It's time for EUROPE to become SOCIALIST

[PepeLapiu]

That is very typical of socialists: to demonize and vilify anyone who has more than themselves to push for more government control of everything.

When covid first started out a guy made the news on the internet in my country. He bought $20k of toilet paper, enought to fill up his basement and garage.
And within a week, there was a big shortage of toilet paper all over the country. For some odd reason, people were rushing out to buy not food, not masks, not vitamins, but toilet paper. For about two weeks my family had to use old rags to wipe our bums.

The thing is, that guy saw that there would be a demand in toilet paper. And he banked on it. Unfortunately for him, the TP shortage only lasted a couple of weeks. And so he was stuck with a house full of TP and no buyers.

In the states, after a big hurricane in Florida, one guy loaded his truck with generators and proceeded to head to Florida where he was going to sell them at a premium. But the feds stopped him, accused him of hoarding and price gouging, and prevented him from selling his very needed generators.

So basically, people in Florida were denied access to generators because socialists wanted to demonize people who want to offer a service for profit.

This is how a healthy economy works: people identify where a a need or a want arises, and act in a manner to fill that need.

And in a way, many of you on here are just the same with Bitcoin. You are hoarding Bitcoin right now in the hopes that someone at a later time will be desperate enough to buy it from you at x time the price you paid. Now, aren't you the evil capitalist here?

Just this summer, a neigboring town suffered a big hail. Over 3000 homes with broken windows and over 6000 cars with hail damage. That's good for me, I sell and install windows. So I headed on over to that town and I worked for very profitable contracts. People left and right were throwing money at me, begging me to install windows on their homes. I worked for at least 3x more money than I usually get fir about 3 months. I just came back home last week. What exactly would you want me to do? To sell my windows to the lowest bidder? Someone here doesn't understand how to run a business.

[PepeLapiu]

in europe people dont buy medical treatment. people get it through the NHS for FREE

That is an absurd statement. You don't get nothing for free. What happens is that government forces other peopke to pay taxes so that you can get your meds bought and paid for by people who are more productive than you are. In other words, you stole those meds from people who have more money than yourself, or rather, you used government to steal from them.

And that is the very essence of socialism; to punish people who are more productive with heavy taxes, and to reward people who are less productive with free shit paid for by the productive ones.

Ir's not too hard to see where that eventually ends up. Now all your manufacturers and employers have left. You don't have anything not made in China or Taiwan anymore.

But you just keep bitching about thise who have more than yourself. See how much deeper that will get ya.

[coins4commies]

Still never met a socialist who thinks EVERYTHING should be controled by the government but that is the strawman of choice amongst bootlickers.  Most of us believe necessities should be controled by the government and there is a lot of diversity about what constitutes a necessity and if control means funding or production.  

Capitalists already are socialists because they almost unanimously believe the government should fund their security via the military, their risk via bailouts, their overhead via public infrastructure, and their employee benefit costs via social security.

So at the end of the day, socialists want socialism, capitalists want socialism, and its really just bootlicking libertarians who want pure captialism.

[PepeLapiu]

Still never met a socialist who thinks EVERYTHING should be controled by the government but that is the strawman of choice amongst bootlickers.

Socialists keep finding problems everywhere, wither real or perceived. And their only solution to these problems is always more government. Some people have more money than others? Get government involved. Pollution, global warming, viruses, banks failing, you name it, more government is always the socialist solution.

Never mind that wherever you are, your government is operating under a crushing dept that is so large it can never be repaid. This goes to show how inneffictive and wasteful government programs are.

Most of us believe necessities should be controled by the government

When you claim something should be handled by government, what you are basically saying is that you want it, or you need it, so you think governme t should steal from other people via taxation to give to you.

Capitalists already are socialists because they almost unanimously believe the government should fund their security via the military, their risk via bailouts, their overhead via public infrastructure, and their employee benefit  costs via social security.

