Young kids won't listen to them
AcTuAlLy ThAt WaSn'T rEaL cOmMuNiSm!!!!
@InsaneWorm, Yeah. More likely the problems resulted from corrupt authoritarians claiming to embrace communism. When everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others, that's not communism. That said, I don't think humans are capable of achieving true communism. Ants? Bees? At least arguably, yes. Humans? No.
@riidii, even the ideal perfect form of communism is nonsense. It complete rejects ideas of personal and private property and initiative, that’s what every successful civilization has thrived on. Even in its purest form, it would fail miserably.
@InsaneWorm, It makes me laugh when people argue "well it doesn't count cuz sometimes people do bad things, communism works if it's done right". Everything works if it's done perfectly, problem is humans are imperfect beings.
@Doodlederp1921, “alright, I’ve got the perfect idea for a society. We upload everyone into an idealized utopia I’ve built where every need is fully met, we have infinite resources, and perpetual good weather with no natural disasters. The downside is that there’s a pedestal in the centre of town with a big glowing red button on it. If anyone ever pushes that button, the simulation self destructs and can’t ever work again, dooming the entire populace to an eternity in limbo. All we need is to have no one push that button, because why would they ever do that, and we will be fine.”
*meanwhile, in the background*
@I Are Lebo, God damn it Leroy
@I Are Lebo, I give it five minutes.
@I Are Lebo, Isn't that an updated version of the Adam and Eve story?
@Link Silverblade, basically. It’s a parable that’s been retold many times, I was just alluding to the fact that any plan vulnerable to one stupid asshole fücking it up for everyone is a plan doomed to failure.
Communism is vulnerable to a charismatic dictator taking over, and history shows this is the inevitable end of any attempt at communism. Unless it collapses from societal decay first that is, as communism completely disincentivizes innovation.
Better dead than red
@jkos171, what about Red Dead?
@jkos171, DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM
@jkos171, is that why Republicans are red?
@Medic135, we should've chosen a
better color. I see the snowflakes downvoting assuming I'm a Democrat for asking why the Republicans chose red.
@Eldsmidur, I'm a constitutional libertarian get away from me
@Medic135, I don't belong to any party I vote based on the issues. I'm just wanting to know why Republicans chose red after the red scare and having americans call in to report their communist neighbors.
@Eldsmidur, i think red was before the red scare? Idk
Hey guys i got a great idea! So you know how government is evil and massive unaccountable monopolies suck? Well lets just give the government the ability to take everyones property!
@CocoasBro, dude, that is a great idea! The only way to make it better is to first take away everyone’s guns so that the transition of power goes more smoothly.
I came for funny, not politics
@Nurse Joy, came here for funny comments, not to be offended by snowflakes and censorship.
@Nurse Joy, put those hands together!
@Nurse Joy, too bad. politics is now funny.
@Throttlesky, it's always been a joke.
@Nurse Joy, triggered communist
@Nurse Joy, making fun of communists is halarious.
@Nurse Joy, actually communism is economics
@Cave Dweller, *schooling
@big freedom, also.*
The trusting herd will never learn
Empty promises? Didn’t know we were halfway to communism.
Idk I had a Russian professor who lived through the Soviet Union until it’s fall and loved it, (grew up in the 50s, lived there till 96) Everyone had a job, everyone could eat, everyone had a place to live, everyone could go to a doctor, and could get to and from work. things weren’t as nice but there was no sense of impending dread. He benefitted from living in one of the better Republics, but when I lived in Russia this wasn’t an uncommon opinion. People really had less to worry about, they had less in general, but their futures were by and large secure. After the fall some people embraced the wild fluctuating nature of capitalism, and others would gladly have traded new cars and appliances for the security of knowing them and their children wouldn’t have to worry about dying on the street. Not saying it was all good, but it wasn’t all bad either, either view things with nuance and understanding or you’ll never truly understand history.
@Spetsnaz , alright spetsnaz...
@Spetsnaz , those who would give up liberty for security, deserve neither and lose both
@big freedom, that is a really, really ambiguous quote. You’ve also left out several important words from it, and pretty much all government is giving up some form of “freedom” for “security” but nobody is mad that Fire departments and EMS systems exist.
