Yeah I just name pinged 4 users get over it 
Is this accurate method towards fighting Democrat socialism? !commies has our secret plan be revealed? Is it over?
Reported by:
- Impassionata : I foresaw this
- care_nlm : I foresaw this first
- Goomble : I thirdsaw this
Conservatives, Trump supporters, and rightists of rdrama. Thoughts?
- 271
- 73
Top Poster of the Day:
J
Current Registered Users: 25,875
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: 3f74d5d
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Imho, there needs to be a seperation between the government and the economy similar to seperation of church and state. The government should be able to issue currency, but shouldnt be able to subsidise corporations/pick winners and losers/bailouts. Lobbying should be banned, and politicians should be banned from holding corporate positions for a period of time/have conflict of interest checks to prevent regulatory capture.
I think the reason why political discourse in the country has gotten so r-slurred is bc the Citizens Untied vs FEC decision which allows corporations to donate unlimited funds to politics and the repeal of the Smith Mundt act which allows ttaxpayer dollars to be used on propaganda against US citizens.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
10 years at least. No more promised board positions right after getting out. Same should apply to their legislative aides, and all of their investments go in a boring index fund, so they can't bet on the market while writing laws that affect certain businesses.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This would never be passed for the same reason it became a problem in the first place
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He is very close to discovering the fundamental problem with liberal democracy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's only a fundamental problem if you're a depraved nihilist who learned the wrong lesson from Trump. Learn this lesson, instead:
If you win the election, they will give you the power.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ok and how can you do a sucessfull winning campaign without funding from them? (therefore needing to cuck to them in the first place)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lie to them. Betrayal in the name of revolution.
Very unlikely though. Socialists will not win liberal elections. Luxembourg answered this a century ago.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
so you also lied to your voters and they will want you gone, see this is why democracy needs to go
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Democracy is still a goal of socialism, just in a different form.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
this is foundational commie theory lol, it's not groundbreaking by any means.
Part of the fiscally-left, socially-right movement. Join today!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
IIRC, Great Britain enacted that but only for politicians. Even during the days of slavery, abolitionists were peacefully fighting against it, so being correct matters. But if being a doomedr lets you gloat happily, then doom away, RFV.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Temporary concessions are not good enough. Abolish the capitalist state.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Fair, but impossible to last.
The economy and the State are naturally intertwined. When Capital is dominant, it will take over the state (as has happened every single time) and you just described the result.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Also while this maybe generally true, it can vary from system to system obviously the government is more involved with the economy under a socialist or communist system rather than a more capitalist one. Therefore we could limit that intetwining.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a two-way street between business and government. Major players generally need government favoritism to dominate their sector. It's also a difficult problem because a complete separation would prohibit charter schools and other things that government sucks at providing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, without that gov intervention major players might end up being the guys who makes the best product
Lol, how? The private sector has an alternative for practically every government service even law enforcement and military.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Without effective tariffs (like America lacks) the major players will be the foreign companies most effectively sucking up to their government and domestic companies doing the same to said foreign governments.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So the only problem/solution is to make more effective tarriffs?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
We're in agreement. Regarding "privatization," that's been the politically acceptable way of putting markets before government. Outright banning government from playing around in the economy (including education) would be ideal, but it's not realistic with voters' preferences. It's just a slow trend toward it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
capitalism not having a great deal of government entwining with the economy is outdated theory. It was maybe true 100 years ago (closer to 150).
Part of the fiscally-left, socially-right movement. Join today!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Perhaps, but there are things that could be done though that arent that would slow this procesd, like outlawing lobbying/bribery. Also the freer a society the more unstable it is. Hence
A communist/fascist society is far more stable/safe than a free society. To me that doesnt make it beetter though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The kind of libertarian society the founders wanted hasnβt been possible for centuries
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I disagree. Also I, nor the founders, were full libertarian. Jefferson for instance came up with the government funded education system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_education
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tommy J also desired an agrarian society with little need for the hustle and bustle of industry.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
And we had/have enough land for it and the technology if applied the right way could make that a splendid reality but it wont.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
World economies + governments have been trending towards centralisation for centuries.
While there is likely a limit to consolidation (USSR and the EU's current struggles suggest the line) it doesn't rule out continuing to centralise for the foreseable future. Language seems to be the great limiter, not culture.
State identity is a cope, localism is a meme. Gen Z in the Midwest was raised on Californian media and they're developing Californian accents. In a century, the 50-state distinction will be a Gormenghastian formality, something that's on paper because our predecessors wrote it down but having little de facto meaning. Pure inertia.
Libertarianism might work after a great cataclysm that kills half of the world population. That's not really a world I want to live in.
Part of the fiscally-left, socially-right movement. Join today!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
it's hilarious how libertarians tend to be coders/hackers/technophiles when technology is one of the greatest factors behind centralisation, possible the greatest. Politically, pre- and post-industrial revolution is like night and day.
Part of the fiscally-left, socially-right movement. Join today!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This simply isn't true, it's delusional wishful thinking.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Communist societies are so stable that the longest one has lasted is like a year after realizing that markets are a necessary item.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tell that to the Communist Party of China or the former Societ Union. That said I feel like your thinking a little to black and white. No human society/economic system is pure communist or pure capitalist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
When the Bolsheviks first started out, they de facto banned currency by inflating it into worthless. The moneyless economy is a good thing, comrade. They changed their minds after 5 or so years, so it's tough being a commie in accordance with Marxist ideals.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The bolsheviks were kinda fighting a giant civil war that blew up the countryβ¦
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
And commiting a genocide against their largest grain producing state.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Skill issue.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You should see what Lenin said during that time and after the fact.
Communists are notorious liars.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, and every capitalist society you can point to has taken some socialist communist measures like funding education/roads/healthcare etc. Whats your point?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They tried communism in terms of monetary policy, and it failed day 1. You kinda glossed over that fact with the Soviet Union, and by proxy-learning the PRC.
It's a useless dichotomy from the socialist school of thought, just so you know. Trade and private property rights are as natural as walking when it comes to human societies. You have to remember that socialist thought ignored that by assuming all "capitalism" (markets, trade, private property) is evil and thus the root of all societal problems.
Just sayin, sweaty.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No society is totally communist/socialist or totally capitalist. If you define communism as the government siezing thr means of production and define capitalism as free market with limited/no government influence over the means of production. Vommunist countries do capitalist things like the examples you presented and capitalist societies do plenty of government cheese cutting and entitlement spending. Tell me sweaty, can you point to a country that is purely capitalist now or that has ever existed?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
NEP was put into place like a year alter the revolution, creating at least a partial market economy. China has in many ways a much freer market than America or Europe do. They register more privately owned businesses per day than every other country on the planet combined.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's true. Can't even start a fentanyl factory in the US and ship to China.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tell that to the Uyghurs who cant even start a church/mosque
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
are you fricking r-slurred? which countries except for socialist hellholes does it this way
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The United States of America for one. Their constitution says:
It was that way since the Constitution was ratified and at least up until 1913.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
are you sure it works like that??? that is slurred. Then they can just give themselves money.
Don't you have a central/national bank?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
this is a paradox. The government cannot be disentwined from corporate subsidies unless a non-corporate group hijacks it, holds guns to the corpos and tells them to back off.
So it's still being hijacked by interest groups, just not the current ones.
Traditionally, Marxism has offered the working class as this group. I think this is probably the best compromise, as flawed as it is.
Part of the fiscally-left, socially-right movement. Join today!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
people who advocate for lobbying to banned are r-slurred, without lobbyists politicians would have no idea what kind of laws to pass or regulations to write.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
To be more specific I'm against corporate lobbying. Politicians should only be lobbied by the constitiency that they represent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Citizens united wasnt even close to touching the most basic issue. Corporations were funneling money into politics and doing government contracts way before then. Someone making a documentary about hillary clinton and banning it from being released was quite r-slurrred
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context