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

  1.  @HuangXingQing  I did. And if you don't see the problem with the examples of socialism working he gave, I have to ask what you think socialism is.
    1
  2.  @HuangXingQing  it matters because it's difficult to have a discussion about this if we're not talking about the same thing. Most "socialists" have no idea of what socialism is. They simply think it's taxpayer funded nice things.
    1
  3.  @jakeizlove  I've asked the same question many, many, many times. The answers are always excuses or social democracies. These people genuinely have no clue of what they're supporting.
    1
  4. There are no socialist countries in Europe.
    1
  5. Socialism works if you redefine it. Kind of like how homoeopathy works if you redefine it to include regular medicine.
    1
  6. The next one. Well..... South Africa seems ready to go down that route, (Step 1: Stop respecting private property) so how about we save time and say 'The one after the next one'?
    1
  7. It did everything it was meant to. It wiped out the existing rich. Anyone who thinks that more was actually the goal after seeing the consistent results is delusional.
    1
  8. This is true. To look at it in another way: Every single one of your ancestors was.... If not a winner, then at least not so much of a loser that it couldn't reproduce. And going right back to the beginning, our ancestors were survivors, many of whom definitely did some very horrible things to survive while others died. Thieves, rapists, murderers (at least of potential competition) abounded. And this isn't nice. Now, today there's normally no reason to do this stuff, and plenty of reason not to (we eliminate threats. If we feel genuinely threatened by something, all bets are off) but the competitiveness that underlies it worked. It's worked since the dawn of life, despite the ugliness that goes along with it. So to suddenly pretend that this competitiveness is a bad thing is lunacy. It's nasty, and in many ways, it 100% needs to be channelled into something positive, but it the attitude behind it works. There are lots of failures, but the winners and their positive contribution to society more than pay for that. On top of this, and this is a common attitude I've noticed to technology, is that we only think in very short timescales. Competitiveness (as long as we don't destroy ourselves) is good for the long term. We need to keep improving. Hopefully we'll be around for tens, or even hundreds of thousands of years to come. Maybe longer. During that time, we need to keep moving and improving. Or we might be dead later this year, in which case, whatever's done doesn't really matter anyway, so it's better to assume we're here for the long term. Just in case we do manage to avoid killing ourselves.
    1
  9. Yeah... Eventually you get to a point where any government that does anything useful is socialism. Oh, an empty bit of state land that people who make stuff might have lunch on? Yep, that's Socialism. Trees in a state park produce oxygen that the workers then use when producing stuff? Socialism, 100%
    1
  10. And is capitalist.
    1
  11.  @TheLastAngryMan01  there's nothing in capitalism that says you can't spend the wealth however you like. All it says is that the things that create wealth are privately owned.
    1
  12.  @TheLastAngryMan01  I've got no idea what that has to do with my statement.
    1
  13.  @TheLastAngryMan01  >>I suggested that Vienna, which has had an unbroken spell of left-wing governance since the 1930s, has the highest standard of living according to many global surveys on that topic.<< You did. Left wing != Socialist or abandonment of Capitalism (Although on that specific issue, it would be. At least in a state that's currently capitalist. No sane person is purely left or right wing). It means that the person is in favour of change. Right wing is conservative (resistant to change) or reactionary (wants a previous status quo) I'm overall fairly left wing. I'm firmly capitalist. >>You implied that this was entirely down to capitalism.<< Not quite. What I pointed out is that Vienna is Capitalist. It's not a case of socialism working. >>I responded that many elements of life in Vienna (where I live, btw) are non-profit based- subsidized transport, subsidized healthcare and childcare, subsidized maternity and paternity leave, laws ensuring work-life balance, high taxes, social housing with non-index linked rents. These are policies more commonly associated with socialism, or at least, social democracy than free market capitalism.<< 'associated with socialism' != Socialist. What you've listed are some of the benefits that socialism is meant to bring (and has epically failed at). But they're not socialist. Socialism = public ownership of the means of production Socialism != nice things that are taxpayer funded. Social Democracy != Socialism, democratic or otherwise. >>You then suggested that capitalism does not prohibit free choice in terms of resource allocation.<< It doesn't. >>Yet, I am suggesting that if you survey the great proponents of capitalism- financial institutions, employers' confederations, right-wing think tanks, national and international economic governance institutions etc.- none of them would campaign for the things that I've listed, which gave ordinary (non-rich) citizens of Vienna a very high standard of living. Indeed, historically they have battled very hard against them.