This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[TruthNotBS]

Without government welfare checks ??

.. Kidding me right ?

First thing is that government is being run wrong if it has to fix things by offering government welfare checks in response to corporate maleficence. The only role government should be playing is to regulate certain activities if abuse is found that is endangering employees or the environment. Government has no role in social engineering or undermining the capitalist system for social engineering purposes, and worse for vote buying practices.

The capitalist system fails and collapses every few years requiring government intervention. Actually from the very beginning of capitalism in the United States, it has needed the government to compete with Europe and other nations that were well-established and more industrialized. Social engineering is what capitalists do with their marketing and cronyism, which is endemic to market capitalism. Here, check this out:

Who do you think is behind all of this LGBT+ nonsense? Stalinist, communists like me? We're against this shit. It's big money interests. Capitalism. Ever heard of George Soros, the capitalist?

 

[beagle9]

I'm answering two of your posts here...

Only working-class people should work, not the wealthy who own them for eight, or twelve hours + daily, right? When the working class receives public goods and services from the government, they're being lazy and don't want to work. When the rich get public services in the form of bailouts, plenty of yearly subsidies, "rewards", guaranteed contracts (without even having to bid for them), perks, and benefits, it's just normal, hey why not? On top of that, they have their cronies in government passing laws that serve their vested interests at the expense of the public. We live in a plutocracy (Rule of The Big Money), not a democracy (Rule Of The People).

View attachment 887241
​

Stop pretending America is a democracy, we just have the illusion of it and you've fallen for it. How many people die in this country due to a lack of public services that are taken for granted in other modern, industrialized nations? Scores, hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you're clueless. How many Americans die annually due to not being able to afford regular checkups or being overwhelmed with medical bills and unable to support themselves as a result?

My stepfather twelve years ago almost died, when he was in his late 50s due to medical bills and not getting the healthcare coverage he needed from his private health insurance. He had to file for bankruptcy and apply for SSD and Medicaid.

As far as what you said about communism. FIrst of all, the USSR wasn't communist, it was socialist.

USSR = UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? Lenin and Stalin never used the word "communist" to describe the economy of the USSR, but rather SOCIALIST. Communism as defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and practically all well-informed academics, is a society without a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money. So for you to use the term "Communist State" is oxymoronic. It can't exist. The only reason socialists like me sometimes identify ourselves as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. It's where we're heading, not where we are.

Communism ".... A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Note: We communists, make a distinction between private and personal property. Your house, car, computer, smartphone, toothbrush, and Fruit Of The Looms, are your personal property. Any property used to make a monetary profit, especially if it can be used to exploit other human beings, is considered private property.

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The State and Revolution — Chapter 5

The State and Revolution: Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

www.marxists.org

Learn Marxist socialism before criticizing it. At least know what we believe and represent.

View attachment 887245

Young Russian Soldiers 2022​

This is a 2017 poll in Russia about the USSR:

In Russia, nostalgia for Soviet Union and positive feelings about Stalin

Many Russians say the collapse of the Soviet Union has been a bad thing for their country. Nostalgia for the Soviet past also extends to views of Josef Stalin.

www.pewresearch.org

2018:
View attachment 887250

​

You're just parroting the old capitalist Cold War propaganda that you grew up with. A poll was taken in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union was at its worst financially due to all of the "Perestroika" and "Glasnost", that was verified by the UN, showing that 77% of Soviet Citizens were satisfied with their government. Even then, they were mostly pro-USSR and didn't feel "oppressed" or destitute.

Let me ask you, doesn't the US restrict travel to certain countries? Cuba, Venezuela..etc. You can find the list on the US State Department website. Soviet Russia was surrounded by capitalist powers, even to the point of being invaded right after its birthday in 1917 by several empires:

1. 
   United Kingdom: The UK was a leading force in the intervention. British troops were involved in Northern Russia and the Arctic, as well as in the Baltic states and the Black Sea region. The UK also provided significant military supplies and financial support to anti-Bolshevik forces (i.e. White Armies).
2. France: France was another major player, sending troops primarily to the Black Sea region and Northwestern Russia. The French were instrumental in supporting anti-Bolshevik White forces vs the Socialist Bolshevik Red Army.
3. United States: American troops deployed in North Russia (around Archangel) and Siberia. The U.S. aimed to protect military stores and, to a lesser extent, to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate.
4. Japan: Japan sent a significant number of troops to Siberia, focusing on Eastern Russia.
5. Italy: Italian troops were primarily deployed in the Black Sea region.
6. Canada: Canadian forces participated as part of the British Empire's contribution, particularly in Northern Russia.
7. Australia: Australia, also part of the British Empire, contributed a smaller contingent of troops, mainly serving under British command.
8. Greece: Greek forces, under French command, participated in the Crimea campaign in 1919. This involvement was part of Greece's broader post-World War I foreign policy objectives.

And several other countries, like Serbia, Romania..etc. Over 200 thousand troops in all, not counting the Russian Tsarist, pro-capitalist "White Armies", which numbered about another quarter million troops. That's what the Soviets had to deal with from the very beginning. Throughout its history, it only had relative peace in the 1930s, until it was invaded by four million Nazi Germans in 1941, resulting in the death of approximately 28 million of its citizens. We never hear about that holocaust, just the Jewish one. Nine million Red Army soldiers died on the battlefield and eighteen million Soviet civilians. That's 14% of its population dying as a result of WW2.

View attachment 887297​

The Soviets had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild their country after being left in ruins. Why are you complaining about its travel restrictions? If the US had suffered the same level of destruction at home, it would also impose its restrictions. There are many restrictions that the US government imposes on its citizens during a crisis. Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps and there was plenty of rationing and other laws that came into effect during the war, which could be seen as overbearing.

• 
  World War II (1941-1945): During World War II, the U.S. government imposed restrictions on domestic travel to conserve resources for the war effort. This included rationing gasoline and limiting civilian access to transportation.
• Cuban Travel Restrictions (1960s - present): After the Cuban Revolution and the subsequent deterioration of U.S.-Cuba relations, the U.S. imposed strict travel restrictions on American citizens visiting Cuba. These restrictions have fluctuated over the years, with periods of loosening and tightening.
• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): Following the Iran Hostage Crisis, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran, which included travel restrictions for American citizens.
• Travel Alerts and Warnings (Post-9/11): After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of State began issuing more frequent travel alerts and warnings for American citizens traveling to areas of conflict or where there was a high risk of terrorism.
• North Korea Travel Ban (2017-present): In response to the heightened risk of arrest and long-term detention of Americans in North Korea, the U.S. government prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel into, in, or through North Korea.
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2023): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government imposed a series of travel restrictions to control the spread of the virus. These included bans on entry for non-citizens from certain countries and regions heavily affected by COVID-19, as well as domestic travel advisories and requirements for testing and quarantine.

The point is that for whatever reason stated above, the US government has no issue with imposing travel restrictions, and the USSR given its situation also had its travel restrictions. The US and its allies were doing everything possible to undermine the Soviet economy, including enticing its scientists, engineers, and academics to leave and work for the CIA, writing ugly books about the USSR, and giving away secrets..etc. It was a war, so of course there were restrictions. Despite this, most Soviet citizens were satisfied with their government and didn't try to leave, even when they had the opportunity to do so.

There were student exchange programs, between the US and the Soviet Union and the vast majority of Soviet students didn't defect. They returned home after studying in the US.

1. The United States Information Agency (USIA) conducted exchanges under various programs.
2. Fulbright Program: While initially limited during the height of the Cold War, the Fulbright Program, which aims to increase mutual understanding through educational exchange, eventually expanded to include the Soviet Union. This program allowed for the exchange of scholars and students.
3. Cultural Exchanges: Beyond academic programs, there were also cultural exchanges, including visits by artists, musicians, and other cultural figures. These exchanges were often more visible and had a broader public impact.
4. National Council for Soviet and East European Research: Established its office in the U.S, this organization facilitated scholarly research and exchanges.

Why didn't these Soviet citizens all defect if the USSR was "SO BAD"? Maybe it wasn't as bad as our Cold War American propaganda claimed.

Going back to the situation right after WWII. Much of Soviet Russia's national infrastructure which had been built since the 1920s, was rubble after the war. Was there an American "Marshal Plan" for the Soviets, who had sacrificed so much on behalf of the Allies in the war? No.

The American "Marshal Plan" to rebuild the nations of Europe and Asia, didn't apply to the Soviet Union. The US was left unscathed after the war, fully intact, without losing even one structure. I believe only one or two American civilians died within the United States as a result of enemy fire, through a Japanese weather balloon bomb. Google it. The US lost 460 thousand of its citizens, practically all of them were combatants. American casualties amounted to 0.03% of its population. Again, the Soviets lost 14%, with 28 million casualties. Is there any comparison at all between those two? Russia lost over 50 times the people, due to being in Europe, rather than protected by thousands of miles of two vast oceans (i.e. Pacific - Atlantic).

