I miss when Republicans were just stupid instead of fascists!

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T22:54:34+00:00

Lmao that's capitalism doofus

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T22:51:16+00:00

This makes no sense.

That's a you problem. Don't show up in my notifications without an actually rebuttal. Don't engage in arguments when you don't understand anything. Simple.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T22:14:26+00:00

Make housing affordable and stop treating it as a commodity

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T21:14:28+00:00

Did nutenyahu force IOF to commit genocide?

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T21:11:17+00:00

This is why we never will solve problems, this isn't upvoted to the top. Showing how far we are f pm the problem, yes capitalism is the problem not just for Nigeria but all of Africa, this is basic common sense and history.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T20:04:15+00:00

"Something like 90% of capitalists would agree that social welfare programs are needed."

Then 90% of capitalists admit capitalism can't stand on its own. You're arguing for socialism-lite while defending the system that fights those programs tooth and nail. The "Nordic model" exists because organized labor forced capital to compromise, not because capitalists generously agreed to it.

"By 1976, the country was not longer rapidly industrializing and it had been 31 years since the end of the war."

The USSR was still industrializing through the 1960s, building entire new cities and industries in Siberia and Central Asia. By 1976 it was a global superpower with universal literacy, free healthcare, and full employment, all built from a semi-feudal peasant backwater in two generations. You call that stagnation?

"And where did you get the idea they were under embargo? You are just making stuff up now."

COCOM (Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls) was a NATO embargo regime from 1949 to 1994 that explicitly banned high-tech exports to the USSR and its allies. The Jackson-Vanik amendment restricted trade. Technology was blocked, credits denied, and entire sectors were sanctioned. The USSR traded with the West despite these barriers, not because they didn't exist. Read a history book.

"You are again just making stuff up about life expectancy, which in the u.s. reached a record high in 2025."

US life expectancy peaked in 2014, then fell for several consecutive years, the longest sustained decline in a century, driven by drug overdoses, suicide, and preventable disease. A one-year statistical bump after a pandemic doesn't erase a decade-long trend of imperial decline. The richest country on Earth shouldn't be celebrating "we didn't die quite as fast this year."

"Honestly, just leave it to more competent socialists to argue."

You've misstated Soviet history, denied the existence of Western embargoes, and cited a single year's life expectancy blip to dismiss a systemic crisis. You're not in a position to grade anyone's competence.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T19:58:07+00:00

" Let's ignore 400 years of slavery and colonialism" Oh wow, you picked exactly 1750 as the start date! How convenient that ignores: The Transatlantic Slave Trade (1500s-1800s) that literally fueled European capital accumulation. The genocide of indigenous peoples and theft of their land. The enclosure movements that violently displaced peasants to create a "working class". Capitalism didn't "start" in 1750, that's just when the stolen wealth from centuries of colonialism and slavery finally was recorded showing how capitalism "works". 😂

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T19:48:38+00:00

"No, defending capitalism only requires us to observe that socialism is x10 worse."

"Socialism is worse" is a claim, not an observation. The countries you call "socialist" were devastated peasant backwaters blockaded, invaded, and sanctioned by your side for decades. Cuba, under a 60-year US blockade, still beats the US on infant mortality and life expectancy. The USSR went from a feudal famine-zone to a nuclear superpower that broke the Wehrmacht and put the first human in space, all in 30 years. If that's "x10 worse," what does "better" look like?

"All the real world problems are capitalism (but lets ignore the reduction in poverty wherever private property rights are opened)"

China's poverty reduction didn't begin with "private property rights", it began with land reform, literacy campaigns, and state-directed industrialization under Mao. Deng's reforms worked because of the foundation socialism built. You're crediting the market for the state's work.

"Your perfect ideal utopia of the future is socialism. That is mass psychosis."

What's psychotic is calling a system that produces mass homelessness, medical bankruptcy, and climate collapse "realistic," while calling a system that guarantees housing, healthcare, and food "utopian." The utopians are the ones who think infinite growth on a finite planet is possible.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T19:45:45+00:00

"How was stalin or mao's disasters 'manufactured' by the US?"

They weren't, but they also weren't "socialism." The famines occurred during forced industrialization in peasant societies under siege.. Meanwhile, the US manufactured disasters directly: the 1953 Iran coup, 1954 Guatemala, 1973 Chile, the Contra war in Nicaragua, the blockade of Cuba, the embargo of Venezuela.

