful and vigorous debate when you get back from your job at the dick sucking factory.

 

[tygeezy]

Sorry bitch, if you aren't capable of reading past bullshit then you aren't capable of saying anything that's not bullshit.

There doesn't appear to be any logic to your conclusion Mr. Tough guy. So is this how you speak to people in person over a disagreement? Do you call them a bitch? I'm sure that would go over well.

 

[Jaskalas]

His point seemed to be that Socialism may give a short term bump when money is taken from the top, but ultimately it damages long term growth, and that Venezuela is an example of this. Capitalism is inherently mutually exclusive to what was done there. The economic systems that support what was done there are Socialism and Communism.

The fundamental principle under Socialism is that profits are inefficient and thus taking that waste and giving it back to the people helps society. It was founded on the idea that individualism was insufficient in addressing problems like poverty. That is what Hugo C. used to justify what he did. It seems like your questions were all answered.

First, one needs to understand and appreciate income inequality. The point is not that poor people have less. It is that today, poor people have MUCH less than poor people had 10,20,30, 40 years ago. You can trace that decline back to the late 1970s. An old adage is that you could have supported a family while pumping gas at a gas station. The principled notion being, that our labor is worth less than it was, and that it will be worth even less in the future.

Second, speaking of that, we need to examine the popular scapegoats of NAFTA and China. Why did they happen? Capitalism is driven by efficiency. It will evolve and find the best way to reduce or eliminate labor. Cheaper to build things in Mexico and/or overseas than it is here at home. That is the rule, less labor the better. Jobs have also been automated out of existence since, well... forever. With the furthest example I can think of being when John Deere improved the plow.

What I strive to explain is a simple truth. Capitalism is evolving and in that evolution it will devour itself. By eliminating labor, and thus its own consumers from the equation. The booming Middle Class which defined American exceptionalism is a dying relic of a bygone era, and solutions need to recognize the strengths of that era, and how our economy declined.

It's the jobs. You cannot get paid the same value for the same job today, as you would have been paid in the 1950s. Minimum Wage would be well north of $20/hr if we wanted the American consumer to keep pace with these economic changes. But that price for labor could no longer function in today's economy. It is not competitive. And so by the very laws of Capitalism, alone, we will be destroyed.

Then we look for solutions. Again, based on the exceptional American Middle Class of the mid-20th-century, we know that Americans prosper if income inequality is at a lower threshold. We also know that Capitalism alone is logically going to force us in the wrong direction. How, then, do we make America great again? Our consumers need to have their lost wages restored. Employment alone will not, and cannot, do it.

Far as I am aware, there is but one solution. We tax our productivity and return that lost value back to our consumers as Basic Income. We protect and ensure Capitalism's future by installing a safety net today. A minimum floor to which everyone may contribute as a consumer regardless of their situation, and people gain the security and peace of mind to make long term decisions that best benefit them. The concept is entirely market based, I love the economy freedom of Capitalism, it just requires that we plug the vacuum sucking literally everything up into the gaping maw of Wall Street. They cannot be allowed to suck the rest of the country dry of our economic lifeblood, but that is exactly what will occur if we sit idly by and do nothing.

As for us, we need to stop this mindless rancor over purity of Capitalism, recognize the danger we face, and work together to solve it.

 

[realibrad]

Now unless you are trying to straw man the argument (shit, that's sooo unlike you/s), comparing dictatorships to actual countries those that espouse socialism point to as examples, your definition is wrong.

Are you saying only dictators nationalize industries, or are you saying that socialism dies not see profits as inefficient and thus nationalizes industry to reduce the waste of profits?

 

[Bubbleawsome]

Any response?

 

[realibrad]

First, one needs to understand and appreciate income inequality. The point is not that poor people have less. It is that today, poor people have MUCH less than poor people had 10,20,30, 40 years ago. You can trace that decline back to the late 1970s. An old adage is that you could have supported a family while pumping gas at a gas station. The principled notion being, that our labor is worth less than it was, and that it will be worth even less in the future.

No. Poor people today (in the west) have far more than they had 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. I think what you mean to say is that the own a lower percentage of the wealth. Saying they own less of the wealth as a percentage is vastly different than they have less today than before. Poor people today have a massively higher standard of living.

Average home is larger.
Average car is bigger and has more features.
People have more things in their house.
People have more things in general which is what its all about in terms of what a system can do. Happiness is outside of those systems.

What you are seeing is a higher global competition for wages. Post WWII the us was the only place to really do business and as such could command much higher wages to do just about anything. That is over as the world has caught up and recovered.

Second, speaking of that, we need to examine the popular scapegoats of NAFTA and China. Why did they happen? Capitalism is driven by efficiency. It will evolve and find the best way to reduce or eliminate labor. Cheaper to build things in Mexico and/or overseas than it is here at home. That is the rule, less labor the better. Jobs have also been automated out of existence since, well... forever. With the furthest example I can think of being when John Deere improved the plow.

What I strive to explain is a simple truth. Capitalism is evolving and in that evolution it will devour itself. By eliminating labor, and thus its own consumers from the equation. The booming Middle Class which defined American exceptionalism is a dying relic of a bygone era, and solutions need to recognize the strengths of that era, and how our economy declined.

It's the jobs. You cannot get paid the same value for the same job today, as you would have been paid in the 1950s. Minimum Wage would be well north of $20/hr if we wanted the American consumer to keep pace with these economic changes. But that price for labor could no longer function in today's economy. It is not competitive. And so by the very laws of Capitalism, alone, we will be destroyed.

Then we look for solutions. Again, based on the exceptional American Middle Class of the mid-20th-century, we know that Americans prosper if income inequality is at a lower threshold. We also know that Capitalism alone is logically going to force us in the wrong direction. How, then, do we make America great again? Our consumers need to have their lost wages restored. Employment alone will not, and cannot, do it.

Far as I am aware, there is but one solution. We tax our productivity and return that lost value back to our consumers as Basic Income. We protect and ensure Capitalism's future by installing a safety net today. A minimum floor to which everyone may contribute as a consumer regardless of their situation, and people gain the security and peace of mind to make long term decisions that best benefit them. The concept is entirely market based, I love the economy freedom of Capitalism, it just requires that we plug the vacuum sucking literally everything up into the gaping maw of Wall Street. They cannot be allowed to suck the rest of the country dry of our economic lifeblood, but that is exactly what will occur if we sit idly by and do nothing.

As for us, we need to stop this mindless rancor over purity of Capitalism, recognize the danger we face, and work together to solve it.

Capitalism does not have the goal of reducing labor, it has the goal of reducing costs to maximize profits. People are losing jobs to two main things. First is other people who are willing to do the work for much less. Second is machines. The first will also lose to the 2nd in the end. That is a totally different discussion to have though. Socialism and Communism will not solve any of that though.

 

[realibrad]

Holy hell man do you not remember history classes? Conservatism (as in going back to previous policy) leads to authoritarian governments just as easily. Also Nazis were no where close to socialists. They didn't try to redistribute anything, they focused on extreme xenophobia and the lost glory of past Germany. They never welcomed immigrants or worked for socialized healthcare or education, not at all a leftist (progressive) government.

That is incorrect. They were very much socialists, it was just that they were also very much racists. The economy was controlled by the state as much as possible. Industry was greatly nationalized. You are confusing that today, socialists focus on the poor and the poor are generally minorities. But, if you had racist socialists you would have the same thing as that the Nazis did. There is nothing mutually exclusive to Nazis and Socialists.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Infowars? Lulz

 

[Bubbleawsome]

That is incorrect. They were very much socialists, it was just that they were also very much racists. The economy was controlled by the state as much as possible. Industry was greatly nationalized. You are confusing that today, socialists focus on the poor and the poor are generally minorities. But, if you had racist socialists you would have the same thing as that the Nazis did. There is nothing mutually exclusive to Nazis and Socialists.

The economy being controlled by the state simply means they were authoritarian. Socialism would require some form of redistribution of wealth, which I'm fairly sure the Nazis never implemented.

 

[ivwshane]

There doesn't appear to be any logic to your conclusion Mr. Tough guy. So is this how you speak to people in person over a disagreement? Do you call them a bitch? I'm sure that would go over well.

I'm just waiting for you to address a single point anyone has made.

I know a troll when I see one and you are a troll. Prove me wrong.

 

[ivwshane]

The economy being controlled by the state simply means they were authoritarian. Socialism would require some form of redistribution of wealth, which I'm fairly sure the Nazis never implemented.

But socialist was in their title!!!




/s

 

[tygeezy]

I'm just waiting for you to address a single point anyone has made.

I know a troll when I see one and you are a troll. Prove me wrong.

I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. My past presentation in this thread should be evidence enough that i've attempted good faith discussion.

Moving on...

 

[Bubbleawsome]

I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you. My past presentation in this thread should be evidence enough that i've attempted good faith discussion.

Moving on...

I'll be honest I'd appreciate a response to my initial post.

 

[tygeezy]

The economy being controlled by the state simply means they were authoritarian. Socialism would require some form of redistribution of wealth, which I'm fairly sure the Nazis never implemented.

The Nazis took and redistributed wealth of Jews who were 1 %s over there. That sounds familiar doesn't it?

 

[Victorian Gray]

That is incorrect. They were very much socialists, it was just that they were also very much racists. The economy was controlled by the state as much as possible. Industry was greatly nationalized. You are confusing that today, socialists focus on the poor and the poor are generally minorities. But, if you had racist socialists you would have the same thing as that the Nazis did. There is nothing mutually exclusive to Nazis and Socialists.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.What the fuck is it with people and fucking history these days. The Nazis were *not* socialists. The right has been running from the nazis since ww2 and it's fucking disgusting how much success they've had in the decades since. Educate yourself using something other than Wikipedia because this crap stinks to the heavens.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

The Nazis took and redistributed wealth of Jews who were 1 %s over there. That sounds familiar doesn't it?

Ok so I see what you're saying, but first off the Jewish population wasn't the 1% of Germany in that time, and they didn't take their money because they had it. They took it because they viewed it as stolen from the Aryan Germans. A really shaky analogy to today would be to take all the money from Hispanics here, because of the fear that they take jobs. Sure, you're taking money from some really rich people, but that's not really why you're doing it.
Did the Germans take from the true 1% and spread it to the lower classes? Not that I know of.

Also the point I wanted you to argue is that socialized medicine is bad. You kinda left that one off.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The Nazis took and redistributed wealth of Jews who were 1 %s over there. That sounds familiar doesn't it?

Oh fuck off with this shit.

 

[realibrad]

The economy being controlled by the state simply means they were authoritarian. Socialism would require some form of redistribution of wealth, which I'm fairly sure the Nazis never implemented.

Wrong again. You are viewing it from the perspective of how its often pitched today. Socialism in fact does not require redistribution of wealth to the poor. Its simply that the means of production including profits are controlled by the state. You do not know what you are talking about.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism