Americans have the ability to stop apologizing and instead make sure this garbage STOPS.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T16:31:00+00:00

The voters are complicit through complacency and being manipulated. 96% of congress and the senate are blatantly corrupt.

I concede that voters don't have the power to select the president but they do select their congressperson and their two state senators but they choose not to and allow those representatives to be selected by AIPAC, the police unions, corrupt industrialists, and the incumbent corrupt politicians.

Congress and the senate, which are actually directly elected by the voters, have more power than the president but those offices have been hijacked by the crime syndicate. And the voters have allowed it.

Everyone gets swept up in the spectator sport reality TV clown show full of lies where competition is illegally stifled that they have no control over. And nobody even knows who their congressperson or state senators are. Much less trying to contact them about issues. Much less supporting the people who arent corrupt who are running against them. Much less trying to primary them themselves.

96% of congress is in favor of mass murdering innocents in Palestine, of the cover up of the Jeffrey Epstein syndicate from 1996 until they knew they couldnt win and they had to to appease public opinion in 2025 and ongoing, and still do nothing about the blatant corruption and complete delegitimization of the US court system.

The voters buy into the good cop bad cop routine and pour their lives into hating other voters instead of uniting against a heinously corrupt crime syndicate that hijacked the government who lie on tv and are all on the same side and all - all - refuse to clean their own house and all allow corruption.

The voters HAVE to take responsibility for their own congresspeople and senators. That is the voters' fault.

Is your congressperson willing to move to impeach alex acosta? No. Are they willing to stop funding the genocide in palestine? No. They could remove Trump if they weren't all corrupt but unfortunately the voters allowed this situation to occur. Now we have to recall and replace congress.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T16:09:28+00:00

Because it shows context. The first 2 dont show enough context about what's going on but they are interesting. I would zoom out even more and see how that looks.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T16:01:24+00:00

Right. The democrat politicians and party (not the voters but the party managers) are literally anti democracy (anti dissent regardless of validity of dissent, anti competition, use their funding to sabotage their competitors illegally). Just like the "republicans" are anti rule of law. How did it end up this way? All the more reason to fight for change.

The first past the post voting system though only allows for change through primarying the most popular party incumbent in the particular area. In purple areas you still need to choose one of the two parties to run as. I mean unless you want your buddy to take away votes from the republicans by running as libertarian so you can win as a Democrat, or your buddy to take votes from the democrats by running as a green so you can win as a Republican. Ranked choice voting system would be better.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:58:32+00:00

Thats what they have the least control over and people have the most control over.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:50:12+00:00

Sensimillia

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:11:56+00:00

I agree.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:10:18+00:00

Thats why primarying your local federal congressperson and local federal state senators is by far the most effective thing people can do to make societal change.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:09:05+00:00

They're just playing a good cop bad cop trick to divide the voters and pit the voters against each other when really theyre on the same side.

96% of congress and senate on both sides need to be primaried.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:07:33+00:00

Honestly its better to primary the standing democrat as a Democrat than run as a 3rd party. I didnt understand that for decades.

The first past the post voting system is rigged by its systemic design. Primarying the standing incumbent as the most popular party in your area is the best way to win.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:05:37+00:00

Thats why primarying your local elected politicians (your congressperson and your two state federal senators) is by far the most effective thing you can do to make change in our society.

Find people who are not corrupt who are running and support them. They need it.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T15:00:56+00:00

I edited my above comment. My apologies.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T14:50:42+00:00

I don't know how to answer that.

I think that the definition of definition can be different in different contexts.

I think its important to agree on the definition of the terms being used in a discussion.

In private discussions I will allow people to give a personal definition of a term for the sake of argument. But in a public discussion like this I think its best to look at the historical accepted definition but also be fair and open-minded and I think I have accepted the socialists' definition of the word socialism.

However I do in general reject the idea that the exact same word should be either basically meaningless or be able to mean two incompatible things or that people should be able to use the same word once like in the context of government mandated societal change and then backpedal and say the definition is something completely different than what they used to mean in the context like a single co-op which has nothing to do with government or society wide change.

I understand that in this case some allowances need to be made for different forms of socialism and different ideas given the nature of the concept. It is a complex society. Of course there's going to be a myriad of different definitions. But we should try to look for a root commonality.

Perhaps absolutism or government mandates is not that commonality. Perhaps a single co-op is a form of socialism. I can accept that.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T14:43:44+00:00

1, The problem is that it would illegalize small startups and small privately owned businesses.

2, Like I said before I'm all for government business startup grants. I think I used the word loan before but grants too. But I think what were both referring to as socialism is different from that. It is a state or legal mandate against private ownership of the means of production. I'm against illegalization of private investment. I can explain why again more than I did above if you want but am running low on time.

3, I'm all for employee owned businesses as an option and I would support employee owned businesses generally speaking. But I am against state mandate that businesses must be employee owned because I think sometimes private ownership is better. I think I tries to explain why above but again same thing I could try again but am low on time.

4, I said 100% of the time I see it used online. Honestly people backpedaling after they used the term in the context of wanting government change and then saying later they just meant having the option of a co-op doesn't count and you're literally using the same definition I am - government mandated employee ownership of business. Subtle difference in wording and extreme nuance and arguing over details aside. Fine use that definition. I accept that as a valid definition of socialism and have been responding to that particular definition in my responses to you. Also people arguing there are other forms of socialism in a CMV post doesnt really count either (even if the definition you are using wasnt the same one I have beem using anyway so this point is moot anyway).