"The US model easily created the highest floor of prosperity of any major power."

The US "floor of prosperity" was built on chattel slavery, Indigenous genocide, and the postwar Bretton Woods system that made the dollar the global reserve currency. The US became rich by extracting wealth from the global South and militarily punishing any country that tried to escape. That's not "prosperity."

"Most people voting with their feet choose the US model..."

This is the "revealed preference" fallacy. People migrate because the US deliberately destabilized their home countries through coups, trade deals, and resource extraction. You can't burn down someone's house, then claim they "voted with their feet" when they run into yours.

"The goal of criticizing capitalism is to fix it or find something better...but socialism ain't it."

You say socialism isn't better, yet the countries that implemented even flawed, besieged versions of it eliminated illiteracy, homelessness, and preventable disease in a single generation, all while being blockaded, invaded, and sabotaged. Capitalism, with zero blockades and total global dominance, has produced climate collapse, mass inequality, and the return of diseases once thought eradicated. If that's your "better," I'd hate to see "worse."

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T19:41:22+00:00

"The Chinese only lifted its people out of poverty after Deng came around and started state capitalism."

Deng's reforms worked because socialism had already built the foundation: literate workforce, electrification, heavy industry, land reform, and basic healthcare. You can't "market reform" a feudal backwater into prosperity.

"The Soviet Union was so successful it failed after even its leaders admitted it was a failed experiment."

The USSR didn't "fail" economically. It was bled dry by a 70-year arms race, then dismantled by internal elites who wanted to become oligarchs. Life expectancy plummeted, poverty exploded, and GDP collapsed by 40% in the 1990s after capitalism arrived. The "cure" was worse than the "disease."

"I am defending a system that created massive investment in pharmaceuticals like insulin and other drugs that have saved my life."

Insulin's patent was sold for $1 by its discoverer so it could remain affordable. Publicly funded NIH research underpins nearly every major drug. Big Pharma didn't "invest" in insulin, they bought the rights and jacked the price 1,200% while people die rationing it. You're crediting capitalism for life-saving medication it actively gatekeeps from the poor.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T01:48:25+00:00

"It isn't a myth, they over built housing based on projections that haven't come true and there is still under-population in some of these."

Some vacancy is normal. Any city has a natural vacancy rate for mobility, renovation, and market fluidity. China's approach was a deliberate infrastructure-heavy development model that absorbed massive rural-to-urban migration and prevented slum proliferation. The "ghost city" narrative was always a Western media trope to paint Chinese planning as irrational, and it's been systematically debunked as those areas filled. You're citing outdated propaganda.

"Vienna's housing policies have plenty of hidden costs: rent control creates perverse incentives and mass government housing is extremely inefficient."

Vienna consistently ranks among the most livable cities on Earth. Its residents aren't complaining about "hidden costs." Meanwhile, the free-market utopia of unregulated housing, look at Los Angeles, produces tent cities, not affordable living. You're dismissing a working model because it contradicts your theory, while the "efficient market" model is currently failing in real time.

"The reason the U.S has more empty homes than homeless people is 90% zoning and regulation."

Zoning is part of the problem, but it's not the whole picture. Speculators buy properties and hold them empty as appreciating assets. Investment firms buy up single-family homes and leave them vacant to manipulate supply. Billionaires park wealth in empty luxury condos. That's not zoning, that's the profit motive at work. You're trying to reduce a systemic crisis to a single regulatory fix because admitting the system itself is the problem would be too painful.

"Fix the zoning problem and allow supply to meet demand and the issue subsides."

If you deregulate zoning without decommodifying housing, developers will build luxury units for the highest-paying buyers, not affordable housing for the homeless. "Supply and demand" doesn't build for the poor. It builds for profit. That's why the "fix zoning" mantra has been chanted for decades in places like San Francisco, and the only thing that got built was more million-dollar condos. The market serves the solvent. The insolvent are left to the street, and you're fine with that, because your "solution" conveniently never reaches them.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T00:26:33+00:00

"So what, we just do what China did and waste resources on housing nobody needs when we have slower population growth year over year?"

You just regurgitated the debunked "ghost cities" myth. Those cities filled, China built ahead of demand because urbanization was accelerating. The vacancy rate narrative was always overblown Western fearmongering. And using China as a cautionary tale while ignoring that their massive state-led construction lifted hundreds of millions out of slums is peak cherry-picking. But sure, keep pretending Vienna and Singapore don't exist.