< And? Here you're mistaking what's a good idea for what's covered by the definition. If I own a business, I can do utterly retarded things. I can do very beneficial things. It's still covered by capitalism. All Capitalism means is that the means of production (you've listed things that are more consumption of the wealth created) are privately owned. What you spend the wealth on and how the wealth is created are two entirely different subjects. >>Indeed, if classical free market economics guaranteed a high standard of living for all, it would stand to reason that US cities would dominate the upper echelons of standard of living surveys, given their adherence to free market economic policy. << Which is irrelevant to the definition. >>But yet it's often European cities that dominate the higher placings on these things (with some competition from places like Vancouver and Melbourne, typically). Hope that makes it a little bit easier for you.<< Yes. It did make it easier for me to explain to you that you've mixed up the goals with the mechanics. That you've mixed up definitions with what is a good idea. >>bully380 I’m just amazed that people in this day and age, following one of the largest socialization of private sector gambling losses in world history, still think that socialist policies are the bogeyman we have to be worried about.<< That you yourself don't know what socialism is doesn't change that it's a bad idea. It just means that you're talking about something for which you don't understand the basic definition. It's not unusual. It's the result of people spending decades trying to make the word into something nice. Basically due to the epic failure of actual socialist states.
    1
  14. Because Venezuela is doing super well right now?
    1
  15.  @staatsfeindlich9939  excuses are much more powerful when you've got successes. If I'm late to work once, it probably was traffic. If I'm always late, it's just me.
    1
  16.  @staatsfeindlich9939  still waiting for Tim examples of socialist successes. To make the excuses for failure seem more believable.
    1
  17.  @staatsfeindlich9939  that is what happens when you're useless and easy to replace. I'm guessing that happened to you. It explains the anger. Which explains why you seem to support socialism. You don't really give a damn about helping the poor (including yourself) but simply want to screw those who screwed you. Because if you had any interest in helping the disadvantaged, you'd have realised what it means they you can't list any successes. About the only thing socialism really succeeds in is driving out or murdering the rich. It's completely terrible at helping the poor. So what are you? An angry failure who wants revenge? Or an idealistic idiot who can't spot a pattern when it's laid out in front of him?
    1
  18.  @staatsfeindlich9939  what straw man? You made excuses for failure. I pointed out that excuses have more weight when there are successes. You threw a tantrum and assumed my time zone and work hours.
    1
  19. Apparently letting someone reap the consequences of his own decisions, like starving or living in poverty because he refuses to work forcing you. I guess kind of like how the threat of measles if it refuse to get vaccinated is using force.
    1
  20. A bad idea is a bad idea, whoever gives it Anyway. When you do the video, post the link.
    1
  21. How will we ever hear what women think of something if they refuse to speak their minds?
    1
  22. Nordic countries are Social Democracies. Not Socialist Democracies. (Or Democratic Socialist states) Huge difference.
    1
  23. And then the next will say the same. And the next. And the next.
    1
  24.  @williamhenry8259  21st is giving up some pretty good examples as well. And we'll see south Africa on the list soon enough. I still can't believe they're following Zimbabwe's lead.
    1
  25.  @williamhenry8259  21st century. And socialised != socialism
    1
  26. It should always be discussed, but: When has abandoning capitalism worked out well?
    1
  27.  @PhilWestfall  I have watched it. There's a reason he spends so little time focusing on actual examples of socialist states and so much on how own wider definition of the word You've seen the video. You should be chock full of answers. Right?
    1
  28. Yeah, I've seen the blog that's the first source on Google for a list of Socialist countries. China abandoned Socialism in the 70's, after Mao died and Deng Xiaoping took over. 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' is Capitalism. They needed to continue to say it was a form of Socialism because, well... The Communist Party completely failed and tens of millions starved to death. For nothing. Abandon even the pretense of Socialism and the unanswerable question is 'Why are they still there?' The rest are Capitalist states with welfare systems. They didn't abandon Capitalism. Although Finland did briefly have a Socialist puppet state taking up some of its land after the USSR invaded. And long term? It hasn't. You notice how you needed to put those extra words in front of it? Nothing about Capitalism says it can't be regulated to stop one entity screwing over another. All it says is that the means of production are privately owned. Short term? Well. China is a classic example. There's masses of problems now, but the worst they've had in their capitalist phase is better than their Socialist phase.No mass starvations, after all.
