Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. But you're something that contains the word social. And they're all the same. Socialist, social democrat, social service, social disease, antisocial personality disorders. They're all the same. At least, that's what I've learnt here.
    57
  2. Social democracies aren't socialist. They're capitalist. It's not about how the wealth is spent, it's about who owns the stuff that creates wealth.
    56
  3.  @PADE1RTW  that everything with the word 'social' in it is the same? Yes. I learnt that here. The dictionary is quite different, though.
    32
  4.  @odinhaga5899  simply put. The video is full of crap. It gives a decent definition at the start, then proceeds to ignore it while conflating it with general niceness. You might not know what socialism is. But the socialists you might vote for so
    26
  5. Someone who'd classify you as socialist doesn't know what a socialist is. The safety net is a great thing for capitalism. It allows people to take risks for a start. Good education is also a wonderful investment. Universal healthcare allows a worker to keep on working. Regarding criminals, a capitalist would go for whatever gives the best ROI. If rehabilitation provides better results and reduces costs, go for that all the way. One problem with Socialism is it basically can't deal with the individual. It's about what's best for the group. Allowing individuals to excel does introduce inequality, but at the same time, it produces wonderful results over all.
    22
  6. Under a capitalist system, there is inequality. The people who are most valuable to our economies generally rise to the top. In the process, they create jobs, products and generally increase productivity. Under Socialism, there is still inequality. Except the people who rise to the top are there because of political reasons, rather than reasons of real world competence. I know that's not the theory, but it is the practice. It's why Venezuela has a general with no oil experience in charge of the government's sole source of income.
    21
  7.  @odinhaga5899  it's not that umbrella. There's still basic criteria that need to be fulfilled. The Soviet union wasn't communist. It was led by a party that was trying to make the country communist. Which was meant to happen after they achieved socialism and advanced the economy through it. The USSR was socialist. The Scandinavian countries are free market economies with a healthy respect for private property. Including the private ownership of industry. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism. By definition. There are no European socialist states. Even with the company formerly called Statoil now merely has the govt as a majority shareholder (70 percent. The rest is privately owned) So the first reason I'd give for you not calling yourself socialist is because you clearly don't know what the word means. The reason no one should be socialist is because (this video is bollocks, remember) it is a system that doesn't work that has been responsible for 100 million deaths. The numbers say it should be viewed as far worse than Nazism.
    12
  8. Or... That it's meant to talk about countries where socialISM has worked. Then goes on to talk about everything but that. The closest he comes is in a loosely defined sense on extinct civilisations. After watching this video, can you name any countries that have successfully implemented Socialism? I'll obviously ping you for any social democracies. They're not the same thing. Nor is any welfare state.
    9
  9.  @odinhaga5899  so are you a socialist or a social democrat? Maybe you can list a few of the successful socialist states yourself. Remember that while social democracy has its roots in socialism, it isn't socialism.
    6
  10. Renzokuken XI you could look at socialism from an idealistic point of view. Then it looks pretty nice. So does the existence of a benevolent, loving God. That would be awesome. Especially if he had prevented his employees from raping all those children. And the Easter bunny is also pretty wonderful. In he real world, however...
    6
  11. >>Socialism in Russia worked a lot better than capitalism.<< Which is why the USSR won the cold war, obviously. Capitalism in Russia is based on a legacy of the problems caused by the seven decades of Socialism. >>Capitalism only works well for some, not all. Socialism works best for all.<< When? >>actually in the nordic countries and canada and japan and even costa rica(yes, costa rica) socialism is working great for the 99%(the 1% always get the best of everything, so they dont count).<< Those are Capitalist countries that invest in Social Services (I assume Costa Rica is the same. Haven't bothered googling, but it seems a safe bet) >> social democracies<< Examples that aren't just Capitalist with higher taxes and more spending on social services or programs?
    5
  12.  @MuhmmedNadeem-cy2tj  a video about examples of socialism working shouldn't include that country. But then again, if it is stuck to the original intent, it would be a pretty damn short video.
    5
  13.  @odinhaga5899  well. To begin with, name some successful socialist states.
    4
  14.  @williamsastard8830  why bother telling me Russia wasn't communist if I'd never said it was?
    4
  15.  @KoreaMojo  one third of the world's population was socialist at its peak. Including the world's second largest economy. If the US was that dominant, that speaks even more to the weakness of socialism. Keep in mind that hostilities went both ways. Anyway. China is a prime example. Both of the failure of socialism and the success of capitalism. What speaks most to how each ideology performs, though, is the fact that the USSR, at the height of its power, was a literal prison.