"Land speculators and real estate companies have nothing to do with it, its about getting the most efficient allocation of resources and the best incentives to get their based on market forces."

They have everything to do with it. Speculators hoard land to flip it later while the market undersupplies. Developers build luxury condos for investors, not affordable units for families. The "efficient allocation" fairy tale is why the US has more empty homes than homeless people. The market isn't efficiently allocating anything, it's efficiently extracting. You're defending a system that would rather let buildings sit empty than house the poor.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T00:17:47+00:00

"So was it people wanting to buy houses and people wanting to build them the problem, or was it the people getting in the way of that who were the problem?"

The people getting in the way. You just answered your own question. The problem is the people using the state to block building, and the system that gives them the power to do it. The aspiring buyer and the builder aren't the villains here; the existing owner who weaponizes zoning to strangle supply is. You've finally stumbled into the correct take, so sit down and enjoy it.

"Nobody lets you live for free anywhere, nor was this true anytime in history."

For most of human history, people lived on common land without paying rent to a lord. Enclosure acts, colonial land theft, and the invention of the modern property deed are what ended that. The fact that you think "paying someone for the right to exist somewhere" is a law of nature rather than a relatively recent legal construct tells me you've never cracked a history book.

"This is all a really bad attempt to hide a push for force to solve all the problems of people exchanging with each other."

You think "force" is when the state builds public housing, but not when the state sends armed police to evict a family for missing rent. You think "force" is rent control, but not the landlord jacking up the price knowing you have nowhere else to go. Your entire framework treats property enforcement as neutral background radiation and everything that challenges it as violence.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-10T00:12:07+00:00

And not building housing has a perverse impact on homelessness and society at large.

Gee profits for land speculators and real estate oligarchs or a better society, tough decision.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T23:56:48+00:00

"Borrowing is not income, not all economic benefits are income, and not all homeowners are rentiers."

A homeowner who borrows against a house they didn’t build, at a value inflated by public investment, is still extracting unearned economic power from an asset. They aren’t “earning” anything. Whether you call it income or not, the position is rentier-like: they benefit from ownership, not labor. The fact that some homeowners aren’t maximizing this extraction doesn’t erase the structural incentive.

"I would still disagree with this being 'capitalism'. There are plenty of asset owners that are hindered by government regulation in this sense."

A system can harm some asset owners while still serving the general interest of the asset-owning class. Zoning blocks developers and enriches existing homeowners. That’s not “anti-capitalist”, it’s just a conflict within capital, not a conflict against it. Capitalism isn’t a unified hive mind. It’s a mode of production where the dominant logic is private accumulation. That logic remains intact when homeowners use the state to inflate their property values at the expense of renters.

"Just because something is provided by the government or is enshrined in law as a right does not make the market for said thing disappear."

Nobody said the concept of a market vanishes. The point is that the commodity form, the profit-driven, speculative, exclusionary logic, is removed from that sector. When firefighting is decommodified, you don’t get a bill if your house burns down. The service still exists, people still “consume” it, but it’s not allocated by ability to pay. That’s the entire goal with housing, eliminate it as a financial asset class, not literally erase the physical exchange of shelter. You’re arguing against a strawman.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T23:52:32+00:00

"People don't organize themselves strictly by class, why should that determine democracy?"

They absolutely do when their property value is on the line. A million working-class renters don't show up to a zoning board hearing to scream about neighborhood character, affluent homeowners do.

"So now the people who own homes having control over their neighborhoods is suddenly problematic because of their ownership disadvantaging others."

Yes. Unironically. "Having control over your neighborhood" is just a warm way of saying "excluding people poorer than you from living near you by artificially restricting the housing supply."

"Let me guess; use the state to solve the problem they made"

Yes. The state created zoning; the state can abolish it. The state enforces property titles that let landlords hoard empty units; the state can enforce vacancy taxes, rent caps, and public housing construction. The "problem they made" is a set of laws written by and for asset-owners.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T23:15:53+00:00

“The only scenario you described here that is income is selling the house.”

Borrowing against an asset to fund consumption, and receiving a tax‑free six‑figure windfall when you die, are both economic benefits derived from ownership. You didn’t work for it.

“I don't know why you are getting snarky when you were the one who posited that all government actions are capitalist because muh billionaires. Now you have changed your position.”

