Capitalism has made it possible for charities to exist. People couldn't contribute to charities without financial or property/goods to contribute. Especially considering charities are almost all Online now a days where people can contribute to those charities.

Capitalism is literally a system where those with ideas and capability to build industry - help everyone else because they provide jobs so people can purchase products and services.

The whole of the community can contribute the fruits of their labor to a common cause without any sort of ownership of it. In fact, with a whole society sharing all of the resources, charity becomes obsolete because we naturally just make sure everyone already HAS what they need.

Capitalism makes charity NECESSARY. That's not a GOOD thing. Again, helping others is GOOD. Creating the NEED for others to get help is not. Try reading a book. Give it a try. It can't hurt you at this point.

Lmao - if that's true name me some socialist situations that turned out great, because I can name them that eventually devolved into mass murder of opposition to socialism when it broke down. Eventually socialism always runs out of other people's money.

China, the second biggest economy on the planet.
That question has long passed it's Use By date decades ago.

Tell all of the slave labor in China how great it is.

and sweat shops that send goods to Walmart.

Goods that Republicans buy.

And democrats buy and independents buy

Allow me to repeat my comment and yours so that we can both not waste my time again for an hour and a half like we did the other day when you couldn't scroll up one comment to see what I said and to what even though you were replying to my comment.

Here we go, what we said was:

▶️ "LetsGo_Elect_Brandon_JR 8h

Lmao - if that's true name me some socialist situations that turned out great, because I can name them that eventually devolved into mass murder of opposition to socialism when it broke down. Eventually socialism always runs out of other people's money."

▶️ "Modda 1h

China, the second biggest economy on the planet.
That question has long passed it's Use By date decades ago."

⬛ Do not reply. Simply read both those comments until you understand what both you and I were saying, and what I said and how it pertains to what you said. Do this repeatedly till you finally understand. Let's not have a rehash of what we did the other day in which it was a back and forth until you finally after an hour and a half read my comment for the first time - THE comment that you initially replied to.

Again, do not reply. Just read them. No need for me to reiterate it five times for you to not understand. No need, just none. Save me some room on my notifications.

Just because people point out your flaws in logic doesn't mean they aren't reading your comments or understanding them. Don't hate on me because you're saying Slave Labor is great by definition of answering my question

Why are you so against slave labor?

Are you for increasing the minimum wage so that it reflects the national economic growth AND cost of living?

Once you’re done tying your shoes, answer my question.

Clown

And to simplify things in case you're distracted by not understanding what you yourself said and what I said in response, I'll just leave this one sentence to decipher. To simplify things:

"China, the second biggest economy on the planet."

This is a very simple sentence. It should be very easy to translate into any language. No need for complicated discourse going back and forth. It's a standalone comment that should be easy enough for anybody to understand.

China,
the second biggest
economy
on the planet.

I can't make this any simpler. Any difficulties with that? You're on your own.

Yeah I definitively defended my stance - because that didn't turn out great. You can't say it turned out great when they rely and abuse people with slave labor. My retort is based on you saying it turned out great by naming it. My comment was name one that turned out great & you named an economy based on slave labor -- which I'm pretty sure you're against.

Seriously, this sounds like you’re an advocate for increasing the minimum wage.

You do know what group is strictly against that right?

The minimum wage doesn't need increased - the value of the US Dollar does.

I think 1/2 of the currency in circulation should be burned.

Both those concepts are in direct conflict.

First, it is a common myth that printing more money causes inflation, but it's not true. The increase to the money supply that would be required to contribute to inflation is unprecedentedly massive. We're talking about creating an additional billions of dollars daily to increase inflation even a miniscule amount. It's just not a factor.

In theory, what you suggest might be possible. But you'd have to destroy WAY more than a million dollars. Destroying even $1 billion would only decrease the money supply by 0.0005%. Even that would not make inflation move a bit.

It's also worth noting that inflation was decreasing from the peak of 6.6% back in September 2022 to less than half that, at 3.1% a year ago. Meanwhile, the tariffs have made little to no effect on inflation overall either way, at this point. But if these uncertainty trends continue, it will still hurt the upper-middle class and downward.

Meanwhile, it is astoundingly arrogant to me that people think it’s a-okay to be earning the same amount of money as people did in 2009, $7.25 was the federal minimum wage. When you factor in inflation, 2009’s $7.25 would be valued at $4.82 today.

If we’re the most economically successful country in the world, we wouldn’t have almost halved the value in less that 15 years. It’s not self-defeating to raise it if costs go up. It could actually be used as a deterrent to keep costs down!

China is state capitalism. Big difference. True socialism puts the government to work defending the dignity of people's lives, not giving them everything. In a successful socialist society, people would work for their communities voluntarily.

Name the successful socialist nations.