    1
  29. >>Well I didn't find any blogs searching on Google, because I don't support Google's Monopoly. I search on Ecosia.org. This blog, http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/ was about the sixth entry<< Ok, then I've seen the blog that's the sixth entry on ecosia.org >>What I find with opponents of Socialism, is that their thinking remains very black and white -- like the fundamentalist believer who asks, "Just show me ONE example of a 'missing link...'" (transitional fossil), and then they won't accept the examples you provide. They still believe that a "species" is something frozen in time, when in fact all species (excepting one) are in a continuous state of change. Likewise, even as the human species has almost certainly stopped evolving, individuals within the species don't believe that social evolution is possible.<< Funny, what I find with Socialist is that they put much effort into redefining the word. Kind of like how evolution is supposed to include what came before the big bang because reasons. A redefinition that would have 100% not been necessary if it had worked as advertised. A redefinition that's, frankly, only necessary because the alternative is actively supporting a truly horrendous system. 100 million dead with nothing to show for it. The CCP did a similar redefinition with 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' - If I'd killed 60 million in pursuit of the one goal my organisation had been created to achieve, then openly admitted to giving up on that goal, I hate to think of what would happen next. I mean... What was the point? What was it all for? What possible reason could I give to not be brutally murdered myself? >>You do make a good point, Robert, that nothing says Capitalism can't be regulated. It's just that there are all these purists out there who insist that all regulation of Capitalism is a bad thing; in fact, FDR claimed that his life's greatest achievement was saving Capitalism through implementation of the New Deal, almost all of which has been undone by the 1/10 of 1% through their buying off the government apparatus and the mainstream media. << This is true. There are people who say that. But that doesn't make any of those states Socialist. Nor does it mean that Socialism has succeeded. >>If you are okay with a healthy, Keynesian approach to stopping the morbidly wealthy and powerful from screwing over the 99%, then just know that I am okay with the blending of Capitalism with Socialist programs<< 'Socialist Programs' -ne Socialism. They're more things that are compatible with it. That the nice things produced by that economic system are supposed to provide (but fail at) At its core, Socialism's an economic system. You can't base an economy on handing out free stuff. It's about who owns what creates the wealth. >>especially where the rich (not the Middle Class) are taxed heavily to pay for the military and all other social programs, and where the People are no longer silenced through the Party Duopoly that currently reigns, and are instead able to realize the serving of their collective interests throughout all levels of government.<< Which we're largely in agreement on (Although as a net taxpayer, I've got to say I'm a touch sick of being turned into the enemy. Fortunately, if things get too annoying, I can leave very easily)
    1
  30. I'll put it this way: For someone who supports actual Socialism. As it was intended before we found out how things really went down whenever it was tried. Obviously, we all condemn neo-Nazis. For good reasons (Although people have massively stretched what we apply that term to. I've been called one for supporting the right of people I disagree with to speak without being assaulted. Because Hitler was totally in favour of free speech). What reason that we use to condemn neo-Nazis shouldn't we use against those who support Socialism? About the only thing that changes is the target.They're both ideologies of hate. One against non-Aryans. One against the economically successful. (After seeing how the USSR, China, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc etc went down, you can't both be a Socialist AND want to help the disadvantaged.) The human rights records of states that implement both are abysmal. Between being in the Gulag system vs being in a Konzentrationslager. There wasn't a hell of a lot of difference. As any Pole will tell you, Socialist countries are pretty damn happy to be expansionist when the opportunity arises. They speak out against Imperialism, but are happy to engage in it. Now, someone who simply thinks that Socialism is providing taxpayer funded services and taxing the wealthy more, I'll simply say he doesn't know what he's actually supporting and move on. But someone who does know what it is, what its history is, yet still supports it? I really don't see the difference. Actually, there is one difference. Your legitimate Neo Nazi today has basically no support (outside of Russia shit-stirring) - He's a joke. Today's Socialist has lots of support. Ask any Hong Konger.