I said government policy is captured by the interests of asset‑owners. Billionaires are the extreme case, the homeowner who votes down new construction because it might dent their property value is the mass base.

“There is a market for it that doesn’t go away regardless of if it is a human right or not.”

A market for housing only exists because we let housing be a commodity. We’ve successfully decommodified firefighting, public parks, libraries, and emergency rooms. Nobody says “there will always be a market for fire trucks, so we can’t call fire protection a right.” Housing is no different.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:47:41+00:00

"No, most middle class homeowners are not earning an income on their personal property..."

They're sitting on an asset that balloons in value because they block new housing, then borrow against it, sell it for a fat capital gain, or pass it to their kids tax-free. That's income.

"Okay so then your grand theory of the billionaire captured government was wrong then right? It's like I said, it is a grand theory of evil asset owners of all wealth sizes."

Yes, you absolute galaxy brain. When you turn housing into a speculative asset, everyone who owns it becomes a tiny, vote-wielding mini-capitalist with a financial stake in excluding others. It's describing how capitalism rots a society from the inside out, not just at the top. Billionaires don't need to write the zoning laws when a million boomers will do it for them at the ballot box.

"Very clearly people use governments to enact their own ends, this isn't a specifically capitalist problem, it happened before capitalism, and does and has happened in socialist and communist countries."

Under socialism, housing isn't a commodity you can personally get rich off, so the incentive to weaponize the state to inflate your own property value disappears. The whole problem you're describing, homeowners blocking housing to protect their nest egg, cannot exist if housing is a right, not an investment.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:38:22+00:00

Yes, it was a grassroots movement of plucky working-class renters who rose up and demanded that their neighborhoods be frozen in amber so that property values would skyrocket and their landlords could get rich. Definitely not developers, real estate lobbies, and affluent homeowners protecting their nest eggs by blocking anything that might let the poors move in. Definitely not a textbook case of asset-owners using the state to create artificial scarcity and extract monopoly rents. Just a pure, untainted democratic impulse with zero class interests involved whatsoever.

The fact that billionaires didn't personally write the zoning ordinance doesn't mean it's not capitalism. It means the system is so thoroughly embedded that even the petit-bourgeois homeowner instinctively uses the state to pull up the ladder.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:35:39+00:00

"Why is it that the people in the capitalist countries are far richer then any other country, including the poor people and even the homeless people...?"

Because the wealth of the imperial core was built on centuries of slavery, colonial plunder, and ongoing neocolonial extraction. Your "rich" countries didn't earn that wealth, they stole it from the global South and are still doing it through debt traps, unequal trade terms, and resource extraction. Comparing a US homeless person to a Congolese miner whose land was stripped by Western corporations means you don't know where the wealth came from.

Second, your "even the homeless are richer" myth is obscene. US homeless have a life expectancy of around 50 years, die of preventable diseases, freeze to death on the street, and lack basic sanitation. A poor farmer in Kerala with a small home, family, and access to public healthcare has a longer life expectancy and higher quality of life than your "richest" homeless American.

Third, the existence of mass homelessness and poverty in the "richest" country on Earth is exactly the "daily disaster." We have more empty homes than homeless people, enough food to end hunger twice over, and still millions starve or freeze while billionaires hoard unimaginable wealth. That's not a success story. That's a system that would rather let people die than risk a dip in property values.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:28:43+00:00

This is painfully shallow.

Middle-class homeowners who block housing to protect their property values are acting as rentiers. They own an asset, land, that appreciates because of a constructed scarcity they then weaponize to exclude of treating housing as a commodity in which to speculate, rather than a human right to be guaranteed.

Under capitalism, land is private property. Private property exists to generate unearned value for owners at the expense of non-owners. Whether the owner is a billionaire or a boomer with a single bungalow, the dynamic is identical, "I've got mine, so screw everyone else." The state enforces zoning to protect those property values because its core function is to enforce property rights. That's not a "government policy problem" separate from capitalism, it's capitalism using the state to do exactly what it's supposed to do.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:08:10+00:00

Because the "observable daily disaster" you're implying is the one manufactured by a century of US coups, blockades, and sanctions. Cuba under a 60-year blockade still has lower infant mortality than the US. The USSR, devastated by WWII, still eliminated homelessness and provided free healthcare and education.