View attachment 887284
​

Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned facts the Soviet Union got back on its feet and became a world nuclear superpower with the second largest economy in the world. They were launching rockets with cosmonauts into space not that long after the devastation they suffered during World War II.

View attachment 887286​

They were the FIRST IN SPACE! That's impressive and to pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. No other political and economic system can achieve that other than socialism. There's no other system that can industrialize and build a nation as quickly as a socialist, rationally, centrally planned economy.
The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, encircled by the most powerful nations in human history, so if it eventually lost the Cold War and dissolved, does that imply that it will never rise again much stronger or that markeless socialism at a national scale as what we saw in the USSR will never be successful in another country? No.

Every single country that has mostly a centrally planned economy without major markets today is under the heel of American economic sanctions and the constant threat of military invasion by the United States. Have you ever factored that into your assessment of the viability of a centrally planned, socialist economy? They're all in a state of war, encircled by the US and its cronies. Hello?

You don't have the ideological luxury of claiming socialism doesn't work when your capitalist, imperialist buddies in Washington are depriving such nations of engaging in international trade and normal diplomatic relations with other countries. No one defies the US embargo on centrally planned, marketless socialism unless they plan to suffer the same fate and lose their economies and perhaps their lives. No one wants to trade with these countries because they get blacklisted, penalized, if not economically and politically sanctioned themselves.

To give you an example. Every single cargo ship that ports in Cuba can't anchor in American ports, anywhere, be it in the lower 48 or Alaska, Hawai, Guam the US Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. etc, for six months. Your expensive cargo ship is barred from The Empire for 180 days. Who the hell wants to port in Cuba? No one. If you have a bank and you give Cuba a loan, you will get audited by the US and most likely fined. They'll find some violation, somewhere, or they'll conjure it up from their magical hat. What international banks want to open a line of credit with the Cuban government or Cuban companies? None.

Despite this, Cuba survives in the shadow of a hostile, capitalist empire, 90 miles from its shores.

The US owns and controls the world's reserve currency and its banking institutions, hence no one resists The Empire. Whatever its demands, the world cowers.

Why are the American wealthy elites so afraid that they have to lobby Washington so hard, to continue punishing little marketless, socialist nations like Cuba? The market-socialist nations or mixed economies of the world (Western Europe is mostly a mixed economy), don't have much to worry about from the United States provided they continue serving American foreign policy. But the mostly non-profit, marketless economies, or true socialist-Marxist-run countries, have everything to worry about. AND YET THEY SURVIVE. Hello? The resilience and power of socialism.

In your fantasy world, do economic and political systems replace others overnight? Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism, in one single swoop of the sword? It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the royal aristocracy of Europe as the dominant, ruling class. It wouldn't occur until technology permitted the merchants to become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century. That's when capitalism and its republicanism, took hold in the world. For centuries the royals and their nobles laughed at the prospect of a bunch of merchant traders replacing them and eventually that's what happened.

Now with the advent of advanced automation, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we are entering into the socialist age. When production becomes so advanced that human input is reduced to a minimum, due to intelligent automation, that's the end of capitalism.

If a powerful computer can do all of the accounting and with onsite sensors can collect data and then control all of the robots and self-driving vehicles, all of the machinery, essentially automating the process of production with all of its logistics, that's the end of capitalism and the beginning of the socialist age. You can pout, huff, and puff, have your tantrum, and thumb down all of my posts, but nonetheless, if you're smart, you know this is true. You're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance hence your inability to admit it openly and come to terms with it. Socialism is the natural successor of capitalism, due to technology, it's that simple. The alternative is techno-feudalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2aH9tu4s30​

So you are a Russian socialist that refers to yourself as a communist from time to time. Got it...

 

[TruthNotBS]

So you are a Russian socialist that refers to yourself as a communist from time to time. Got it...

I'm an American communist, who refers to himself as a communist from time to time. Got it? Probably not.