You obviously don't understand who capitslism means. Capiralism is eseencially free market. But as a socialist you don't really understand the idea of free market. To a socialist, if government doesn't legislate it, tax it, regulate it, permit it, license it, or subsidize it, it becomes not free market, but black market.

So at the end of the day, socialists want socialism, capitalists want socialism

Again, you don't understand what capitalism means.

and its really just bootlicking libertarians who want pure captialism.

What's with the bootlicking stuff and you? Libertarians just want to be left alone. If they are not hurting anyone else, they want government out of their lives.

What's that got to do with licking boots?

[Gyfts]

Still never met a socialist who thinks EVERYTHING should be controled by the government but that is the strawman of choice amongst bootlickers.  Most of us believe necessities should be controled by the government and there is a lot of diversity about what constitutes a necessity and if control means funding or production.  

Capitalists already are socialists because they almost unanimously believe the government should fund their security via the military, their risk via bailouts, their overhead via public infrastructure, and their employee benefit costs via social security.

So at the end of the day, socialists want socialism, capitalists want socialism, and its really just bootlicking libertarians who want pure captialism.

Capitalists are not socialists. This is like saying because there are exchanges in a socialist society for commerce, that means socialists are capitalists. You can't have it both ways.

Social programs doesn't make a country socialist. This is the whataboutism argument that socialists will make -- they'll say look at Nordic countries as an example of socialist when the reality is they have heavy social programs fitted among a culturally homogeneous nation. They're still capitalistic, despite a high effective tax rate. There's still private commerce, business ownership, ect.

Just because the U.S. might have the military or local PD funded by tax payer money doesn't mean it's a socialist system they support. Public utilities and capitalism aren't at odds.

[Mttewndew]

Conflicts will continue in the world until we learn to live like People, helping each other, without splitting into groups.

[TwittGutz]

try to note that recently Europe is experiencing a fairly large demo. The main indicator is that left-wing activists are trying to provoke an incident. so for me it is still too far if Europe becomes socialist if problems are not resolved and anticipated. Moreover, this concerns ethnicity, especially ethnic minorities

[PepeLapiu]

Social programs doesn't make a country socialist.

Of course a country adopting a public library system or public water works doesn't make the country instantaniously a socialist system..But a public library is a socialist program and public education is a sociaoist program.

In my country today, right now, we have socialized road system, socialized libraries, socialized post office, socialized welfare system, socialized retorement, socialized health care, socialized gun control, socialized pretty much everything.
You can't point to a single thing you can do in my country without government taxing it, regulating it, permitting it, licensing it, subsidizing it, and legislating it.

So it's a stupid cop out to say "socialist programs don't make a country socialist".

I suggest you read the communist manifesto by Carl Marx. In it you will find the 10 planks of communism, or if you prefer the 10 items needed to implement communism. Virtually every western country has slready implemented those 10 planks to varying degress.

So you'd be hard pressed to claim you are not at sll living in a socialist country.

Public utilities and capitalism aren't at odds.

But of course capitalism and socialist programs are at odds woth each other.
Capitalism is essencially free market and socialist programs are about forcing everyone into paying for the government programs. They are directly at odds with each other.

A socialist program like public libraries doesn't turn a country suddenly into a socialist state anymore than me eating kale makes me a vegetarian. But socialist public libraries and centralized government armies are socialist programs none the less. And they run counter to capitalism and the principal of free market.

You can't point a gun at my head to force me to pay for your socialist programs and keep pretending you are not implementing a socialist system.

[Gyfts]

Of course a country adopting a public library system or public water works doesn't make the country instantaniously a socialist system..But a public library is a socialist program and public education is a sociaoist program

"So it's a stupid cop out to say "socialist programs don't make a country socialist"." You literally contradict yourself here. If adopting a public library system doesn't make a country socialist, how the hell is what I said a cop out?

By your definition of "social programs = socialist", by this logic, tax rates, free market regulations, are all "socialist". In any free market system, regulations exist to ensure a fair free market. That isn't socialist at all. In the same note, public utilities does not mean socialism. The U.S. has social security and medicare, two "socialist" programs, doesn't make the U.S. socialist.

I suggest you read the communist manifesto by Carl Marx. In it you will find the 10 planks of communism, or if you prefer the 10 items needed to implement communism. Virtually every western country has slready implemented those 10 planks to varying degress.

Nah, I'm good. Not like socialism/communism has led every nation that has tried it to utter failure and dictatorship.

A socialist program like public libraries doesn't turn a country suddenly into a socialist state anymore than me eating kale makes me a vegetarian. But socialist public libraries and centralized government armies are socialist programs none the less. And they run counter to capitalism and the principal of free market.

Having "socialist" programs does not make a nation socialist which is my entire point. You can argue all you want about the labeling of what type of program it is. A socialist nation presumably would have commerce, yes? Does that make a socialist nation capitalist? Nope.

[PepeLapiu]

Having "socialist" programs does not make a nation socialist which is my entire point.

You can say that having socislist programs doesn't make a country socialist. But it's as meaningless as saying I ate a ceasar salad, therefore I am vegan/vegetarian.

Progressive and aggreisive taxation (meaning the tax rate increases as you make more money) is 100% a socialist concept. That we should tax the most productive people to give to the least productive ones is also 100% a socialist concept right out of the communist manifesto. You can try to tell yourself all you want that the USA is not a socialist system. But the USA has adopted strong socialist tendencies. Call it what you want - partial socialism, hidden socialism, whatever. But those are still socialism programs.

Please, give me one activity you can do in the USA without government taxing/permitting/licensing/subsidizing/regulating/standardizing it.

Wanna talk dirty to your girlfriend on the phone? Government is listening and saving your conversation. They are also regulating your phone and your cell network up to.the tits too.

[Gyfts]

Having "socialist" programs does not make a nation socialist which is my entire point.

You can say that having socislist programs doesn't make a country socialist. But it's as meaningless as saying I ate a ceasar salad, therefore I am vegan/vegetarian.

Progressive and aggreisive taxation (meaning the tax rate increases as you make more money) is 100% a socialist concept. That we should tax the most productive people to give to the least productive ones is also 100% a socialist concept right out of the communist manifesto. You can try to tell yourself all you want that the USA is not a socialist system. But the USA has adopted strong socialist tendencies. Call it what you want - partial socialism, hidden socialism, whatever. But those are still socialism programs.

Please, give me one activity you can do in the USA without government taxing/permitting/licensing/subsidizing/regulating/standardizing it.

Wanna talk dirty to your girlfriend on the phone? Government is listening and saving your conversation. They are also regulating your phone and your cell network up to.the tits too.

You can also pretend as if every socialist country hasn't turned into a dystopian hell hole. Socialism is a pure economic system that ceases private enterprise and turns over all means of production to the government with communal ownership. It is impossible to have private enterprise in a socialist nation and the U.S. has all sorts of private entities, so no, not socialist at all.

Nice try though

Please, give me one activity you can do in the USA without government taxing/permitting/licensing/subsidizing/regulating/standardizing it.

You probably don't know this, but did you know that any capitalistic society is regulated to ensure a free and fair market, aka no monopoly? Regulation exists in every capitalistic society. Doesn't make it socialism.

[PepeLapiu]

You can also pretend as if every socialist country hasn't turned into a dystopian hell hole. Socialism is a pure economic system that ceases private enterprise and turns over all means of production to the government with communal ownership. It is impossible to have private enterprise in a socialist nation and the U.S. has all sorts of private entities, so no, not socialist at all.

I'm not promoting socialism. I am the furthest thing away from socialism.
I oppose socialism. This is why I am telling you the USA has strong socialist elements and becoming more socialist increasingly over the years.

And a free market can not be regulated. Else it's no longer a free market.
Government will always point to problems real or percieved within a certain area of life, than claim that they must interveed or else the bogeyman will get us all.

[Mauser]

You can also pretend as if every socialist country hasn't turned into a dystopian hell hole. Socialism is a pure economic system that ceases private enterprise and turns over all means of production to the government with communal ownership. It is impossible to have private enterprise in a socialist nation and the U.S. has all sorts of private entities, so no, not socialist at all.

I'm not promoting socialism. I am the furthest thing away from socialism.
I oppose socialism. This is why I am telling you the USA has strong socialist elements and becoming more socialist increasingly over the years.

And a free market can not be regulated. Else it's no longer a free market.
Government will always point to problems real or percieved within a certain area of life, than claim that they must interveed or else the bogeyman will get us all.

I am with you on this one socialism is not the answer to all our economic problems. We have seen many countries in the past trying socialism and fail. Its just no long term solution because it will make a country and its economy less competitive in the long run. Which doesn't mean that all form of socialism is bad. Having a universal unemployment insurance or health insurance or retirement plans is a hood thing for a country. We need to balance socialism with capitalism.

[PepeLapiu]

Socialism is a pure economic system that ceases private enterprise and turns over all means of production to the government with communal ownership. It is impossible to have private enterprise in a socialist nation and the U.S. has all sorts of private entities, so no, not socialist at all.

There are varying degrees of socialism. But the textbook definition is government either owning or controlling the means of production. So the government doesn't need to own it or finance it for it to be called socialism. If a government legislates it to the tits, it's socialism.

Do you know any area of your life that isn't legulated/permitted/licenced/taxed/regulated/subsidized by government?

Look up the 10 planks of communism. You will find they are all present to varying degrees within the USA.

You probably could make the arguement that other countries are more socialist than the USA. And that would probably be true for all nations outside North Korea. But make no mistakes about it, the USA is a socialist state.

We need to balance socialism with capitalism.

Fuck that! There is no acceptable 'balance' of socialism anymore than there is an acceptable 'balance' of Nazism. Down with all forms of socialism.

[Artemis3]

In the end it amounts to having a strong State tell people what to do, than letting them freely choose in a free market economy. Its no wonder some people advocate for getting rid of the State and having them govern themselves.

In any case Europe is pretty much socialist, so demanding more socialism just means having the State confiscate even more freedoms from individuals.

[Salauddin1994]

In the end it amounts to having a strong State tell people what to do, than letting them freely choose in a free market economy. Its no wonder some people advocate for getting rid of the State and having them govern themselves.

In any case Europe is pretty much socialist, so demanding more socialism just means having the State confiscate even more freedoms from individuals.

That is to say despite being a socialist state they were as liberal towards the political and economic positions of the western countries as they were ideologically aligned with the countries of the soviet union and eastern europe. Politically the division between eastern europe and western europe was drawn on the basis of the socialist structure that existed in various european countries until the nineties especially in eastern european countries.

[coolcoinz]

Capitalists already are socialists because they almost unanimously believe the government should fund their security via the military, their risk via bailouts, their overhead via public infrastructure, and their employee benefit costs via social security.

So at the end of the day, socialists want socialism, capitalists want socialism, and its really just bootlicking libertarians who want pure captialism.

What I'd add to that is socialists want lazy socialism with the government helping them to survive and they want their inability to make money be compensated by the rich, who already made money, or inherited it because their parents or grandparents knew how to make money.
Paying for military from taxes is not socialism. Some things can be agreed upon and financed collectively, which doesn't make the country socialist.
I'm a libertarian, but I know a lot of people with different political views and most of them oppose social security and believe healthcare, education and savings should be in the private sector and compete in a free market system.

[coins4commies]

Don't base everything off of the people you know.  Most people support public healthcare and education which is why almost every industrialized nation have both.  Have your opinion but at least be honest about the fact that you are in the minority.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-education/2020/02/03/new-poll-finds-majority-of-voters-support-public-education-784977

What makes the country socialist?  Is it the moment things you don't agree on being funded collectively become collectively funded, the nation is socialist? So socialist just means you not getting your way? 

Money is social construct.  "making money" is an arbitrary metric that depends on use of public services.  Who would lose out if we let the free market control our military operations abroad?

[PepeLapiu]

Not sure who you were addressing your post to. But I'll assume it was me.

Most people support public healthcare and education which is why almost every industrialized nation have both.

I'm not a big fan of 'public opinion' and what most people want or believe. The undertone is that this is what most people think and there is something wrong with you if you don't follow most people. Perhaps you are not a team player?

I am a grown ass man for crying out loud, not a sheep who blindly follows most people.

Have your opinion but at least be honest about the fact that you are in the minority.

I would never claim, nor would I care if my ideas were popular or not. There is something very wrong with saying that your position is popular. As if pupolarity could lend legitimacy to anything.

What makes the country socialist?  Is it the moment things you don't agree on being funded collectively become collectively funded, the nation is socialist?

Socislism is not absolute. You don't wake up one morning and your newscast suddenly announces that today is tge first day of socislism. Socialism is most often a process, incidious, deceptive, and gradual.

And to simply put it, the USA has very strong elements of socialism. You might try to tell me that is what must people want, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the USA has very strong elements of socialism, and it's getting gradually worst.

The textbook definition of socialism is government either controlling or owning the means of production.

Does your government control, own, or finances health care and education? If so, you would be more accurate to call it socialist education and socialist health care instead of public education and single payer health care.

Socialists know that most people don't like socialism. So they rename everything in a more palatable and easier way to swallow.

Public education sounds so much better than socialist education, doesn't it?

And single payer health care also sounds so much better than socialist health care, no?

But they are the same thing.

So socialist just means you not getting your way?  

Government controlling and financing the education system is the textbook definition of socialist education. It's not dependent on my opinion of it. It doesn't matter if 99.999% of the population like it or not, it's still socialism.

So at least be honest with yourself and call it what it is: socialist education, not 'public education'.

Money is social construct.  "making money" is an arbitrary metric that depends on use of public services.

I have no idea what that means. You don't need to use public services to make money.

If you use public services, you are not making money, you are costing money to the tax payers.

Who would lose out if we let the free market control our military operations abroad?

Wake the fuck up already. The millitary industrial complex already catters to corporations and special interest. In fact one could argue it's already controlled by special interest.

The constitution only allows the government to raise a millitary in times of emergency, in times of war. It doesn't allow for a perpetual standing army.

“Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
 George Washinton, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Chandler Price, February 28, 1807

“War involves in its progress such a train of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances...that no human wisdom can calculate the end. It has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes.”
Thomas Paine, Prospects on the Rubicon, 1787

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787

And the fact and the matter is, the USA doesn't really need an army at all. Just allow every citizen to be armed as he pleases without arbitrary restrictions. And nobody will ever dare to attack the USA.

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to unknown recipient, February 25, 1803

[PepeLapiu]

What makes the country socialist?  Is it the moment things you don't agree on being funded collectively become collectively funded, the nation is socialist? So socialist just means you not getting your way?  

You need to read the Communist manifesto by Carl Marx. Socialism doesn't mean something I disagree with. Socialism and communism have very clean definitions completely unrelated to my wishes.
When the government controls, finances, or owns the education system, that is socialism. I'm not saying this, Carl Marx said it.
Now maybe you like socialist education, maybe the entire world (except me) likes socialist education. And maybe the entire world can decide to rename it 'public education'. But it's still socialism. It has nothing to do with me and you approving of it or not.

So be honest with yourself. You may decide that you like government financed and government controlled education. But that doesn't make it any less socialist, just because you like it, or just because most people like it. It's still socialism.

Most socialists are hell bent on renaming it 'public education' to hide the true mechanism of it. Don't be a hypocrit like the rest of them.