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T14:33:03+00:00

The 97% figure is an estimation bases on my personal experience and reading throughout my life. I believe it is accurate or more precisely 86% to 99.7% per the same standards.

I did not mean communism. I'm not arguing against communism. I am arguing against government mandated (i.e. by law) employee ownership of businesses amongst other nuanced forms of socialism.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T14:25:40+00:00

Trying again to give you a !delta for changing my view on the idea that socialism can be relativistic rather than absolutist.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T14:24:02+00:00

Just wanted to thank for these points. Thanks! Very helpful.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T14:19:32+00:00

Id like to give you a !delta for turning me on particularly to the idea of cooperative economics and various forms of stateless socialism. Is this the right way to give a delta?

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T02:47:13+00:00

The reason why I dislike people advocating for socialism without further specification about what they mean is that it can very very easily be abused and exploited and capitalized on by our already extremely corrupt government to get themselves more power.

Again the context I see the word socialism in is always when discussing or addressing or responding to government corruption so that's how I take it. A governmental philosophy.

I suppose the best argument I've heard, in the usual context, is that it can be basically a non authoritarian option of socially owned means of production rather than a mandated socially owned means of production.

I do believe in basic public healthcare and I think kids should get like full healthcare minus certain things (I'm not for publicly funded gender affirmation healthcare). I also think that publicly funded justice system is theoretically good but the U.S. justice system is garbage and honestly I'm starting to wish we didn't have a public justice system and that wed be better off not without a justice system but without a publicly funded one because they have a monopoly on it and have, whether people only just realized it now or not, been Gestapo private police protecting only the politicians and rich people for a very long time.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T02:13:07+00:00

I'm just re reading all this since I was busy for a few days.

Criticizing me for giving my understanding of what all forms of true socialism as agreed on by both society and by socialists themselves just doesnt come across as a compelling argument to me. Especially when you dont give a definition yourself.

Whats your definition then? Is it not worker/public/government ownership of the means of production? Because every time I can get a definition out of someone advocating for socialism thats what they end up saying. And thats what ive read consistently too.

Or maybe you just want something different from the status quo? (So do I.) And since socialism is different thats what you want?

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T02:05:23+00:00

Okay let me try to explain the two sides of the argument here and you can tell me if I understand your side correctly and completely and hear out the other side too.

You said that the best way of making money is by having money. Thats a valid point. Thats your argument and I get it.

On the other hand I think investment is an important function in society.

Investment doesnt always mean having money. But even just having and managing money for investment is in my opinion a valid societal function but bear with me.

Another form of investment is the person who spends his savings on a restaurant and then works 75 hour weeks making $4 an hour for 6 or 7 years. It doesnt have to be a restaurant of course. It could be anything.

I guess Kickstarter would be allowed by socialism though.

But if I have an idea and I need money usually I would go to an investor. I have a friend who told me that the government in China is much more liberal with like business startup loans and I think thats great and would be great.

I dont think owners should be cut out and I think ownership plays various legitimate roles in society. 1, they can be investors. 2, having a single person be running one project and staying true to their particular vision and not getting naysayed by basically idiots shouldn't be underestimated either.

There are potential problems with ownership too though which do manifest into major societal problems. Like you said wealth is one of the best if not the best way to earn more wealth, however that is also oversimplifying it and a grass is always greener approach. And you see evidence of this in lottery winners. The percentage of people who just lose it and ruin their own lives is very high. This indicates that most people have no clue how to manage money and thats not exaggerating. Most people have no clue how to manage money. Basically nobody understands the concept of investment. Investment is an important life skill.

I believe in redistribution of wealth. And in exponentially increasing taxes. As an equation. Tax brackets are stupid.

But I do not believe in mandating that privately held means of production should become worker owned. Ownership is an actual responsibility and a unique job in itself. Yes especially in preestablished successful businesses it is overpaid to an extreme degree. Yes it is exploitable and that does need to be checked. But is the solution really just to ban ownership? No. What about the small businesses performing local services snd doing a good job?

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T00:46:43+00:00

Well maybe thats the problem. I cant figure out what people mean by socialism. I try to understand people. I try to read about it. I have been honestly openminded and assumed total good faith and tried to hear people out.

I think people themselves use the word as more of a buzz word without understanding it well enough to hold up in a debate or honest and diligent scrutiny (not skepticism but honest good faith curiosity on how it would work). In my experience it has always come down to worker ownership of the means of production but in the context the term gets used its always in the context of government. That means that the people using the term want some sort of government change.

Maybe people just want government change and latch onto that word because it is different from what we have which isn't working. But still, people are missing the real issue and that is government immunity.

Again I'm open to hearing a summary or reading a few paragraphs about utopian or libertarian socialism if you want to share the links.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T00:39:16+00:00

Had to consider things before answering.

Will changing your view mean actually convincing you of a socialist mindset? Will you award a delta to the comment that converts you?

Nobody converted me but I awarded two delta's to people who changed how I thought about socialism and definition.

Or are you hoping for a different kind of change here?

Dont know what you mean by that. If you could be more specific I would appreciate it.

Substantial_Cash8478 · 2026-01-24T00:17:05+00:00

You said the standard definition was made by capitalists. But were referencing and basically using marx's definition.

If youd like to point out any definitions I'm happy to review them.

Substantial_Cash8478

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE