Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Poll: Majority of Millenials Now "Reject Capitalism?"" video.

  1. highdough both had elections where people vote for their representatives and for decisions. Both had currency. Hence they couldn't be communist.
    2
  2. highdough I have taken a lot of them but you clearly have no clue about them. Especially if you believe that socialism actually works.
    1
  3. highdough Name even one place where it would work. And no scandinavians aren't socialists.
    1
  4. MegaGiants11 No it wouldn't as soviets and china did prove.
    1
  5. Julia Winkler Actually as long as they had private wealth, then they were socialist. Only different with communism and socialism is that there is that in communism you don't actually own anything. In socialism you cannot own companies. So, those countries actually were socialistic ones. You clearly don't understand what democracy or socialism is if you think that they are mix or somehow opposite of each others. Democracy is type of way to govern country. Socialism is about economic system, not government type. In fact many socialistic/communistic countries had democratic voting system. So no I don't shut up simply because you're uneducated in politics and economy. And again I come from one of those countries that you idiots worship to heaven. If something that should tell something about your retarded idea.
    1
  6. Julia Nadeau Well wouldn't be first time where people vote against their best interests. After all if they don't understand complex mechanism, then they don't know what is their best interest. Hence they easily become too shortsighted. Leading a company and managing it isn't as easy as people like to think. It actually demands certain set of skills and knowledge. Fun fact... If worker controlled companies would work better than hierarchical one. Then we would see them more in capitalism. Afterall, nothing stops group of friends or workers from creating their own business among themselves. Problem in socialism is that influential political families will put their family members and allies in powerful positions. Hence you won't have the most capable and talented person doing the decision making. There is a reason why socialism didn't work. So major difference between capitalism and socialism is the fact that in capitalism a normal peasant can become a "feudal lord" where in socialism only someone born into political family can become one. Have you ever heard about army which made their decisions based on micro democracy? This is best analogy to explain why micro democracy simply won't work in certain issues. There is a reason why generals, and other military ranks exists.
    1
  7. Julia Nadeau "And Capitalists don't practice nepotism" Oh it sure does, however in capitalism at least peasant can start his own business. While in socialism they literally can't. And of course if someone does nepotists act in capitalism. Then their companies will be defeated by ones who hire actually talented people. In other words socialism limits the possibilities for the poor and powerless. " or engage in practices which inhibit the rise of competitors to challenge them" This is only possible if you combine capitalism with socialism. "And contrary to your assertions, worker controlled companies CAN be enormously profitable. Take for example, the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, which is one of the most profitable companies in Europe." Again if it would be top notch then there would be more than one success story. And again what is the problem in capitalism if you can do this? Of course you can't comprehend this fact. Since you want to force people to lose their companies. "Also, if a hierarchal corporate structure worked so well, then they wouldn't actively undermine the worker's abiltiy to form unions and engage in collective bargaining" How does workers ability to form unions correlate with hierarchical structure? Also you're talking about corporate not company. " the result being that wages often end up cut, jobs outsourced and benefits eliminated because workers are stolen for the sake of short term profits instead of the long-term health of their enterprise." Ah the amount of stupidity in this part. You love to make huge wall of text with very little insight in it. First of all, you don't simply cut wages, wages need to be high enough for people to want to work with you or stay working with you. you see competition for talented workers is a thing. There is a reason why Ford did increase wage of his workers. In fact it was more profitable for him to do so. Second, jobs are outsources because it's no longer good idea to have those jobs in the country where company X exists. You see international markets are a thing. Companies need to compete among themselves. Beside it's their company what gives you the right to decide how they should ruin their business? Don't like it? Create your own. "And so, we have CEO's who work against their long term benefit as well! " Only if they are retards or psychopaths. There are ceo's who actually have long term plans as well. But hey freedom is something that socialists never liked anyway. "biproduct of that hierarchal structure because it pits bosses against workers, instead of fostering a spirit of cooperation because workers have direct control over their Fate within the enterprise." On what grounds? There are plenty of companies where workers and bosses aren't pitted against each others. In fact the goal of socialists is to create this sort of pit fiting. After all, they are the ones who created this whole "class" warfare. "instead of fostering a spirit of cooperation because workers have direct control over their Fate within the enterprise. " Every educated business men knows that the spirit of capitalism is cooperation. You don't become rich without help of others. You cannot do all the jobs by yourself. " In the military, an army marches on its belly and when that belly is empty, the General in command in under threat of mutiny, which may cost him his life. " And? What the fuck this has to do with the fact that no army functions well as democracy. " However, in a Corporation, if a workforce mutinies, the CEO is not faced with the loss of his/her life, but also can easily replace his/her workforce due to the naturally unending pool of desperate labor, as engineered by the political machinations of corporate-bought poltiicians." Expect in COMPANIES stop fuckign using word corporations since you clearly don't know what it's. In companies and corporations (since you're too fucking stupid to realize what they are) mutinies are called as STRIKES or people outright leaving the company or doing bad job. This itself causes huge financial risk for the employer. Also corporate bought politicans can only exists in system where government is mixing socialism to democracy. No point buying politician if it has no power over your company. " Sure, there are no legal barriers which prevent any citizen from forming a corporation, but there are financial barriers, " Go fuck yourself. You think that thousand workers have hard time raising money or combining their own personal wealth to create company together, but for some magical reason poor lone guy can do all of that and become company owner? So here we are... Arguing with socialists who still believes that socialism works even though soviets, cuba, china and vietnam were perfect examples of it never works.
    1
  8. MegaGiants11 Are you telling me that SOVIETs weren't industrialized? RUSSIA!? One of major factions in the world before rise of communism? Russia WAS industrialized. ´Fucking idiot...
    1
  9. highdough Then stop fucking talking. Because they were socialists and it was proven that socialism doesn't work. IF socialism doesn't work then won't communism either.
    1
  10. highdough They were very definition of socialists. Government/state owned companies. " And why they failed has to do with a multitude of reasons, only one of which is economics." You multiple excuses? It has been tried many times all over the globe and it has never produced same success that capitalism has. Even when coming from exactly the same background. "If your argument is that the Soviet Union collapsed so socialism doesn't work, then you've lost the argument." You clearly didn't understand why it did collapse. IT was because economy socialism simply is shitty system.
    1
  11. highdough "The Soviet Union and China were socialist the same way that McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant. You could certainly argue it is, but you'd be wrong." You denying facts won't change a thing. Do you even understand what socialism is? In fact lot of policies that you idiots support were used in there.
    1
  12. highdough Expect those countries were fully socialists. There was no private ownership for companies. Only a fucking idiot like yourself would think that they weren't socialist countries. It implies that either you didn't know what socialism is or what happened in those countries. Case closed.
    1
  13. highdough Oh please, she knows jack shit. All she does it to write large novels to fool idiots such as you off.
    1
  14. highdough Wow I guess Einstein had nothing intelligent to say... You're now simply doing ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing arguments I made, you say that I'm wrong simply because I insulted you. This itself proves my statement about your lack of intelligence right.
    1
  15. Julia Nadeau Isn't that exactly what you two are doing? You refused to address the actual points and resort to PURE slander instead? This is so ironic... Especially since it proves my statement about both of your's lack of intelligence right. You're not even self aware.
