3 ms·
The problem is the choice seems to be oiligarchs or socialism. either way the average person loses.
by sharemywin 4y ago
The problem is the choice seems to be oiligarchs or socialism. either way the average person loses.
- thinkwithlucie 4y agowould you rather be the average Joe in capitalism or socialism?
- ceejayoz 4y agoEuropean or Soviet?
- thinkwithlucie 4y agoEuropean socialism? There is none.
- bpt3 4y agoCapitalism, no question.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoWell, you don't generally see doctors and engineers in Miami building rafts out of styrofoam-filled trash bags and crossing shark-infested, hurricane-prone waters because they'd rather be a busboy in Havana.
- vt85 4y ago[dead]
- enlightened 4y agoThat and liberal democracy, minor fkin details. Let's just forget the lessons of the last three hundred years?
- danaris 4y agoDemocracy is orthogonal to socialism. The one says how you choose the government; the other says what the government's modus operandi is.
- vt85 4y ago[dead]
- megaman821 4y agoEven in the current flawed system of capitalism, the top 20% are doing pretty great and the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide. What does that look life for communism, 1% doing great and 99% barely surviving? Can we do better? A lot better. Is communism the way? God no. Now if you tell me America needs to reevaluate is social spending and priorities, I am totally on board.
- WalterGR 4y ago> the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide. Obviously "rising tide" has many meanings, but: In the US, the poverty rate has remained fairly consistent since about 1970. Purchasing power has remained stagnant since about the same time.
- sharemywin 4y agoThat's my whole point this entire conversation about capitalism and socialism is a waste of time. It's a distraction designed to pit people against each other that probably agree on a lot more then disagree.
- pwinnski 4y ago> the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide This was true until the 1980s in the US. I remember a very popular national politician showing that it wasn't true that the poor were getting poorer, they were just getting richer at a much slower rate. Then, in his eight years in office, he oversaw a shift so that now the poor are actually getting poorer, while the rich are getting richer at a far faster rate than they were. Also, nobody mentioned communism but you. The subject under discussion was socialism.