 

[beagle9]

The capitalist system fails and collapses every few years requiring government intervention. Actually from the very beginning of capitalism in the United States, it has needed the government to compete with Europe and other nations that were well-established and more industrialized. Social engineering is what capitalists do with their marketing and cronyism, which is endemic to market capitalism. Here, check this out:

View attachment 887338

View attachment 887339

View attachment 887340​

Who do you think is behind all of this LGBT+ nonsense? Stalinist, communists like me? We're against this shit. It's big money interests. Capitalism. Ever heard of George Soros, the capitalist?

You are correct on the point about the failures happening in the system more often than in the past.

Example - Bubbles are definitely a problem that has become a thing in the economy, but they are supposed to be dealt with through the understanding of how the Bubbles are created, and how they swell to a point of collapse. However, it seems that as Christianity becomes less and less present in the mindsets of Americans, then it has opened the doorways up to any and everything as is evident today.

 

[Markle]

China cared less. They went elsewhere and bought what we wouldn't sell them for less money.

Is it the fault of China that companies went there to produce things or is it the fault of the companies?

Not the fault of the companies. It is the "fault" of the consumer. The consumer demanded higher wages and more regulations. The same consumer resisted when prices increased. It became more profitable for companies to manufacture the products in other countries and then ship them thousands of miles to meet demand. Then those same consumers wonder why jobs are going to other countries.

 

[beagle9]

I'm an American communist, who refers to himself as a communist from time to time. Got it? Probably not.

Ohhh I got it, otherwise you are attempting to take advantage of the perceived weakness that has evolved over time in America, and therefore you figure that your system would have avoided such things if we would have adopted your style of system earlier on.

Nah, we'll pass... We just need to fix the system, and MAGA.

 

[pknopp]

Not the fault of the companies. It is the "fault" of the consumer. The consumer demanded higher wages and more regulations. The same consumer resisted when prices increased. It became more profitable for companies to manufacture the products in other countries and then ship them thousands of miles to meet demand. Then those same consumers wonder why jobs are going to other countries.

"We can operate without regulations"

Boeing

 

[beagle9]

Not the fault of the companies. It is the "fault" of the consumer. The consumer demanded higher wages and more regulations. The same consumer resisted when prices increased. It became more profitable for companies to manufacture the products in other countries and then ship them thousands of miles to meet demand. Then those same consumers wonder why jobs are going to other countries.

Can't agree with this excuse... Business tycoons are greedy, and they put or allowed politicians to be put in place in order to represent their wishes and demands on behest of the business class that ordered it.

 

[Markle]

I'm an American communist, who refers to himself as a communist from time to time. Got it? Probably not.

Don't you find it a bit incongruous that you claim to be a Communist yet quote scripture?

 

[Markle]

I'm answering two of your posts here...

Only working-class people should work, not the wealthy who own them for eight, or twelve hours + daily, right? When the working class receives public goods and services from the government, they're being lazy and don't want to work. When the rich get public services in the form of bailouts, plenty of yearly subsidies, "rewards", guaranteed contracts (without even having to bid for them), perks, and benefits, it's just normal, hey why not? On top of that, they have their cronies in government passing laws that serve their vested interests at the expense of the public. We live in a plutocracy (Rule of The Big Money), not a democracy (Rule Of The People).

View attachment 887241​

Stop pretending America is a democracy, we just have the illusion of it and you've fallen for it. How many people die in this country due to a lack of public services that are taken for granted in other modern, industrialized nations? Scores, hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you're clueless. How many Americans die annually due to not being able to afford regular checkups or being overwhelmed with medical bills and unable to support themselves as a result?

My stepfather twelve years ago almost died, when he was in his late 50s due to medical bills and not getting the healthcare coverage he needed from his private health insurance. He had to file for bankruptcy and apply for SSD and Medicaid.

As far as what you said about communism. FIrst of all, the USSR wasn't communist, it was socialist.

USSR = UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? Lenin and Stalin never used the word "communist" to describe the economy of the USSR, but rather SOCIALIST. Communism as defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and practically all well-informed academics, is a society without a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money. So for you to use the term "Communist State" is oxymoronic. It can't exist. The only reason socialists like me sometimes identify ourselves as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. It's where we're heading, not where we are.

Communism ".... A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Note: We communists, make a distinction between private and personal property. Your house, car, computer, smartphone, toothbrush, and Fruit Of The Looms, are your personal property. Any property used to make a monetary profit, especially if it can be used to exploit other human beings, is considered private property.

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The State and Revolution — Chapter 5

The State and Revolution: Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

www.marxists.org

Learn Marxist socialism before criticizing it. At least know what we believe and represent.

View attachment 887245

Young Russian Soldiers 2022​

This is a 2017 poll in Russia about the USSR:

In Russia, nostalgia for Soviet Union and positive feelings about Stalin

Many Russians say the collapse of the Soviet Union has been a bad thing for their country. Nostalgia for the Soviet past also extends to views of Josef Stalin.

www.pewresearch.org

2018:
View attachment 887250

​

You're just parroting the old capitalist Cold War propaganda that you grew up with. A poll was taken in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union was at its worst financially due to all of the "Perestroika" and "Glasnost", that was verified by the UN, showing that 77% of Soviet Citizens were satisfied with their government. Even then, they were mostly pro-USSR and didn't feel "oppressed" or destitute.

Let me ask you, doesn't the US restrict travel to certain countries? Cuba, Venezuela..etc. You can find the list on the US State Department website. Soviet Russia was surrounded by capitalist powers, even to the point of being invaded right after its birthday in 1917 by several empires:

1. 
   United Kingdom: The UK was a leading force in the intervention. British troops were involved in Northern Russia and the Arctic, as well as in the Baltic states and the Black Sea region. The UK also provided significant military supplies and financial support to anti-Bolshevik forces (i.e. White Armies).
2. France: France was another major player, sending troops primarily to the Black Sea region and Northwestern Russia. The French were instrumental in supporting anti-Bolshevik White forces vs the Socialist Bolshevik Red Army.
3. United States: American troops deployed in North Russia (around Archangel) and Siberia. The U.S. aimed to protect military stores and, to a lesser extent, to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate.
4. Japan: Japan sent a significant number of troops to Siberia, focusing on Eastern Russia.
5. Italy: Italian troops were primarily deployed in the Black Sea region.
6. Canada: Canadian forces participated as part of the British Empire's contribution, particularly in Northern Russia.
7. Australia: Australia, also part of the British Empire, contributed a smaller contingent of troops, mainly serving under British command.
8. Greece: Greek forces, under French command, participated in the Crimea campaign in 1919. This involvement was part of Greece's broader post-World War I foreign policy objectives.

And several other countries, like Serbia, Romania..etc. Over 200 thousand troops in all, not counting the Russian Tsarist, pro-capitalist "White Armies", which numbered about another quarter million troops. That's what the Soviets had to deal with from the very beginning. Throughout its history, it only had relative peace in the 1930s, until it was invaded by four million Nazi Germans in 1941, resulting in the death of approximately 28 million of its citizens. We never hear about that holocaust, just the Jewish one. Nine million Red Army soldiers died on the battlefield and eighteen million Soviet civilians. That's 14% of its population dying as a result of WW2.

View attachment 887297​

The Soviets had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild their country after being left in ruins. Why are you complaining about its travel restrictions? If the US had suffered the same level of destruction at home, it would also impose its restrictions. There are many restrictions that the US government imposes on its citizens during a crisis. Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps and there was plenty of rationing and other laws that came into effect during the war, which could be seen as overbearing.

• 
  World War II (1941-1945): During World War II, the U.S. government imposed restrictions on domestic travel to conserve resources for the war effort. This included rationing gasoline and limiting civilian access to transportation.
• Cuban Travel Restrictions (1960s - present): After the Cuban Revolution and the subsequent deterioration of U.S.-Cuba relations, the U.S. imposed strict travel restrictions on American citizens visiting Cuba. These restrictions have fluctuated over the years, with periods of loosening and tightening.
• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): Following the Iran Hostage Crisis, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran, which included travel restrictions for American citizens.
• Travel Alerts and Warnings (Post-9/11): After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of State began issuing more frequent travel alerts and warnings for American citizens traveling to areas of conflict or where there was a high risk of terrorism.
• North Korea Travel Ban (2017-present): In response to the heightened risk of arrest and long-term detention of Americans in North Korea, the U.S. government prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel into, in, or through North Korea.
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2023): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government imposed a series of travel restrictions to control the spread of the virus. These included bans on entry for non-citizens from certain countries and regions heavily affected by COVID-19, as well as domestic travel advisories and requirements for testing and quarantine.

The point is that for whatever reason stated above, the US government has no issue with imposing travel restrictions, and the USSR given its situation also had its travel restrictions. The US and its allies were doing everything possible to undermine the Soviet economy, including enticing its scientists, engineers, and academics to leave and work for the CIA, writing ugly books about the USSR, and giving away secrets..etc. It was a war, so of course there were restrictions. Despite this, most Soviet citizens were satisfied with their government and didn't try to leave, even when they had the opportunity to do so.

