Socialism probably is the fairest policy to adopt...
But what happens when humanity fails to progress in an environment devoid of competition?
36-40, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 18 more replies »
TheConstantGardener · 56-60, M
@GardenSage I'm not American so I can't comment on the size of your government with any authority but I am a socialist, so I'm quite comfortable with the idea of excellent public services and also a vibrant private sector. Both can be achieved to the benefit of the citizen.
GardenSage · 36-40, M
I think you’re right... but I’m a libertarian...
🤷🏻♂️
🤷🏻♂️
TheConstantGardener · 56-60, M
@GardenSage I can see that 🙂
Pherick · 41-45, M
I don't think most people think "pure Socialism" is really a way to run a society. Though our current socialist democracy could be enhanced by having some minimums that people can't fall below.
A minimum level of healthcare, schooling, standard of living, etc helps everyone.
A minimum level of healthcare, schooling, standard of living, etc helps everyone.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@GardenSage I don't really understand the welfare argument. Sure people abuse it but there's also homeless people who work [b]full time[/b] jobs and still can't get an apartment.
In some parts of California they have a requirement that you have to make at least double that of your rent. One room efficiencies are about 1,800.
A car to rent requires good credit or 300 monthly at least. Cars are about 50,000 to own, houses are about 50,000 (at the very least) or at least double that if you're paying rent.
Unless you want to live in the hood, then maybe you can get a small room in a crack house somewhere. I'm mean shit I guess one does what they have to do but everything isn't just all peachy.
In some parts of California they have a requirement that you have to make at least double that of your rent. One room efficiencies are about 1,800.
A car to rent requires good credit or 300 monthly at least. Cars are about 50,000 to own, houses are about 50,000 (at the very least) or at least double that if you're paying rent.
Unless you want to live in the hood, then maybe you can get a small room in a crack house somewhere. I'm mean shit I guess one does what they have to do but everything isn't just all peachy.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@Pherick Just for no reason I decided to look into tiny homes (I think their cute lol) and wondered how much they were. They were as high as 100,000 and as low as 12,000 (without toilets or any other expenses.) And you'd still need land which is about another 100,000 dollars.
Like....
There seems like there's no options for people.
Like....
There seems like there's no options for people.
softspokenman · M
Abraham Maslow, Hierarchy of Needs. @Pherick
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
trocovor · 36-40, M
A faulty assumption underlies your question: in reality, socialism doesn't mean we stop competing; it just means every worker competes, and not for the privilege of eating or for obscene luxuries, but for status and prestige, which is what the top performers in any field compete for anyway. Furthermore, empirically socialism hasn't in fact lead to no innovation and technological stagnation, despite what american propaganda often claims.
trocovor · 36-40, M
if you ever want to have a serious conversation about the relative merits of capitalism and socialism, hmu, but i'm not about to engage with someone who's obviously speaking in bad faith, can't contemplate that what he's been told all his life is false, and on top goes about it with this fetid "HA PWNED YOU" attitude.
GardenSage · 36-40, M
@trocovor seriously... who? The Nordic Nations?
Their means of production aren’t controled by the state. Economically, they’re capitalists and their government officials will quickly point that out too.
Their means of production aren’t controled by the state. Economically, they’re capitalists and their government officials will quickly point that out too.
trocovor · 36-40, M
@GardenSage have a good time
GardenSage · 36-40, M
@firefall it’s clearly by design... socialists resent capitalism for its competition and the subsequent marginalization of those who fail to compete.
I put it to society to divise more platforms for the marginalized to succeed, rather than suppress competition (and thus adding compensation) for all.
I put it to society to divise more platforms for the marginalized to succeed, rather than suppress competition (and thus adding compensation) for all.
Sure...go to China...It's a dream came true for you
@GardenSage Ok,bye...and don't forget to write me...from China
GardenSage · 36-40, M
@WorldsForgottenBoy you are your own audience.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
Mildreadful · F
I think the idea is that in socialism the competition is fairer - there is less of a unattainable advantage that some people start off with. No competition is something else
TuxedoMask · M
We pull out the deathnote.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
SW-User
eventually people give up on it