@Spetsnaz , a fire department does not trample liberty. Nice try. EMS do not take away a single liberty. Are you seriously trying to make that an argument?
Police do take liberty away, hence the protests. Yes I am very unhappy when an armed agent of the state deprived anyone of liberty without full due justice.
You better come up with something better than EMS exists therefore they take freedom. That is really quite a pathetic thought process.
But your reasoning above was even worse. There are not examples of “better standards of living in Socialist counties”. Free market economics have lifted more people out of poverty than any other system ever.
@big freedom, EMS and fire depts cost tax dollars, and I’ve seen people on this app seriously argue that taxes are a burden on money, therefore speech, and transitively freedom. (That’s not something I agree with to be clear, I think the money=speech argument is really stupid) also that quote on standards of living isn’t from my comment, it’s from a different comment on this picture from a different person. Though that’s not entirely untrue either, socialist countries like Libya (under gaddafi who I despise as a dictator) and Cuba (again, not in favor of dictatorships but economically socialism succeeded here) vastly improved literacy, standards of living, education, and infrastructure compared to their neighbors of similar GDP. And capitalist countries with socialist reforms such as the Scandinavian states, New Zealand, and some Western European states have higher standards of living, and higher levels of happiness and security than the US and other less regulated capitalist states.
@big freedom, combine that with the fact that Blue states that have more socialized sectors of their economy and taxes that are more progressive as income increases have higher literacy rates, lower instances of abject poverty, higher standards of living, less obesity, better infrastructure, and higher rates education than their Red state counterparts. I get if you’re arguing against Stalinist Communism, few people think that’s a good idea, but social policies are pretty well linked to improved quality of living within and without the United States. There’s a place between socialism and a completely regulated free market that works best, but to deny that social reforms don’t work in any meaningful way is just anti factual.
@big freedom, The quote you were trying to use was “Those that sell essential* liberty for a little* temporary* safety deserve neither and lose both” those extra three words are really important. the founding fathers believed the state existed because of the social contract, an enlightenment concept that states that citizens surrender some of their freedom for security that a government creates, but also that it is the people’s will to support the state that allows it to exist. The quote is not meant to be used in the context you’re using. In Roman history when Rome was in crisis they would give a senator total power and make them dictator, some like Cinncinatus would confront the danger, and relinquish their powers, others would try to use their emergency powers to seize control of the government. Franklin was warning against that kind of power being given to the government, total power at the highest level of government, he wasn’t scared of there being regulatory bodies for oversight
@Spetsnaz , you are pulling statistics of poverty from? Everything that I can find, inner cities in the most progressive states are by far, by FAR, the poorest. You can’t just make shît up because it fits your preconceived bias.
Yes, Castro increased literacy, and used it 100% to indoctrinate the students that communism is superior in every way.
It is possible to lie with facts. Well done on proving that.
@big freedom, the stats are literally everywhere, go on Wikipedia and search poverty rates by state, 18 of the 19 highest poverty rates are red state’s, and 8 of the top 10 lowest poverty rates are blue states. In addition Blue states tend to net give more to the federal government in the form of taxes, and red states tend to take more, in the form of social policies like food stamps and unemployment. And you’re being purposefully ignorant, of course there are more poor people in the cities than elsewhere, there’s more of all income levels in the city’s, because they’re cities ffs. Per capita poverty in NYC Is Lower than Mississippi’s. For the record, these statistics are coming from census data and independent reviews. Look up something from a legit source and it’s all there.
@Spetsnaz , red states tend to be more rural, middle of US and do not have massive, centralized industry. Again, lying using facts.
Inner city, urban are way below average in income, cost of living, lifestyle, affordable anything. You are either intentionally misrepresenting the data, or do not know what you’re talking about.
Same goes for their contributions to federal government. Which goes to show that the federal government is too powerful and too influential in state politics.
Stop lying with stats, it’s obvious and disingenuous.
@big freedom, lying using facts? You mean using facts that show you’re wrong, and that can be proven. You look at cities and see a lot of poverty, because there is a lot of everything in cities, there are just more people there, poor and rich. NYC for example may have more poor people than the state of Alabama, but it’s got far more wealthy people too. You’re ignoring the part of the facts you don’t want to see, first you said there’s no statistics to back this up, and when provided to you you say those stats aren’t valid. The truth just isn’t what you want it to be. You’re point on Contributions to the federal government is laughable, the blue states take less federal money and provide more in taxe revenue, while the red states suck up federal aid while providing far less to the rest of the country. If anything this proves red states are mismanaged and if the rest of the country was like them we’d all be poorer, and there’d be no aid for red states. Blue states keep red ones afloat.
@Spetsnaz , if you don’t know of the concept of lying using facts or stats then you’re a prodigy! Yes, it is absolutely possible to state a fact and use it to mislead (lying) you see the media do this constantly.
“WHO predicts 1 million dead” when what they actually said was “we predict that the death count will be somewhere between 100k and 150k, but could reach as high as 1M if....”
So the headline was “factually correct” but still telling a lie, intentionally.
This is exactly what you are doing with your poverty stats. Which, to be honest DO NOT MATTER.
Our “red states” are not socialists and do not wish to be so. They do not want to be anything like San Francisco or Portland or Seattle. Which are all trying damned hard to pivot to socialism. And all have the worst crime, worst poverty and worst “happiness index” in the US.
Go ahead and preach that socialism is better somewhere else. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
@Spetsnaz , your logical fallacies are amazing. The red herrings and moving the goal post are pretty impressive.
A single professor (shocking a professor trying to indoctrinate the students to the virtues of socialism) is not data. That is an anecdote and biased.
Hopefully someday you grow up to be a functional adult contributing to society. Maybe then you’ll have actual wisdom of what the data represents, not just cherry picking facts here and there to support your bias.
Until then, good day
@big freedom, I’ll start with this, im not moving any goalposts I’m using up to date factual statistics on poverty. If you compare blue states to red states, Red states are poorer, fact. Your response is literally that those facts don’t matter, hilarious. Also those three cities have issues with crime and poverty not because of the city governments, but because they have temperate weather that means it never gets too hot or too cold, and offer services and aid to the poor and hungry(more so than even the Bible Belt, for all that talk of charity) and these attributes attract homeless people. that is actual cherry picking of facts. Next you used red herring in the wrong context but that’s besides the point.
@big freedom, your red states are also not as happy as blue states, 10 most unhappy states, all red, and 7/10 happiest states are blue. additionally, as a telltale sign someone has lost their argument they resort to personal insults. Imma let you know, I’ve lived in the US and outside it, in red and blue states, in cities and in the country, I have people in my life that love me and can actually disagree while still staying civil and I’ve got a job that contributes to society and pays me well. I contribute to society every day, and I’m glad I got a decent enough education not to lie to myself the way you do when presented with proof you’re wrong. I’m not using anecdotal evidence, I’ve provided facts and figures to your insults and bland platitudes. You’ve come to believe only you’re ideas comprise what freedom is, you fear education and nuanced understanding is indoctrination. You’ll never see the world for the complex place that it is and I pity you for it.
@Spetsnaz , lmfao. I have multiple bachelors degrees. I don’t “fear education or nuance”. However indoctrination and blind loyalty to ideology trumps reason and rationality.
I too have lived in red and blue states. I have first hand, personally witnessed the utopian ideals of progressivism in Seattle and San Francisco. The ideology does not work. It trumps reason. The idea of “red and blue” itself is so antithetical to reason. I have (apparently unique) ability to think for myself to examine each issue - independent of party loyalty, to understand what is a good idea and what is not.
I have no ability or desire to change your mind or convince you. So, like I said, good day.
People on the left aren’t advocating communism but they are supporting a fairer distribution of wealth and fundamental social rights such as education and health: Social democratic models of Northern Europe. It comes with flaws and challenges but certainly has merits
There’s quotation but no reference.
She's not old enough to be a boomer
Apparently it wasn't the communism, it was the fascism. So they say. But I'm still skeptical.