ForumsWEPRLeft wing economics

134 18565
thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

Everyone that I know who calls themselves a "Socialist" or "Communist" is an extreme hypocrite. A simple definition of Socialism is where âproperty and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.â Socialism also calls for Workerâs Councils to take over the means of production. It is a working class movement. I can respect an organized working class. I am going to be a teacher in the future and will make crap for a salary. But that is my choice. Capitalism gives me equal opportunity to pick my career. I could have been an engineer making at least $50K first year. But because of Capitalism, I have a choice. And I decided to become a teacher. I believe in the Capitalist system because it makes people work for their money. Socialism is an oppressive system that tries to stop the natural order of economics.

Something I have seen lately is the number of âSocialistsâ who have appeared amongst the youth of America. Are they here to go against their parents? Maybe. Every generation has children who do not agree with their parents. Are they here to start a revolution? Possibly... All generations have their âwanna-be revolutionaries.â Or are they here because they want to stir things up? This is what I think they are after. From what I have seen the average left-economist has been a spoiled, rich, drugged up, white kid who wants to rebel against society.

All of my friends who claim to have left-wing economic values are all white and are from wealthy families. I find it a bit weird that they continually talk about how the "white race" oppresses everyone. Even as they argue this, they continually do things to bring down the working class and minorities.

One of my college friends who labels himself as a âleftist socialist revolutionaryâ grows marijuana and sells it for a huge profit. I noticed most of his customers were of ethnic minorities as well. When I asked how this was compatible with Socialism and racial equality, he ignored me at first. He later explained that marijuana was a symbol for the leftist movement. He never explained how selling it for huge profits was compatible with his beliefs though. I continued to press him on the issue, and all he could come up with was âIâm spreading the love equally like Socialism calls for!â His hypocrisy was so evident that I did not even have to continue questioning him.

Another friend of mine who claims Socialism is the greatest thing ever continuously shops at Wal-Mart, a massive corporation. She apparently has no problem with Wal-Mart and her economic beliefs, because she is ill-informed. I asked her if it was okay for a Socialist to shop at Wal-Mart, and she said it was no problem. She did not see the problem with it.

Another example of economic leftist hypocrisy that I have is within the gay community. I know several gay people from college. Many of them wear âCheâ t-shirts. If you do not know who Che is, then look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara, His photo on the right side is a symbol for Socialists and Communists across the globe. In fact, most Historians agree that it is the most important photo of all time. You can see his image on shirts like this: http://www.geocities.com/socialist_action/che.gif). Ernesto âCheâ Guevara was one of the most devoted Communists I have read about. Yet he had thousands of Christians killed for their beliefs. He had hundreds executed for owning large plots of land. More importantly for this argument, Che had thousands of people executed for being homosexual. Now how could any homosexual wear a t-shirt with Cheâs image on it? Economic left wingers love Che for his devotion to Socialism and Communism, yet they blind themselves to the fact that he was a ruthless killer of homosexuals, religious people, and those who owned land. This is yet another hypocrisy of left-wing economists.

The best example I have is of my geography teacher in college. He was a devout Communist. He denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides (both committed by Communists). He denied the purges of Stalin and the Ukranian Famine he caused. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor). Stalin killed more than Hitler, yet this teacher claimed Stalin was one of the most democratic rulers ever. This teacher stuck by his die-hard Communist ideology. But one day, I found him shopping in a Wal-Mart. Just like my friend who claimed to be a Socialist, this man was shopping in a Wal-Mart. I did not have to say anything to him, but once he saw me there, his face turned red and he walked away. The next class he kicked me out when I argued that the Bosnian genocide was real. In fact, I had just seen a video of Bosnians being killed, execution style, by Communist forces. He told me that the video was fake, and then he kicked me out of class. He could not deal with the truth, so he got rid of me... typical Socialist thought.