There were student exchange programs, between the US and the Soviet Union and the vast majority of Soviet students didn't defect. They returned home, back to the USSR, after studying in the USA.

1. The United States Information Agency (USIA) conducted exchanges under various programs.
2. Fulbright Program: While initially limited during the height of the Cold War, the Fulbright Program, which aims to increase mutual understanding through educational exchange, eventually expanded to include the Soviet Union. This program allowed for the exchange of scholars and students.
3. Cultural Exchanges: Beyond academic programs, there were also cultural exchanges, including visits by artists, musicians, and other cultural figures. These exchanges were often more visible and had a broader public impact.
4. National Council for Soviet and East European Research: Established its office in the U.S, this organization facilitated scholarly research and exchanges.

Why didn't these Soviet citizens all defect if the USSR was "SO BAD"? Maybe it wasn't as bad as our Cold War American propaganda claimed.

Going back to the situation right after WWII. Much of Soviet Russia's national infrastructure which had been built since the 1920s, was rubble after the war. Was there an American "Marshal Plan" for the Soviets, who had sacrificed so much on behalf of the Allies in the war? No.

The American "Marshal Plan" to rebuild the nations of Europe and Asia, didn't apply to the Soviet Union. The US was left unscathed after the war, fully intact, without losing even one structure. I believe only one or two American civilians died within the United States as a result of enemy fire, through a Japanese weather balloon bomb. Google it. The US lost 460 thousand of its citizens, practically all of them were combatants. American casualties amounted to 0.03% of its population. Again, the Soviets lost 14%, with 28 million casualties. Is there any comparison at all between those two? Russia lost over 50 times the people, due to being in Europe, rather than protected by thousands of miles of two vast oceans (i.e. Pacific - Atlantic).

View attachment 887284
​

Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned facts the Soviet Union got back on its feet and became a world nuclear superpower with the second largest economy in the world. They were launching rockets with cosmonauts into space not that long after the devastation they suffered during World War II.

View attachment 887286​

They were the FIRST IN SPACE! That's impressive and to pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. No other political and economic system can achieve that other than socialism. There's no other system that can industrialize and build a nation as quickly as a socialist, rationally, centrally planned economy.
The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, encircled by the most powerful nations in human history, so if it eventually lost the Cold War and dissolved, does that imply that it will never rise again much stronger or that markeless socialism at a national scale as what we saw in the USSR will never be successful in another country? No.

Every single country that has mostly a centrally planned economy without major markets today is under the heel of American economic sanctions and the constant threat of military invasion by the United States. Have you ever factored that into your assessment of the viability of a centrally planned, socialist economy? They're all in a state of war, encircled by the US and its cronies. Hello?

You don't have the ideological luxury of claiming socialism doesn't work when your capitalist, imperialist buddies in Washington are depriving such nations of engaging in international trade and normal diplomatic relations with other countries. No one defies the US embargo on centrally planned, marketless socialism unless they plan to suffer the same fate and lose their economies and perhaps their lives. No one wants to trade with these countries because they get blacklisted, penalized, if not economically and politically sanctioned themselves.

To give you an example. Every single cargo ship that ports in Cuba can't anchor in American ports, anywhere, be it in the lower 48 or Alaska, Hawai, Guam the US Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. etc, for six months. Your expensive cargo ship is barred from The Empire for 180 days. Who the hell wants to port in Cuba? No one. If you have a bank and you give Cuba a loan, you will get audited by the US and most likely fined. They'll find some violation, somewhere, or they'll conjure it up from their magical hat. What international banks want to open a line of credit with the Cuban government or Cuban companies? None.

Despite this, Cuba survives in the shadow of a hostile, capitalist empire, 90 miles from its shores.

The US owns and controls the world's reserve currency and its banking institutions, hence no one resists The Empire. Whatever its demands, the world cowers.

Why are the American wealthy elites so afraid that they have to lobby Washington so hard, to continue punishing little marketless, socialist nations like Cuba? The market-socialist nations or mixed economies of the world (Western Europe is mostly a mixed economy), don't have much to worry about from the United States provided they continue serving American foreign policy. But the mostly non-profit, marketless economies, or true socialist-Marxist-run countries, have everything to worry about. AND YET THEY SURVIVE. Hello? The resilience and power of socialism.

