Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"I did look it up recently. The state owns all the major exports."
Which kind of proves my point. Rest of them are simply some minor local pubs, street vendors etc...
Imagine what would happen to Finland for example if suddenly we would stop exporting. Exporting is vital in modern world.
"Difference being that socialism can be put to work, if you follow the ideology. "
just like religion can be put to work if you just follow what the book tells you to ;)
There would be world peace if everyone just simply agreed with one another, no matter what the system is. But that is not the reality, people will never agree with one another on everything. Heck... That sounds pretty dystopian anyway, if people were forced to become identical mindless drones like borg.
"This reminds me of the joke "Communism looks good on paper, but in practice it's usually sabotaged by a military coup d'etat financed by the CIA." Which has some truth to it lol."
nah, it's simply famous excuse. Look Communists did sabotage capitalists as well. A system which cannot handle sabotage, is a weak system. Not only that, but CIA haven't had really no reason to do anything with socialist/communist countries for decades. Cold war is over, capitalists won.
"It's no coincidence that socialist states like Brazil and Venezuela are allowed to do the shit they're doing; it effectively misrepresents socialism and everyone will think it's about high taxes and total government control"
no, it's the actually socialism. Your form of socialism is something that almost no other socialist supports. Your form is simply capitalism where people share their stocks among people who work with them. You may call it socialism as much as you want, but definitions are defined how most people understand something.
"after which everyone will keep on bootlicking the closest capitalist so they don't starve."
Not true on any level. There is less starvation in capitalists systems than in socialists. Not to mention that lot of capitalist countries have adopted welfare state, which makes sure that no one needs to lick anyone's boots in order to survive. In fact your proposed system wouldn't be any different from "bootlicking" perspective. Because now those people have to lick people of said company in order to get majority to like you.
As I said, your system exploits the talented, productive and anti-social people.
Making things worse... IT makes sure that those people won't be able to have offsprings, hence you will suffer from genetic brain leak and lower amounts of people being productive. You will basically end up having country filled with narcissistic psychopaths/sociopaths. Because in the environment that you created, will benefit them the most.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Some Random person
Communism is against state, not against government. In fact even marx stated that communists will organize governmental body.
". Paris Commune, Makhno's Free Territory, Zapatistas, Rojava, Catalonia. "
Most of them were too short lived to see inevitable results of communism and some of those VERY NEW states. I ahve debunked each and everyone of them. Only idiot thinks that a political system that has existed merely 5-years is good example of how well it will end up.
"Your body is considered PERSONAL property. "
Your body is considered as means of production. What is a prostitute's means of production? It's her body. What is the actor's means of production? It's his mind and body. What is politicians means of production? His tongue. What is scientists means of production? His mind.
"Most philosophers discount her of even being a philosopher"
Anyone who discounts her as philosopher is not philosopher. Because that means that they do not know the essence of philosophy.
"Third, socialism is when the WORKERS own the means. "
Not a single definition online says that.
"Is it because the USSR claimed it was "communist"?"
They followed communists' manifesto perfectly.
"an you call it socialism if the means are controlled by a government with no democracy?"
Actually they had democracy. What you fail to realize that socialism is way to destroy democracy. Socialism centralizes too much power in hands of the couple people. Which will eventually be used to destroy democracy. This is why every socialist country ends up being dictatorship when given time. Why haven't you ever asked that question of yourself of why the end results are always the same?
"Fourth, Hitler was never a socialist. In fact, he even purged the entire left-wing of the Nazi Party, the SA and the Strasserists."
He was purging his political opponents who supported different kind of socialism. Soviet did the same. Hitler was socialists, national socialists. It was his own form of socialism that him and his supporters were for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialists
Part 1.
"Oh, so a tax funded public body has the power to abuse people from doing businesses. Wow. Dictatorship achieved"
The fact that you laugh at this make me think that I were wrong about you simply not thinking things through. You are actually mentally incapable of doing so.
Look... When they have power to decide who and who is not allowed to create business. Then they can abuse that power in a way that they will only grant permission to those who swear loyalty to them in one way or another. Either in public or in the shadows. No laws can prevent corruption. It never has.
So since you're incapable of fathoming the real influence of such power let me explain this to you.
Let's say that me and my friends somehow get into the council. We are either majority or everyone is my contacts. (if not at start, it can be turned though scheming).
Now I have the power to decide who is allowed to create business. I will give all the best parts of the land to the people who I prefer. Either they pay me and my friends the most, we have some connections with them or they simply support same political line as I do.
Now they become more successful than their rivals, due having better parts of the land. Especially since I can regulate and demolish all rivals who become too big. This is even more powerful if I only allow people who I like to create media companies.
Are you starting to get the point of such power? With such power I could easily amass enough influence to control whole society. Enough control to even take over the whole system.
"They'd only be digging their own graves for not only trying to avoid being lynched by the people for not letting people doing labor"
Oh, they are allowed to do labor. Only the labor that I allow them to do. Aka nothing that actually holds large amount of influence. While army, police, hospitals, major industries, media, agriculture is all in my pockets. That is all I need. With police I can arrest whoever I view as political threat. With hospital I can ensure that my political enemies will die in operating table. With media I can spread lies to support my claim. With agriculture I literally control lives of everyone.
", but also would anyways soon see their tax funds wither away, since people barely have income without work."
So? They don't have weapons and I control the army. All weapon factories are controlled by people who I trust, and they only sell their weapons to the army.
" I see no reason to do this, they should be striving to create a very competent regional economy, no? "
You don't see why someone would want to become a dictator?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3