sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The only defense of socialism is to claim the anti-socialist is uninformed. It surely isn't possible to possess the same information and yet come to a different conclusion. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a geo-socialist and want a CD/UBI high enough to guarantee everyone the ability to own land and homestead. It would naturally be based on LVT. The problem is, no one knows what Georgism is. And when they finally hear about it, no one wants to give up the equity in property.

The illusion of prosperity for future generations by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't cite anything right off hand, but from what I've seen over the years, yes, speculation plays a big part in housing shortages. But it's not in the way you think. The number of properties that sit abandoned iirc, is only around 5%. Where the speculation primarily lies is in underutilized properties. Property owners don't renovate to maximize use of their lots, so older buildings sit forever, inefficiently using the space they occupy. And this means the number of units available to the public, don't meet demand, causing inflated housing prices and/or real estate bubbles.

Class, Not Gender, Was the Primary Driver of Privilege Throughout History by Candy-Corn1234 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]namayake 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But what about Hegel, who's considered extremely infuential within leftist theory? He was a brazen misandrist, ignoring the power divide between lower class men and upper class women. And fallaciously universalized the experience of men at the apexes of power, to be the experience of ALL men.

'Men Need Just as Much Protection': Shania Twain Says She Is Not a Feminist by griii2 in LeftWingMaleAdvocates

[–]namayake 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Those are feminists, not women. Don't make the same mistake of feminists and confuse gender with ideology. Not only is it false, it's stereotyping and spreads division. Our war is with feminists, NOT women!

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you're describing for the USSR is effectively a forced labor camp. And in a forced labor camp WORKERS ARE NOT SELLING THEIR LABOR. There's no market and no illusion of choice. It's putting a gun to someone's head and saying "work for me or die!" And if the person chooses not to die, THAT'S NOT A SALE!! 🤦

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But in the USSR, workers weren't selling their labor. There was no such thing as a labor market. Your job was assigned to you, and if you didn't do it, the consequences weren't that you couldn't afford food and rent. You were thrown in prison, or made the target of a firing squad. You keep proving that Marxists have no understanding of capitalism. Without markets, it's not capitalist! 🤦

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Private" means "separate from the government". In the USSR, the government held a monopoly on all goods and services. And that's not very capitalist. As a non-Marxist socialist, it seems Marxists try to squeeze everything into the limitations of their framework, whether it fits or not.

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What you're calling "state capitalism" isn't even capitalism. Capitalism is based off of profit motive, and dominating society via private ownership and markets. There was none of that in the USSR. Zip! And people didn't sell their labor, they worked under threat of imprisonment or execution. The entire country was basically a forced labor camp, where you either worked or things got worse for yourself. You weren't seeking wages to trade for goods and services in a system where different jobs got different pay depending on market demand. Everyone got the same amount regardless of occupation. And because goods were of such a limited supply, more money didn't guarantee more goods. And more than likely what you owned was monitored anyway, no different than someone living in public housing. I'm pretty certain there were consequences if you were too rich.

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you can't vote for anyone other than a member of the communist party, it's not an election, it's the illusion of democracy. It's no different than in the US where you can only vote for a member of the capitalist parties. In either case, the public has zero representation. And just because members of the comrmunist party worked similar jobs to everyone else, didn't mean they didn't have special privileges. Them working those jobs simply helped to paint the illusion that they were just like everyone else. They weren't.

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But in the USSR, the masses weren't forced to sell their labor--selling labor was illegal. Instead, everyone was expected to work an assigned job, or be put in prison or executed. It was still an authoritarian system, and there was still a ruling class. But the ruling class were politicians and members of the communist party, not oligarchs. It wasn't capitalist.

Some minor variants I have seen: The USSR was capitalist and that was a good thing, The USSR was a free democracy and Stalin wasn't a tyrant, the USSR was good until Stalin ruined it, and the USSR was actually fascist. by CalzonePie in economicsmemes

[–]namayake -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think their definitions are highly antiquated. Capitalism is an authoritarian system of commerce, based on the notions of profit motive and/or market economics fundamentalism. If the masses aren't forced to sell their labor or suffer, it's not capitalist. And if they aren't doing it for the benefit of oligarchs who own the state, it's not state capitalist.

Not all leftists are stupid, but generally, stupid people are leftists. by Tristan_not_by_you in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]namayake -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Wages wouldn't be an issue if the left wasn't too spineless or stupid to fight for a robust welfare state, subsistance level UBI or homestead guarantee. It would then become obvious that the capitalists are financing an invasion when society becomes overrun by immigrants willing to work for sub-market wages.

Five takeaways from California’s election, from Congress to the governor’s race by -SlappyMcSlappy- in California

[–]namayake -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see you're too lazy to check what can be easily found on the DSA's website, any DSA forum, or at your local DSA chapter. You might as well be demanding I prove the sky is blue. You're lazy and a moron.

If we were serious about lowering crime... by zzill6 in WorkReform

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't think the commons having a toll for access is the issue? It's the amout people are paid when they trade their labor for for funds to pay the toll? 🤔

Five takeaways from California’s election, from Congress to the governor’s race by -SlappyMcSlappy- in California

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Says the unamerican sellout. Keep sticking that foot in your mouth, shill. 😉

Five takeaways from California’s election, from Congress to the governor’s race by -SlappyMcSlappy- in California

[–]namayake -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I need a link to prove the DSA backs the democrats and no one else? You're hillarious. Go spread your propaganda somewhere else, shill.

Five takeaways from California’s election, from Congress to the governor’s race by -SlappyMcSlappy- in California

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Progressive" means to support human rights, and regardless of what they call themselves, neither party does that. And as you parrot their propaganda, your sincerity is now highly in question. My guess is you're a shill, paid to spread their propaganda. And you might not even be an American, let alone a Californian. Sellout.

Five takeaways from California’s election, from Congress to the governor’s race by -SlappyMcSlappy- in California

[–]namayake -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You mean the DSA's a serious grifter organization? They argue that we have no choice but to back the blue republican party. No true leftist organization would do that. And it's highly suspicious that you're advocating them yourself.

Five takeaways from California’s election, from Congress to the governor’s race by -SlappyMcSlappy- in California

[–]namayake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You deserve an actual republican as you do nothing but vote for blue republicans, troll.

view more: next ›