    1
  16. Julia Nadeau "You have a definition from an unnamed dictionary," I did name it. Ever bothered to use google? "Yet the leading scholars on the subject would each point out your ignorance as to what the USSR and China actually were, both economically and poltiically." You haven't provided any evidence to point out that they weren't socialists. Socialism by definition even by marx, is about government controlling business, means and production. Both USSR and CHina had no way for individual to own business. " I have quotes from Albert Einstein and lectures from economists like Dr. Richard Wolff or Robert Reich. Shall I quote Chomsky?" fIrst of all you're committing fallacy of argument from authority. Second of all... You're doing that fallacy by quoting people who aren't even economists. Two huge mistakes. "Or perhaps some quotes from Billionaire capitalists like Warren Buffett or Nick Hanauer I suspect that I could throw quotes from some of the greatest minds and experts from the field of Economics" OR perhaps I should use your flawed reasoning but with better credibility by quoting Milton friedman. Nobel winning economists who were one of the most renowned economists in last century. "McCarthyist rhetoric. As for your assertion that I claim that you are wrong because you insulted me, that's patently ludicrous." That is very definition of ad hominem. " The point of Socrates' words was to illustrate that your position is so weak that you have nothing left but insult. " Expect I didn't just merely insult. I DID provide arguments and pointed out that you guys were idiots for not seeing these points before spouting your ignorant mouths open about total non-sense. So even in your own argument you lost this. Because I never provided nothing but insults. Which is funny because both of you have commited comments which were full of nothing more than pure insults. "your arguments are flawed and shaped by fallacies. " Yet you can't even name a single fallacy made by me and explain why it was a fallacy. However I have multiple times named and explained why you have commited a fallacy. " Because I am, as yet, unconvinced." Of course you are. You're the type who won't ever accept that socialism doesn't work even when provided with empirical evidence. You're not capable of admitting when you're wrong. Oh and before you go full out retarded and try to deflect that on me... Well I have admitted multiple times in my lifetime during internet comment section debates that I were wrong. How many times have you?
    1
  17. Young kids always like socialism (when I were a kid, I were just like them). Purely through their lack of knowledge and world world experience. After having multiple discussion, studying history and economics, their opinions will change.
    1
  18. Joseph Price I did watch it. It's hilarious how you can't even bring any counter argument. Just sad... Your parent's must be proud of your IQ level.
    1
  19. Joseph Price "Of course, look at the official party platform of each Social democratic or Labour party in Europe. All of them have refined their platform to no longer wish to evolve to Democratic socialism." As someone who actually knows those people, and live in europe. I can guarantee you're full of shit. Those who are thinking the way you do is purely only because they don't understand what socialism is. Crony capitalism is literally creation of mixing socialism with capitalism. When you give government power to interfere with business, you're also making it more vulnerable for companies to bribe them to do policies that favor them and give unfair advantage on markets. "You love insults, don't you? Perhaps if you were a proper student of history" I thought that being lover of history and studying it over 20 years in school and on my free time made me proper student of history. It's not like I'm reading to become PhD in history. "you would know that Ford worked many of his workers to death and it was after his death that his workers were able to properly unionize. " Workers worked to their death? You do realize that he increased their wages and benefits a lot. and he gained more profit for doing so? Ah you're one of those idiots who think it's profitable to be total dick. "Your blind faith in the market is astounding, especially for someone that has never lived in a truly unregulated market." Don't need to, since data correlates with it. More free the markets are the bigger growth and wealth for it's citizen there is. We saw this with scandinavian countries and new zealand and what happened in china after they did make their markets more free than before. Let's not forget comparison of hong kong to cuba. "A system that overtime it is left to it's own devices, it leads to massive recession." Regression that did literally happen because of government interference. Just like Obama made situation worse by giving bailouts to banks. He only slowed the crash, the next time it will come it will come and hard. "No proceed to continue throwing out insults because that's what people with no facts do." Says guy who has been insulting since beginning. The amount of irony and lack of self awareness about yourself is hilarious.
    1
  20. Joseph Price "People taking out loans they couldn't afford would've been a mild recession. Financial Institutions gambling on those loans, most of the time agains their own loans, is the reason for the 2008 crash. " No problem is deeper than simply "gambling" they had government backing them up and bailouts of certain bank is good evidence of it. They were acting like idiots because they knew there was no consequences for their actions. " Nothing "Socialistic" about massive deregulation of the financial sector, a process started under Nixon, accelerated under Reagan, and completed by Clinton. All neoliberals, the ideology of the New Right." Everything socialistic by giving bailouts, subsidies and making rules which make it harder for new comers to challenge already big companies. All of that feeds lack of talent and corruption. All of that leads into retards being in wrong positions of the power. Oh wait you're probably one of those idiots who didn't know about those things? USA haven't been capitalistic country for decades.
    1