I know that we live in a Capitalist society. Socialists and Communists have to live by making money in the society that exists. But when they shop at Wal-Mart (instead of local âMa and Paâ stores), or when they sell drugs for unbelievable profits, or when they support a mass killer like Che, they are being complete hypocrites. I have to wonder about the devotion of these so called âSocialistsâ and âCommunists.â They can claim to be economic left-wingers all they want, but by their actions, they cannot deny their love for Capitalism.

  • 134 Replies
mellowman
offline
mellowman
233 posts
Nomad

no ones posting

VoteSocialist
offline
VoteSocialist
950 posts
Nomad

common sense isn't common, opinions would clash = compromise or war. you cannot just expect there will be no conflict



This isn't Marxism, you would have people educated in the needed fields. Not a system like Mao Zedong's where the common workers are forced into jobs that they were never ment to get into. It's just like the company is run by the worker's union unquestionably and absolutely. The only difference is that the over all pay is higher when it comes to spreading the wealth amongst the workers instead of spreading it in accordance to the best interests of CEOs.
VoteSocialist
offline
VoteSocialist
950 posts
Nomad

good theory but i cannot see how this would work in the real world


Well, it's working in what nationalized markets there are in Sweden. i don't see the economy trembling because of human nature. The coworkers know if they don't work united, the company will fail and that could mean massive unemployment. Besides, you could still bosses to keep people in line. And let's not forget that most decisions are made by the democratic process.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,052 posts
Nomad

union unquestionably and absolutely.

there would be more than 1 union due to specified interests, 1 would get power hungry and try to overtake another, also i (would guess) there are leaders to unions right? would envelope a form of higher jobs

you would have people educated in the needed fields

you would need every human to have the same knowledge (unrealistic) because not every screw fits. also if you had anyone of lesser knowledge (to any extent) they would perform grunt work and upper-lower job would evolve.

common workers are forced into jobs that they were never ment to get into.


if they are not then the system will still not work. EX. word is spreading around secretary's are the nicest jobs, so now you have 20 people taking phone calls and 1 person on factory floors

also there will have to be identical jobs, a worker would complain about work conditions compared. about how much work is done compared

ahh wait 30 sec >.<
Graham
offline
Graham
8,052 posts
Nomad

alright, so there is a 'boss' but he cannot choose economic decisions such as how much pay... i c now

i'm explaining all of what i think could happen

if a group happens to make it work, sweden, they will have to be very well disciplined to start off

last post i meant by upper-lower is where workers would demand more for doing more

a business has to make a profit and handle expenses, a chance of theivry on the money handlers

The coworkers know if they don't work united, the company will fail and that could mean massive unemployment.


1 spore can infect a whole breadloaf

Well, it's working in what nationalized markets there are in Sweden

oh? i thought you meant on a global scale

i'm attacking your defending, i don't really have a thought out defense unless you attack... i always liked to see which is worse rather than which is better
Graham
offline
Graham
8,052 posts
Nomad

ha triple post, just thought of something.

Well, it's working in what nationalized markets there are in Sweden.


there are lottery ticket winners

lemme rephrase, i do not see how this would work globally in the real world
donpiet
offline
donpiet
755 posts
Peasant

It's just like the company is run by the worker's union unquestionably and absolutely


the company can only be run by the union if the union:
a) founds the company and by definition is the owner of it
b) it buys more then 50%per cent better 66% of the shares and therefore takes tohe company over.

but letting employees decide, about the private property of the employer(is this the right word?) is not right.
its like saying that a group of people is going to decide how you have to spent your money
IPwnU2Day
offline
IPwnU2Day
395 posts
Nomad

The free market isn't free! Its only freedom for a few people suck in millions and suck away the money that others need and need badly!


People choose to but things. They aren't being forced, atleast I haven't seen a person "buy" anything at gunpoint.

In fact, people can make even more money under socialism than they would under capitalism


Whether or not that's true is irrelevant because it all gets taxed away anyhow.