In your fantasy world, do economic and political systems replace others overnight? Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism, in one single swoop of the sword? It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the royal aristocracy of Europe as the dominant, ruling class. It wouldn't occur until technology permitted the merchants to become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century. That's when capitalism and its republicanism, took hold in the world. For centuries the royals and their nobles laughed at the prospect of a bunch of merchant traders replacing them and eventually that's what happened.

Now with the advent of advanced automation, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we are entering into the socialist age. When production becomes so advanced that human input is reduced to a minimum, due to intelligent automation, that's the end of capitalism.

If a powerful computer can do all of the accounting and with onsite sensors can collect data and then control all of the robots and self-driving vehicles, all of the machinery, essentially automating the process of production with all of its logistics, that's the end of capitalism and the beginning of the socialist age. You can pout, huff, and puff, have your tantrum, and thumb down all of my posts, but nonetheless, if you're smart, you know this is true. You're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance hence your inability to admit it openly and come to terms with it. Socialism is the natural successor of capitalism, due to technology, it's that simple. The alternative is techno-feudalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2aH9tu4s30​

 

[TruthNotBS]

Not the fault of the companies. It is the "fault" of the consumer. The consumer demanded higher wages and more regulations. The same consumer resisted when prices increased. It became more profitable for companies to manufacture the products in other countries and then ship them thousands of miles to meet demand. Then those same consumers wonder why jobs are going to other countries.

Not the fault of the companies. It is the "fault" of the consumer.

Yeah right, sure. It's never their fault, just blame the workers/consumers.

The consumer demanded higher wages and more regulations.

You haven't presented any data showing that is the case but even if it is, it doesn't justify moving the nation's manufacturing base to another country. The truth is that Ronald Reagan, broke the labor unions and deregulated private industry, and lowered taxes, and yet the result of that was the factories leaving. They essentially had carte blanche support from the Reagan administration to do whatever they wanted, namely, short-term profits by importing products from third-world countries where labor is a dollar hourly if not less, and industry is almost completely unregulated. They said screw America's long-term economic success and stability and let me get paid HUGE now.

The US government didn't have to allow capitalists to gutt America of its manufacturing, it could've penalized, even prohibited American capitalists from moving their factories abroad and leaving millions of Americans unemployed from their good-paying blue-collar jobs. These capitalists without any government oversight or regulations, in their insatiable pursuit of quick profits will destroy our American economy. They forced America to switch from an economy based on production (i.e. Manufacturing goods), to finance and speculative trading (Banking and Wall Street). At the blue-collar level, retail took over, which paid less with fewer benefits and rights.

The same consumer resisted when prices increased.

Again, you're not giving stats or information on what you're referring to. No one forced American manufacturers out of America, they could've lowered their prices and still made a profit or charged more and the market would've eventually adjusted itself to those higher prices. The government can also incentivize manufacturers to stay by cutting their taxes (which is what Reagan did lowering taxes from 77% in 1982 to 28% by the time he left office in 1988), among other incentives and perks. Again, no excuse for what happened. Zero justification.


It became more profitable for companies to manufacture the products in other countries and then ship them thousands of miles to meet demand.

It became more profitable in the short term, not the long term. First, it was permitted and then it only profits a few in the short-term, because it undermines the American economy in the long-term. There's a name for this type of capitalism, it's called Capitalist Cannibalism. You let go of your employees, close the factory and open it in a third-world country, and then turn around and sell them the same product for a higher profit while destroying the consumer's purchasing power and job prospects. Cost of living goes up, wages become stagnant, people amass debt, save less and eventually, the economy collapses. There's no reason why the government should allow capitalists to do this. Be a cannibal somewhere else, not here.

Workers = Consumers. Take care of your workers and your consumers will have more money to consume, translating into more sales for employers.

Then those same consumers wonder why jobs are going to other countries.

It's because capitalists are more interested in short-term profits than in long-term, stable, gradual gains. The US government could've stopped it with a carrot, not necessarily with a stick. The stick can be used, but the carrot is better. If the soft method doesn't work then take out the stick.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I don't write for you.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Don't you find it a bit incongruous that you claim to be a Communist yet quote scripture?

No, not at all.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Ohhh I got it, otherwise you are attempting to take advantage of the perceived weakness that has evolved over time in America, and therefore you figure that your system would have avoided such things if we would have adopted your style of system earlier on.

Nah, we'll pass... We just need to fix the system, and MAGA.

Socialism has always fixed the system. That's the cure. We need to turn America's economy into a mixed one, like every other modern, industrialized economy in the world. I'm not suggesting we adopt the marketless, completely centrally planned socialism of the USSR, but rather the type of socialism found in Western Europe, Japan, South Korea..etc. They enjoy a much higher standard of living than we do:

​

Communism as defined by Karl Marx won't happen for another 100, even maybe 200 years. What is necessary now is a gradual move towards socializing production to mitigate the negative effects of automation and AI on the job market.

 

[Markle]

Can't agree with this excuse... Business tycoons are greedy, and they put or allowed politicians to be put in place in order to represent their wishes and demands on behest of the business class that ordered it.

Bogus.

Share with us specifically what I posted that is not true. What legislation did the companies demand be put in place?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Socialism has always fixed the system. That's the cure. We need to turn America's economy into a mixed one, like every other modern, industrialized economy in the world. I'm not suggesting we adopt the marketless, completely centrally planned socialism of the USSR, but rather the type of socialism found in Western Europe, Japan, South Korea..etc. They enjoy a much higher standard of living than we do:

​

Communism as defined by Karl Marx won't happen for another 100, even maybe 200 years. What is necessary now is a gradual move towards socializing production to mitigate the negative effects of automation and AI on the job market.

Wrong.

Socialism has always failed.

Those nations arenothing more than capitalisty systems with far less rwgulation and higher taxes and a massicew safety net.

Not a good lan for us and unsustainable.

Communism as defined by Marx happened everywhere it was tried and failed. He made no such prediction as you are doing.

What is necessary now is more free marlets and less government

Your ideas always fail as marx as a total fool and proven so

 

[Soupnazi630]

The capitalist system fails and collapses every few years requiring government intervention. Actually from the very beginning of capitalism in the United States, it has needed the government to compete with Europe and other nations that were well-established and more industrialized. Social engineering is what capitalists do with their marketing and cronyism, which is endemic to market capitalism. Here, check this out:

View attachment 887338

View attachment 887339

View attachment 887340​

Who do you think is behind all of this LGBT+ nonsense? Stalinist, communists like me? We're against this shit. It's big money interests. Capitalism. Ever heard of George Soros, the capitalist?

Wrong.

The capitalist system has never failed or collapsed nor was it ever necessary to save it through government even if government needlessly stepped in.

The queer agenda is indeed being pushed by socialists and communists by you.

The reason is very simple. They desire the destruction and abolishment of the nuclear family. They view the traditional family as a means of production. It produces children who will grow to work in burgoise corporations and companies. Therefore it has to be destroyed.

They really do not give a rats ass about gays or lesbians or even trans people who actually support the gender binary. They simply view the alphabet people as a means to an end.

The end would be a comunal system where all children are born through suragacy and are raised by at least half a dozen parents without knowing who their biological relatives are. This allows them control over the future

 

[Markle]

I don't write for you.

No one reads your silly diatribes.

 

[TruthNotBS]

No one reads your silly diatribes.

Believe that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ignore practically all of the points that I made, but others won't keep that in mind.

I didn’t ignore them, I disagreed with them.

Your responses consistently display a lack of understanding and empathy for workers.

I’m one of those workers.

The truth is that those who work the business should own and run it together.

It’s not a question of should/shouldn’t, it’s a question of choice.

If a group of people get together and want to start a business where everyone manages and makes the decisions, by all means, have at it. But requiring businesses to operate this way would be wrong and unconstitutional.

Production has always been a social endeavor requiring a group of people to cooperate and work together. There's no such thing as private mass production, that's a fantasy created by delusional, hubristic capitalists.

I don’t think any capitalist thinks they can manage the business and do every job on the production line at the same time. They know they can’t which is why they pay people to do the work.

No masters, just elected, accountable leadership chosen on their merits. Except for parents and close relatives like grandparents who have authority over the children they're raising, that's the only legitimate authority that should exist in a truly free and modern society, including the workplace. You're either elected or appointed by an elected leader and always fully accountable with the possibility of being recalled or replaced with another person if you're proven incompetent or unfit.

That’s fine for those who choose it but again, requiring it is simply not right.

The fittest are those who are rendering capitalism obsolete with automation and artificial intelligence. It's socialism that is the inevitable successor of capitalism.

I don’t like all the automation either but that is their right as Americans.