Like I've said previously, the 'socialist' nations in the world today (China, North Korea) are not socialist in nature. They are state capitalist and totalitarian states, respectively.

As a socialist I decry the Marxist-Leninist variety of socialism for being overly authoritarian; however, one cannot deny the success of the socialist system in Cuba.
Cuba has a literacy rate of 99.8%, (up from the low 70s before the socialist revolution) according to the World Bank, compared to just around 80% for the US. This is owing to the fact that education is free at all levels and highly accessible. Cuba was the first nation to sign, and second to ratify, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a UN treaty that has since been ratified by 189 countries.

The growing wealth inequality in Cuba, like many (but not all) of their economic weaknesses, is caused by the brutal US commercial and trade embargo of Cuba that began in 1960. This embargo bans trade between Cuba and the USA, which has had tragic effects like shortage of goods such as medicines, medical supplies, and the weakening of public services and infrastructure. Not only has this embargo impacted direct trade between the US and Cuba, it has also affected third countries' ability to trade with Cuba, leading to even worse economic woes.
The UN has repeatedly and consistently condemned the embargo since its application, but the US won't lift the embargo, because they fear what would happen if a socialist nation would be able to fully operate properly. The years of anti-socialist fear-mongering and 'socialism never works' propaganda would be disproven in a matter of years.

It's no wonder we say 'socialism never works', because whenever the people try to implement it, they are locked into a permanent economic stranglehold by powerful, wealthy nations.
However, I won't die on the hill of China, and certainly not North Korea, so don't pretend I will.

Are they free? Can they protest? Do they get sent away to a camp for being a bad machine?

You're misguided in thinking any formal government has truly tried socialism.

Which model of socialism are you talking about? The Engel's model or Henri's model?

Neither. That's the thing. I am not following some idea invented by others. That itself would be a failing model.

Lmao you're misguided thinking a few governments haven't

Yep. "Well nobody has tried socialism the right way yet!!" -- what socialists think socialism is - is actually a Eutopia. Which I love the idea of Eutopia - but it hasn't been tried properly yet lmao

Kibbutzim, Freetown Christiania, Twin Oaks, Zapatista Autonomous Communities, Mondragon Cooperative, etc.

Plenty of people have done it. It just hasn't been done by GOVERNMENTS because a few people controlling the resources is literally the opposite of socialism. If you had an active understanding of the concept you'd have known this but it was fun to watch you guys hang yourselves in this chat.

Kibbutz? Most of those have taken on a more Capitalistic Approach. Steeeeeerike 1.

Freetown Christiania? Their cannabis sales attracted police authorities and devolved into violence. To which they had to turn to the Government for help. Steeeeeerike 2.

Twin Oaks? High community turn out - people coming and leaving regularly due to not being able to build personal equity & other factors. It's main reason for staying afloat was adopting Capitalistic principles with work. I'll not count that as a strike though.

Zapatista? Has had to rely on the major government on multiple occasions. So that's not true socialism either. Steeeeeerike 3 , you're out!

Kibbutz = government oppression to socialism

Christiana = government oppression to socialism

Twin Oaks = socialism inside and capitalism for the capitalist world outside - thanks for understanding. Until everywhere turns socialist, all socialist systems will need to operate like this or be entirely self sustaining. That SHOULD be obvious.

Zapatista has rejected the government intervention several times. They declared a war on the Mexican state over it. When the government failed to stop this, Zapatistas armed themselves and built autonomous municipalities. To say that they relied on major government rather than being oppressed by them can only be said if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for being honest though. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I hope the internet points feel nice from the bots here because you're taking major L's on the IRL front.

Right nothing larger than a small town. It always devolves to totalitarianism eventually and never scales up, ever.

Actually governments come end them is what historically happens but thanks for trying

Also Jewish communes in Argentina.

Any socialist system that is led by a singular person or small group is inherently not socialist. That would mean the resources are not controlled by the people but by that small group that makes decisions. Read more. Talk less.

Apparently you don't know much about socialism. Even infantile AI Grok understands it better than you lmao.

using the bottom tier of AI for a definition is the epitome of stupid

You standing by what you said - that's the new epitome of something.

Bro asked GROK to tell him something...of ALL the AI models, bahahahahahaha

😂

No you're thinking of socialism. That's the epitome of stupid lmao

No, I stand by what I said.

so are you

You're referring to a Eutopia where everyone does what is needed of them & exchanges goods and services because they are happy to play their role and part. Just about every socialism example observable to history or modern society -- heavily relies on Government.

Perhaps the lack of a cold war would change things

The COVID pandemic is already over. Also - no, no it wouldn't. Because there are plenty of cases of socialism devolving into people getting killed over lack of resources when other people's money dries up

When was COVID brought up?

The "cold" war... It's a pun.

Ah, I see

I've read Animal Farm, and I Must Betray You. Your point for communism is invalid.

It's very strange that you infer "communism" to "helping others"

It must be miserable being that afraid of people.

The intention of communism was to help others. As much as I would like to help others, I would much rather do it willingly than to be forced to do it because someone wanted to make the system so no one can own anything for themselves and everyone has to give away everything because the government forces us to.

If you don't want to be a part of society then don't. If you do, then do. Society helps one another. Society is a social system. That's why it's called SOCIETY and not CAPITALIETY. Social systems and social problems require social solutions. This is the genesis of the term social-ism, or socialism.

If you don't like society - leave.

“Say it with me: "Since socialism means that the resources are controlled by the PEOPLE, any system where only a few politicians control the resources is not socialist."”

And if I refuse to say it? Do I go to the socialist re- education camp? The requisite of conformity by socialists is the pretext for murder those who refuse your ideas. It’s a failed system that will never be successful regardless how many times you try.

No. If you don't say it with me then you leave the socialist society and do whatever you want independent of it. If you don't want to be social - don't. Who is forcing you to stay inside a socialist system if you say you don't want to participate? Certainly a dictator would force you to stay inside their fascism but in socialism there isn't central leadership because, again, socialism itself is the concept that the people control those things - so one person controlling those things is not the people controlling them.

Are you serious? Like who says you can’t leave a socialist country? North Korea, Cuba, how about all of them. You are naive and idealistic but you have latched on to a dream that will never be what it promises.

Well again, a dictator wouldn't let you leave so if they can't leave then it's not socialism. Thanks for understanding. You're like 1/2 way there. You just need to finish the reading.

That’s because that’s the result of promised free 💩 every time. It doesn’t work and ends up in totalitarian regimes. The examples are all around you. Your experiment has been tried and failed, every time. Only the insane would try it again and expecting different results different results.

Well except for the tons of purely socialist communities that have been running since the 1950's where the only problems they ever have are the government coming to interfere with them. If all of those didn't exist, you would be right.

“Well except for the tons of purely socialist communities that have been running since the 1950's where the only problems they ever have are the government coming to interfere with them. If all of those didn't exist, you would be right.”

Communities, not nation states. Nothing larger than a tribal community has ever been successful. It doesn’t scale up and never will. Go join one of those communities and live your dream and stop trying to sell your communist fantasies on the good people who don’t want to be murdered by your lies.

So go ahead and move the goal post back to where it was. You said "it doesn't work and ends up in totalitarian regimes" and that is not true.

“So go ahead and move the goal post back to where it was. You said "it doesn't work and ends up in totalitarian regimes" and that is not true.”

You moved the goal post by deflecting from nation states to saying it’s been successful on a minor scale in a tribal setting. You claim they are successful but I’ve seen no evidence that they haven’t evolved to some sort of totalitarian control regardless of how they started and they aren’t successful as nation states from the perspective of citizen welfare and freedom. They are worse off than almost all capitalist states.

Name the communist country that created wealth and a higher standard of living for its people? Now add one that permits freedom.

"Name one communist country" is a fundamentally loaded question. It assumes communism exists in the world today or in recent history, which is incorrect.

Definition of communism: a socioeconomic order centred on common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products in society based on need. A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state.

Have any countries ever fully abolished social classes, money, or the state?

Exactly, it has failed every time to benefit the people in ways it promises. Repeating the same experiment expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

A communist society is a utopia; you don't have to believe in it, but to complain that 'it doesn't work' is stupid. Like all utopias, it's a distant dream. The difference with communism is that it is a distant dream with actual steps of how to get there, albeit varied ones.

Steps that always, every time become missteps leading to the massacre of the very citizens it presumes to elevate. Stupid is believing in a utopia that is unobtainable and ignoring human nature.

Who is ignoring human nature? Do you think that 'human nature' is this all-knowing, unmoldable entity that doesn't interact with the world around it? Human nature is decided and shaped by the society it grows and lives in.

Human nature in capitalism is greed, because that is what the capitalist system and world perpetuates.
Human nature in socialism and democracy will be empathy and cooperation because that is what the socialist and democratic system and world will perpetuate.

When has socialism been responsible for massacring citizens?!

Hitler isn't a socialist. Neither is Stalin. Mao is an agrarian socialist.

I'll take the lack of a response as a sign that I've won that debate.

Human nature is not dictated by the form of government. Greed and lust for power exist in all forms of government especially failed socialist states. Every one has failed its citizens every time it’s tried in anything larger than a village.

Correct on one count, wrong on one count.
Human nature is dictated by society, not government. Society is much broader than just government.

Anti-socialists' obsessions with 'the government' is tiring.

“What is fantasy, however, is expecting that everyone in society is a good little businessman”

What is a fantasy is that everyone will be a good little commie.

The proof of your experiment has been shown repeatedly. It doesn’t work. The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. The crazy and naive will continue to attempt it.

Wow. All you have is buzzwords and the same old lines, drilled into your psyche by decades of anti-socialist propaganda.
So many people believe in nothing; they refuse to believe that a better future is possible. It's tragic, really.

“I'll take the lack of a response as a sign that I've won that debate.”

You would be wrong. No response because the thread died and stopped allowing responses. Didn’t feel the need to copy and paste I. Order to prove the truth over commie fantasies. They were all socialists and they all murdered millions of their own citizens.

Say it with me: "Since socialism means that the resources are controlled by the PEOPLE, any system where only a few politicians control the resources is not socialist."

There is very little that is 'fantasy' about socialism.

What is fantasy, however, is expecting that everyone in society is a good little businessman who will start up a nice business, employ people, and pay them properly, and all will be well because people are looking out for themselves.

What is fantasy, is believing that a system based entirely on the principle of profit will benefit people and sustain our planet. What is fantasy is believing that the 'magic hand of the market' will correct all problems, the green line will go up, and everyone will be free to live their lives how they want.

That is fantasy. Because capitalism is based on a fantasy, a fantasy of greed.

Socialism is the realistic system, because it is a system that recognises that unrestrained growth will damage this world that we need, and that material gain is not the ideal thing to strive for.

“ Wow. All you have is buzzwords and the same old lines, drilled into your psyche by decades of anti-socialist propaganda.
So many people believe in nothing; they refuse to believe that a better future is possible. It's tragic, really.”

The tragedy is that anyone would promote a system of government that has been a proven failure every time and resulting in the deaths of millions of people. Only a crazy person says,”let’s try that again”.

Firstly, there's really no need to quote my entire comment when that is clearly what you're responding to.
Secondly, I'm not promoting a system of government. I'm promoting an economic model, and also, I'm promoting a shift away from a failed system that has had its time and now outlived it's usefulness.

In terms of responding to your attack on existing socialism, I will accept that tens of millions of people died in these once-socialist nations. However, I will not accept that socialism was the primary cause of those deaths. It seems to me that as soon as a socialist country fails in some way or another, it is all the fault of socialism, yet when capitalist countries fail or murder tens of millions of people it isn't the fault of capitalism.
It's an extreme double standard. However, it is to be expected; we live in the capitalist state of affairs, and so are in a capitalist state of mind.

and you just have fox news. f**k off.

We don't want to try that again. The failure they had was letting a few people control the resources. We need to make sure that doesn't happen again like they are currently trying to do in the administration. It doesn't matter the name you give it. Call it AVNKELSANDKLNFKLQ$NTRKL for all I care. What we DON'T do is put the control of the resources into the hands of the few - which they are doing as we speak in this nation. Instead, we are advocating for the opposite.

Killing is wrong...and bad. There should be a new stronger word for killing like, "badwrong" or "badong" - yes. Killing is badong. From this moment, I will stand for the opposite of killing, "gnodab"

So let's change the name to "gnodab" then and it represents the idea that we NEVER allow the few to control the resources - regardless of the name you give to the economic structure.

Whatever, you're not going to respond to any of this logic anyway. You're just going to repeat some botnet slop like, "tldr" or "socialism never works" talking point. On your way then, reply with your slop.

No, they haven't. Communes exist. Socialist and communist communities exist - many of them still in operation today after more than 50 years. The idea that a government or small group of people do this for the nation is, itself, not communism because that would then mean that the common ownership is not enforced by them. If it's not enforced by the collective itself, then those who control it are the effective owners.

Believing that trying Communisms repeated failure again is raw stupidly and the definition of insanity.

I don't think I said, "let's try a government that does communism" at all actually but that's a cute man of straw you've built there. I'm sure he really deserved it.

Oh, funny you have all the little communist phrases and colloquialisms down pat.

Are you suggesting that straw manning communist ideas is so common that recognizing a straw man argument is now a communist colloquialism? I believe you.

Just the phrase straw man argument says who you are mentally and your doctrination.

To invoke the premise of fallacy to your argument when you know that's what it was? You think following that up with some argumentum ad hominem is what helps you with that? The ad hom is from the latin argument from the person - or a personal attack versus attacking the argument. It's something people who have educated themselves have come to realize is typically a method people use when they have run out of other arguments if kept in isolation. The insinuation coming through euphemism in this platform so that you can remain in an area of plausible deniability and not get flagged for it might be clever but that's why we have these tools like a formal set of fallacious arguments. Because it tells everyone who knows about them how to avoid such arguments that fully lack substance and do nothing to further the conversation. Congrats, you've found your place in this conversation.

What if I told you the person making this meme is a liar…..

It would be no worse than your record setting liar icon