Socialism/Communism works well for Sweden. It wouldn't work well in America. Check the population sizes.
VoteSocialist
offline
VoteSocialist
950 posts
Nomad

People choose to but things. They aren't being forced, atleast I haven't seen a person "buy" anything at gunpoint.


While you're in the work place, while you're at school, while you're in the military, IF you get put in jail, if you're in a hospital, some of freedoms are given up so that productivity can continue. In America that is generally the same philosophy. But the way the comapnies are owned in America is just undemocratic. Especially since they can bribe people; and with that, whoever has the most money will gain the most power. Not who get's the most votes. Ever wonder why some presidents win the popular vote but not the election?

Whether or not that's true is irrelevant because it all gets taxed away anyhow.


Actually that is false. They take taxes out depending on how rich someone is. With two middle class families ( one making more than the other ) there wouldn't even be a difference in tax rates. However if a billionaire were to pay his taxes, 90 cents out of every dollar he earned would be taken out. With a millionaire, maybe 70 cents out of a dollar. Not only will the billionaire or millionaire probably still be well off, but all of that money can be used to increase the quality of life in America. Public schools would be better, public parks would be better, the men and woment in the police department and the fire would get a better pay check and think of the health care department's cut in that extra money.

Socialism/Communism works well for Sweden. It wouldn't work well in America. Check the population sizes.


How can you prove that? Sweden certianly isn't just a bunch of small communes that make one gaint communist state. It's a unified republic. And Sweden is no where near being communist.
donpiet
offline
donpiet
755 posts
Peasant

Ever wonder why some presidents win the popular vote but not the election?


because the popular vote is made upon statistics. so you take a representative group and ask them what they would vote.
it isnt always correct. thats statistics live with it.

Especially since they can bribe people


coruption always existed. it is not the systems fault its human weakness that is.
btw how come that in socialist or communist countries corruption is always higher than in capitalistic?

owever if a billionaire were to pay his taxes, 90 cents out of every dollar he earned would be taken out.


since when is the tax rate in the us 90%?
Graham
offline
Graham
8,052 posts
Nomad

and with that, whoever has the most money will gain the most power


soo you're against monopolies such as wall mart? at a consumers point of view, you are getting it cheap. at wall mart's you're getting another customer, at some family business they are unsuccessful. i'm getting a vibe from you saying that both of these markets should have same-priced items. if that were the case then wall mart would fail and the price of everything would go up. in order to have a large profitable business you need a large population of customers.

but all of that money can be used to increase the quality of life in America.


another case of punishing the "bad" successful. if you are middleclass are you expected to give everything you've earned away? if you are homeless are you expected to give 90% of what food you find to charity? "help the unfortunate!" yeah, well life isn't fair. you can become smart just by going to a library, then pops up marketing ideas and you become average to rich.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,052 posts
Nomad

only you decide you financial outcome

donpiet
offline
donpiet
755 posts
Peasant

ou can become smart just by going to a library, then pops up marketing ideas and you become average to rich.


well that definetly is not true as you state it, and it is very necessery for a society to take care of the less fortunate.
the point is that there has to be a way how not to punish the sucessful people and to not leave the poor people living beneath every standard you expect from a civilized country.
but that is what taxes are for. to create an acceptable standard for everyone in the main life parts, surival(shelter food and clothes), education and health care. for everyone being wealthier there should be the possibility to use extra private services in this areas to improve his position.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,052 posts
Nomad

i believe if you dig yourself into a hole then you should be the one climbing out.

too many taxes = discouraged Demand = deflation or inflation, more overall inactive economy

Drace
offline
Drace
3,880 posts
Nomad

soo you're against monopolies such as wall mart? at a consumers point of view, you are getting it cheap. at wall mart's you're getting another customer, at some family business they are unsuccessful. i'm getting a vibe from you saying that both of these markets should have same-priced items. if that were the case then wall mart would fail and the price of everything would go up. in order to have a large profitable business you need a large population of customers.


You do know how they are able to offer everything for cheap right?
Showing 61-75 of 134