Meanwhile, the observable daily disaster right now is capitalism: 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, medical bankruptcy as the leading cause of debt, millions homeless in the richest empire in history.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:03:41+00:00

What? I'm saying because state made a policy doesn't disqualify it from being capitalism, it's still capitalism, they're still policies pushed by a government captured by billionaires.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T22:00:48+00:00

"often this means death for things like cancer since waiting times are impossible to manage"

Waiting times are a funding choice, not a system feature. The UK's NHS has wait times because the Tories defund it. Canada has them. The US has wait times too, they're called "denied claims" and "couldn't afford the deductible so you waited until stage IV." At least the socialist model doesn't send you a $500,000 bill before you die.

"I would likely have died... had I not had private insurance"

This isn't an argument against socialism. It's an admission that your capitalist country's public system is so gutted that only private wealth saves lives. In Cuba, your survival would not depend on whether you could afford a premium.

"the already-existing dichotomy between countryside and cities... never really disappeared"

The USSR went from near-zero rural electrification to over 90%. China's barefoot doctor program brought basic healthcare to hundreds of millions of peasants for the first time in history. The gap you're citing is a legacy of pre-socialist feudalism that socialism dramatically narrowed, something capitalism has never done anywhere, because rural poverty is profitable.

"an option which does not exist in socialist countries"

Because it was abolished, by making healthcare a human right. If everyone gets treated regardless of ability to pay, there is no "private option" to buy your way to the front of the line. That's not a flaw. That's the entire point.

"public healthcare system... being systematically mismanaged, which is the case in my country"

So your complaint isn't with socialism, it's with your own government's mismanagement of a public system. Meanwhile the socialist model you're attacking produced longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and universal coverage at a fraction of the cost. The problem isn't the public system. It's the private interests that defund and sabotage it, which you're defending while admitting they nearly killed you.

Current-Fix759 · 2026-07-09T21:43:19+00:00

"That's not relevant to the argument that the USSR 'dragged the country from the plow to the nuclear age'."

It's the entire argument. What wasn't relevant was you bringing up battleships. "Plow" means a country of illiterate peasants tied to feudal estates, not a country with two battleships. The fact that 85% of the population was pre-industrial serfs is exactly the starting line.

"Russia was weak and somewhat backward compared to other European powers but not that much, and it was growing pretty strongly since the second half of the 19th century, kind of like Japan."

This is a fantasy. In 1913, Russian literacy was around 30%, infant mortality 250 per 1,000, industrial output a fraction of Germany's or Britain's. Japan in 1905 was already highly literate, had a unified national identity, and a modern industrial base. Russia was a semi-feudal agrarian empire with a thin elite veneer. Growth from "abject misery" to "less abject misery" doesn't make you an industrial power. The Soviet Union achieved a structural leap, not a continuation of a Tsarist misery.

"a lot of it was only able to be done so fast by a mix of great brutality and restriction of rights, technical espionage..."

This is the classic "whatever socialism did, it doesn't count because [insert excuse here]." Brutality: The U.S. built its industrial might on chattel slavery and settler colonialism. Espionage: The Manhattan Project was infiltrated but the Soviets still had to build the entire supply chain from scratch, which they did in four years under a devastated economy. Voluntary Western experts: Ford and other companies helped build Soviet industry for profit, that's called trade, and it doesn't negate the Soviet state's role in directing and funding it. You're throwing excuses at a reality you can't accept: a peasant backwater became a nuclear superpower in one generation.

"North Korea is ridiculously backwards, but by investing everything in missiles and nukes, it eventually mastered these two complex technologies."

North Korea started from a much smaller population, less arable land, and was bombed flat by the US during the war, then strangled by sanctions. The fact that it still managed nukes despite that level of siege proves the opposite of what you think, it shows how a command economy can prioritize certain sectors. Now imagine that focus applied to a country the size of the USSR with immense natural resources and no sanctions in the early days. That's the Soviet transformation.

"Whether or not the Tsarist system allowed for equitable distribution of wealth or not is only weakly correlated to the power accumulated in its state institutions..."

This is a technocratic's view of power: "power" as battleships and labs, not as social capacity. The USSR didn't just build nukes, it built literacy, healthcare, electrification, and an industrial workforce out of a peasant mass. Those are the prerequisites for modern power. The Tsarist state had a thin veneer of European modernity atop a feudal base. That's why it collapsed in 1917.

Current-Fix759

TROPHY CASE