    3
  16.  @Applemangh  then don't. Call. It. Socialism. I'm in favour of that shit. The last thing I want is to have it erroneously linked with failed ideology that's killed more than the Nazis ever did. Two people benefit from the linkage. People who are against social services, who want to use the epic failure of socialism to justify abolishing it and actual socialists so want to use the huge success of social programs to convince gullible people that they're supporting something kind and fluffy instead of an economic system that's led to the pointless starvation of tens of millions during peace time. Neither is our friend, and is it really too much to ask that people who like social services AND functional economies don't support them? Is that really unreasonable? Seriously. Words matter. You should be as against this as I am. Stop letting laziness and ignorance support dangerous bullshitters. Socialists and socialism should be treated in the same way as Nazis, and any attempt to rehabilitate them or the term should be reacted to with horror. You're a social democrat? That's awesome. Say you're a social democrat and make a point of correcting anyone who tries to link you to socialism. What Bernie did is the same as having a moderately conservative person go up on stage and proudly state that he's a national socialist.
    3
  17.  Robust Crypto  what is it lacking?
    3
  18.  Robust Crypto  >>Socialism as philosophy is different than Socialism as collective ownerships of the means of production. << Socialism as a philosophy is "being nice to the needy is good. We'll call it Socialism to distract from the abhorrent results of socialism the economic system" Dionak: What part of what I said contradicts what you said? If you think I'm arguing against what you said, you need to read a bit more carefully. Nahuel: They're capitalist with braodly overlapping goals with the Socialists. Which doesn't make them examples of Socialism working. It's just (yet) more evidence that Capitalism is better at delivering the promises of Socialism than Socialism is.
    3
  19. That's the sort of mistake someone would make if that person only looked at the practical effect of trying to become socialist. Ignoring the more powerful government/party members, obviously.
    3
  20. Check the Yugoslavian economy in the 80's Granted, Tito was dead, but the state that he'd created was there. Even before that, I'm not seeing how it was good by anything except Eastern European standards. Edit: Full disclaimer, this is just something I was reading up on earlier today. If you've got anything that contradicts this, I'd like to read it. I won't claim to be an expert.
    3
  21. A pretty minor error when compared with attempting to claim any welfare was socialist. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism. Most people who claim to be socialist are clueless on what the word actually means.
    2
  22.  @odinhaga5899  he's saying that the examples is successful socialist states given aren't socialist.
    2
  23.  @Erl0sung  but he's not a socialist. By definition. Common roots doesn't matter. Social democracy has fallen outside of the criteria for socialism.
    2
  24. @Left Nut find out what, specially? A successful socialist state? This video doesn't contain any. The major focus is on redefining the word to be synonymous with niceness. Which is dishonest.
    2
  25.  Robust Crypto  so you don't know what socialism is. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism.
    2
  26.  @williamsastard8830  to put it another way: your statement was false. I didn't say Russia was communist.
    2
  27.  @williamsastard8830  so you're a psychic? That you apparently know what was going on in their heads? How do you expect a true believer to implement a bad idea? When he decides everything except the idea is the problem.
    2
  28. ​ @williamsastard8830  Calm your anger. Obviously if you look at their actions, they weren't aiming for anything good, because only a raging lunatic thinks that attempting Socialism will lead anywhere. But as for the intentions of their leaders. They thought they were right. They thought others were wrong. They thought they were the only ones who could manage that. When you have people without restraints believing that, bad things can happen. Anyway: When you can give me proof that they knew they'd fail at their goal, but did their actions anyway, let me know. As it is, from your anger, I'm seeing no reason to believe that, even with the best of intentions, you'd do any better Edit: Also, I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question. Anger is a poor substitute for answers. "How do you expect a true believer to implement a bad idea? When he decides everything except the idea is the problem. " Well? You can give up and walk away, or you can double down. What do you think happens when you double down and decide everything except the idea is the problem?
    2
  29.  @salomaoserra9169  what he does is attempts to conflate social democracy with socialism, then claim Sweden is a success. Why even mention Sweden in a video about examples of socialism working?
    2
  30.  @salomaoserra9169  Yes it does. It's unchanged. The only thing that's changed is the lengths people are now required to go to to rehabilitate the term. It's failed so badly that people have been forced to try and claim socialism is general niceness, then claim it worked. And all that your last paragraph (and your first, TBH) says is that you don't know what socialism is. You're defending a lie. To be honest, that puts you above someone who does know what socialism is, yet still defends it. I have no idea why they're treated as people with respectable ideas, while neo nazis are reviled. They should both be reviled. Better to be clueless than a monster. Seriously: Do you think if the system worked, you'd be trying to argue semantics on what the term actually meant? The fact that you're even arguing this line is because attempts at making Socialism work have killed far more than Hitler ever managed.
    2
  31. ​ @salomaoserra9169  LOL No it didn't. It failed so hard you had to redefine the term. Socialism is about the public ownership of the means of production. The things you talk about are the nice things the extra sharing of the wealth was meant to pay for. They are not socialism. If you're not talking about that, you're not talking about Socialism. Capitalism is far better at delivering on the promises of Socialism than Socialism ever has been. Socialist states have had a strong tendency to contain the worst that the Socialist have said about Capitalist states. I'm explicitly including the use of slave labour in this. And finally: Yes. Socialism absolutely IS the shitshow the mainstream media have led us to believe. No, public education and things like that aren't socialism and won't lead to it, but actual socialism, not the fairytale redefinition that's in your head has led to disaster time and time again. Not minor disasters. Major ones in which tens of millions have died of starvation. During peacetime. And then we have clueless people like you doing something that's, frankly, by the numbers, worse than if someone tried to make it sounds like Nazism was all nice and fluffy. All while preparing for the next disaster.
    2
  32.  @violentlycanary  The being more protective of private property (which includes privately owned industry) would.
    2
  33. Pretty much. For respectability... At least the fascists didn't kill as many as the socialists have. Not saying this to day the fascists were good. Just expressing disgust that socialism is respectable for some reason. Both ideologies should be reviled, not rehabilitated.
    2
  34. That rebuttal isn't even needed. Norway isn't Socialist. People who claim it is are either lying or ignorant. Successful examples of Socialist states tend to fall into two categories. Capitalist states (Most commonly Nordic ones) Excuses (Cuba would be doing wonderfully if the US...)
    2
  35. >> At worst capitalism will expose the weakness of his idea and let it die.<< This really sums up the problem people have with it. Some people can't accept that there are people who'll simply fail.
    2
  36. And yet, greed is what makes it work. It's the incentive to do things that do (even if it wasn't the intention. Quite honestly, results are more important than intentions anyway) benefit other people.
    2
  37. And the examples of it going right just... Weren't/aren't socialism. Or were from dead civilisations.
    2
  38.  @DemonofElru666 no. They're advocating for a system that has a strong tendency to lead to authoritarian regimes. The same story over and over again. The same outcome over and over again. There comes a point when they might as well be calling for a dictatorship, because that's what will happen if they get what they ask for.
    2
  39. Remember when socialism hadn't yet been a monumental failure, so the actual definition was pretty well beyond dispute? Seems a long time ago...
    2
  40. The original definition was whether a person was opposed to or in favour of change. Supporting the monarchy was a consequence of being right wing (These aren't terms that are restricted to any specific issue. Today's left winger is tomorrow's right winger), because that was the status quo. Wanting a return to a monarchy would also have been right wing, because the definition includes being a reactionary. Stalin was left wing until he got what he wanted, then he'd have become very right wing.
    2
  41. Crimson Tides in the west, a free market economy is right wing. In north Korea, it's left wing.
    2
  42. Basically when he attempted to claim a bunch of non-socialist stuff was socialism, instead of simply giving some examples of actual successful socialist states?
    2
  43. If you believe all these people, then basically every Western society has Socialism. So in that case. Goal achieved. Move on to something else! And yet... They still want more... Despite (according to stuff like this) already having what they're after...
    2
  44. US economic data says otherwise. Say what you like about him, the US economy seems to be doing fairly well.
    2
  45. So you prefer one kind of capitalist state over another. While the few Remaining socialist states don't even qualify a mention.
    2
  46. Victor Matei the iron curtain (which someone tried to tell me was only an ideological barrier) wasn't built, maintained and improved by accident, after all.
    2
  47. The main way people get socialism to work is to redefine the word. For instance: If we redefine 'cold fusion' to mean 'burning coal' then cold fusion not only works, it's easy!
    2
  48. Social democracy is about that. Socialism today is about virtue signalling helping the poor while hating the rich. Because of the last century has taught us anything, whatever socialism will do, it won't help the poor.
    2
  49. When your best argument is "It can compare with many Capitalist countries in Europe" - It was not a success. When your ideology is meant to be an improvement on another, your criteria for success can't just be that it's comparable, it needs to be an actual improvement. Lots of Western European countries went from being highly agricultural to highly industrialised.... Actually, almost all of them did. It's not a special achievement. From looking at the economies on the East and West of the Socialist/Capitalist divide, it seems a fairly safe bet that if it had been part of the Capitalist block from day one, it would be doing much, much better than it is today. Why? Because every other country was, including those with ethnically diverse populations, so why shouldn't it? Are there any Western European countries with a GDP per Capita of less than $6k? Which does bring me to the obvious question: Which Western European country could it be compared with? Greece, which is arguably the biggest failure of Western Europe, still has a GDP per capita that is over 3x Serbia's. Edit: Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita Using just those numbers, and being tolerant of mistakes due to changed borders (IE: East/West Germany reuniting) it's possible to determine which country was part of the Socialist bloc and which the Capitalist. That. Is failure. Further edit: Just went through this. https://www.mises.ca/the-economy-of-titos-yugoslavia-delaying-the-inevitable-collapse/ TL;DR - I can have a pretty awesome life if I just borrow huge amounts of cash and piss it up against the wall. When the bills become due, however.... Less awesome. Oh so much less awesome.
    2
  50. How so? For facts... What do you think socialism is?
    2