    1
  31. I'm guessing you only saw my last post. There were two of them. Anyway. None of what you posted has anything to do with what actually is/isn't Socialism. It's not me who's strawmanning you. You simply have no idea of the basic definition of what you're supporting. Which is common among Socialists. Most are simply trendy morons who shout to get what they don't understand. Anyway, next time you come up against something which is 90% false and easily debunked, my advice is to go for it. All an irrelevant rant/moral judgement does is shows evidence that you can't. 100 million dead and nothing to show for it. Far, far more than deaths under Nazism.
    1
  32.  @francescajaxon9334  I'm guessing if I ask for quotes on white genocide, or anything like that, I'll get the same nonsense as asking for successful socialist states and being given a list of capitalist ones.
    1
  33.  @francescajaxon9334  thank you for confirming my guess.
    1
  34. So as in the other thread where you did so skillfully turn me into an irrumator. It's like you've been practicing that since you were a boy. The best example you've been able to give exists in a Capitalist environment, and employs about 5% of the working population of one single region of one country and would be fairly unremarkable in the Capitalist world. The only reason it's remarkable is that it's a relatively highly successful worker-owned enterprise. Whereas, well.... China alone led to somewhere between 400 and 800 deaths for every one of those employees in its attempt at Socialism. And I know you'll say it's #notrealsocialism Well. You can believe that if you want. But the reality is that serious attempts have an extremely strong tendency to end very, very badly.
    1
  35. 100 million dead with nothing to show for it.
    1
  36. Sounds like you've got a bunch of excuses with no successes.
    1
  37. And where/what are those countries now?
    1
  38. Well let's see how he did. After watching that, can you name a successful socialist state?
    1
  39.  @JayS64  I'm against the spread of misinformation and misdirection. And it does. Socialism is an economic system. If we're talking about it working in a modern context (which is the only useful question) then my question is the one. Because what he has defined to be socialism working in a place that relied on slavery centuries ago isn't exactly applicable to the world people want to implement socialism in.
    1
  40. Bu11y 380  so you think that social programs are socialism. Is it so much to ask that people who are in favour of something at least have a slight idea what it is? You haven't even opened a dictionary. Probably got all your knowledge of what it is from seeing Lisa Simpson say Denmark is socialist.
    1
  41.  @TheTerminator-1  ah, I see. You're an idiot who thinks that things with social in the name are the same. Yes, I see number 2. Tell me. Can you run an economy off providing free stuff? Here are social programs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States What do they produce? This is an economic model. Not just a way to of keeping useless eaters such as yourself alive. Here's a simple explanation with diagrams that even you should be able to find someone who can help you understand. https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs
    1
  42.  @TheTerminator-2  why don't you answer the question?
    1
  43.  @TheTerminator-2  ah. Still lying. No. I said social programs aren't socialism.
    1
  44. Just a pity that it's not socialism. Socialism isn't free stuff. It's an economic system. Healthcare isn't socialism in any way.
    1
  45. If they're talking about the Scandinavian welfare states, what you've mentioned takes a back seat to the simple fact that they're not Socialist states.
    1
  46. No, they're not. Welfare doesn't produce. It's a safety net. Socialism is about the means of production... At least, it was until it was found what an epic failure it was. Now people are trying to convince others that it's attached to something that works. Which is why we get anything that starts with Social being classed under the umbrella.
    1
  47. Well.... Reason 1 is they don't want to starve to death.... Reason 2 is they don't want to die of exposure... :P
    1
  48. I have a friend who runs a school there. Very successful person. Very intelligent. Before Deng Xiaoping embraced capitalism, she was sleeping seven to a bed in an unheated hut with a dirt floor in some Liaoning farm. Which is why I laugh at anyone who thinks China is a socialist success story. China is a capitalist success story and an epic, epic socialist failure. All those dead, more during peace than Hitler managed during war time for nothing. For a failure. Two generations and counting held back. Yet you get fucks like this who try to make it into a nice term, rehabilitating previous mass murderers who deserve to be on the same level of respect as Hitler.
    1
  49. Each and every state you listed is capitalist. Not a single one is socialist. Unless you were trying to say that capitalism works... Beat what, exactly?
    1
  50. In fairness, he ignores the definition he gave pretty quickly.
    1