HorrorMovieFans.com

Tiggnutz wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:I'm all for capitalism ya dolts.

But social programs can work within capitalism. We already have many of them. I dunno....put out your own fires and fill your own potholes I guess.

This was by no means directed at you my brother just a response to the topic of socialism in general

I also agree they can work together there can be a middle

Tiggnutz wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:I'm all for capitalism ya dolts.

But social programs can work within capitalism. We already have many of them. I dunno....put out your own fires and fill your own potholes I guess.

This was by no means directed at you my brother just a response to the topic of socialism in general

You're good bro! It was more aimed at Jason, lol. He calls me a dolt all the time!

Tiggnutz wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:I'm all for capitalism ya dolts.

But social programs can work within capitalism. We already have many of them. I dunno....put out your own fires and fill your own potholes I guess.

This was by no means directed at you my brother just a response to the topic of socialism in general

I also agree they can work together there can be a middle

Healthcare is my biggest boogaboo. I work with a Canadian and a New Zealander, they dont understand why our healthcare is so shitty. The New Zealander flew back to his homeland to get carpal tunnel surgery. He paid out of pocket. Saved money than to get it here with "great insurance". I swear to you, I would vote Republican is they came up with something.

No countries in the world are socialist so I’m not sure why people talk about socialism so much.

Tiggnutz wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

Jmac Attack wrote:I'm all for capitalism ya dolts.

But social programs can work within capitalism. We already have many of them. I dunno....put out your own fires and fill your own potholes I guess.

This was by no means directed at you my brother just a response to the topic of socialism in general

I also agree they can work together there can be a middle

That’s essentially what European countries are.

Headhunter wrote:No countries in the world are socialist so I’m not sure why people talk about socialism so much.

TBH, I thought Venezuela is socialist? That's what right wing news tells me, lol.

Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

Tiggnutz wrote:Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

You're fine, unless you want a poli-sci shit sandwich.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

You're fine, unless you want a poli-sci shit sandwich.

Nah I want to know someone can tell me

Tiggnutz wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

You're fine, unless you want a poli-sci shit sandwich.

Nah I want to know someone can tell me

I have my own thoughts about socialism and capitalism. I dont have the time right at this moment to express and explain it. I'll try to later tonight. Brief definition- Socialism is a belief that regular Joe's like us, own production and is supposed to be a more equal society. The guy working the line in a factory gets the same cut as everyone. But, we are humans and we like nice shit and fuck everyone else lol.

That's a basic answer. I'll try to elaborate more, later. But yeah, it has its problems. Sometimes you gotta be realistic.

Russia paid the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The White House has known for months and done nothing about it.

Curious if Trump “owned the libs” here.

Headhunter wrote:Russia paid the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The White House has known for months and done nothing about it.

Curious if Trump “owned the libs” here.

Read about that earlier. Let's just investigate Benghazi for the 100th time. Trump is the greatest ever.

That ought to help his poll numbers.

Mail-in voter fraud in Jersey already. City councilmen arrested.

Dems trying to steal the election.

Jason wrote:Mail-in voter fraud in Jersey already. City councilmen arrested.

Dems trying to steal the election.

It's 4 people. They are gonna face the consequences. I'm sure shit like this happens, but let's think about it though....a small %. You think a majority are gonna risk federal crimes all in the name of Dems all across the country? Republicans dont pull shit like this? I'm sure Soros is paying them.

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:That is a real problem. Your economy is teetering and is clearly about to crater.

We know you have been saying so since 2016

Wishing. I’ve been wishing it since ‘16. Only now it’s reality. The 25 July cliff edge for the benefits packages with the resurgence mid-first wave is going to devastate and the current administration was hoping to coast to a win.

Tiggnutz wrote:Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

How do you mean? As in the core original philosophy of largely state owned means of production and Marxism type stuff? Or the current social democracy theory in more European states around provision of social welfare?

Headhunter wrote:Russia paid the Taliban bounties to kill American soldiers. The White House has known for months and done nothing about it.

Curious if Trump “owned the libs” here.

Many things are telling here. It’s been known for months. The only options are: Trump was told but did t listen, Trump was told and fors t care that American lives are put in danger, or Trump wasn’t told and still hasn’t heard.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

How do you mean? As in the core original philosophy of largely state owned means of production and Marxism type stuff? Or the current social democracy theory in more European states around provision of social welfare?

I know a bit about both, but I'm really not one to ask. I'd like to read your take on both, if you have the time.

Jmac Attack wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:Someone explain socialism to me because I may have a wrong opinion.

How do you mean? As in the core original philosophy of largely state owned means of production and Marxism type stuff? Or the current social democracy theory in more European states around provision of social welfare?

I know a bit about both, but I'm really not one to ask. I'd like to read your take on both, if you have the time.

At its core Head is largely right, the classic socialism that was crafted in the 19th century and honed in the early 20th were true critiques of free market capitalism. At its core there was an idea that the means of production must be democratically owned rather than owned by capitalists who the gain from the Labour of others. There then follow several critiques about the place for markets and equality within this but at its core the original take on socialism was the democratization of production and the general ownership of Labour in the hands of the Labourer. Workers get power rather than owners, as it were. From here the paths to communism or social democracy tend to depend on your view of free markets, wages, and ownership. The idea of a commune owning everything together and working everything together in their commune abolished ownership and the need for wages and remuneration. This obviously doesn’t work well in modern economics.

The contrasting point therefore becomes more akin to acceptance of the market economics but the use of government forces to ensure certain basic rights and equalities are in force for society in differing regards. The state should therefore provide more basic rights than in a pure free market capitalist state. This can go through any number of means from ownership, subsidization, incentivization or regulation which is where most of the western social democracies have tended to split. As an example, schooling (K-12) is free in Sweden and largely free in the UK. University is free in Sweden, but costs money in the UK but comes with state supported financial aid though increasingly this is coming under scrutiny. Healthcare is provided and paid for largely by the state, and free at point of use, but again many countries utilize market economic theory to support these endeavors with grants, research, and participation in healthcare marketplaces. There are then differences in how further rights and state provisions can acccomodate further social problems from elder care, environmental protections, national defense, and more. And again distinctions on how this can be done in a context matters too. In some cases the taxation rates increase, in others the subsidization lowers costs sufficiently or the state ownership generates income as needed. For example several states have (or have had) nationalized energy or transport but these were not free at point of use often and do generate income to then use on other social ideals that did not.

The argument that something is socialist just because the state provides it misses the mark for me in many ways and fails to address inequality that capitalism builds into itself. But the extent of the interventions is in degrees and with trade offs. For example, UK has lower taxes but then higher levels of state divestment from things like rail and FE and HE sector ownership and even divestment in running schools.