Socialism: The World’s Greatest Generator Of Poverty

The last time I looked, Social Security was a forced Retirement Plan by the government where they steal our earnings over the course of our working career after WE EARN IT and healthcare is "insurance" on an issue that it uninsurable. If you want to reconsider and discuss Welfare, Food Stamps and Medicaid instead, well, you have a point there.

You should be whopped up side the head with a bag of urine if you believe Socialism is a good system for large populations....punk.

And they can decide at any time not to pay you "your" SS. It's a tax. If it was your money you could have access to it anytime you choose, but you can't.

The only money that is yours is the money in your hand. Not in the bank and not SS until and if they decide you can have it and how much.

There is no scientific or empirical evidence proving that Socialism is worse off than Capitalism. The fact that your source is dumb enough to say that Capitalism is better for the environment is completely and utterly inaccurate. I'm not even a supporter of Socialism, but I'm also not a supporter of idiots or shills who post bullshit on GLP. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe this crap.

Capitalism created sosialism in order to have a perpetual war & profit ..


its on the last ISM that you get your truth ..

capitalISM , socialISM, communISM

ISM , chasm, Division, created to divide ..

poverty is generated by greed and capitalists are masters at that game ...


see how your jobs move to china and ask yourself are capitalist using communist as slaves for greed ..

www.banggood.com yes buy ameriocan ! made in china by greedy capitalist corporations .....

sorry no one buys your poverty blame on socialism any longer ,,,,, its the banks that create it all ...

There is no scientific or empirical evidence proving that Socialism is worse off than Capitalism. The fact that your source is dumb enough to say that Capitalism is better for the environment is completely and utterly inaccurate. I'm not even a supporter of Socialism, but I'm also not a supporter of idiots or shills who post bullshit on GLP. You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe this crap.

OP, your comparative analytics are not grounded in logic or science. They are on fallacies.

The method of government is best chosen by the amount of people in a population with a level of education/IQ. Socialism is okay in the right contexts on the planet. It does have a purpose, a phase of development to go through to get to another government structure. Therefore, it has a beginning and an end of use as a system. It is not for abolition, it is for temporary use when other things don't work. It is not for everybody, but it does work temporarily to get a civilization through a phase.

I see it all the time. Totalitarian capitalism, trying to remove all other forms of government in order to prove right-ness of capitalism itself. The essays written first by college students straight from a judeo-christian or similar background, wholly dependent on education to reach their employability, in real life not original thinkers and unable to produce business without a herd mentality in education.

That's what you just did in the OP. Trying to invalidate other systems in order to juxtapose the worth of capitalism. That is not a worthy comparison. Either the capitalism stands on its own or it doesn't. Comparing it, apples to oranges, will never work. But that's what you tried to do. No matter what I select in my own mind as what works economically, your argument is skin-deep good for college courses not good for the real world.

OP, your comparative analytics are not grounded in logic or science. They are on fallacies.

The method of government is best chosen by the amount of people in a population with a level of education/IQ. Socialism is okay in the right contexts on the planet. It does have a purpose, a phase of development to go through to get to another government structure. Therefore, it has a beginning and an end of use as a system. It is not for abolition, it is for temporary use when other things don't work. It is not for everybody, but it does work temporarily to get a civilization through a phase.

I see it all the time. Totalitarian capitalism, trying to remove all other forms of government in order to prove right-ness of capitalism itself. The essays written first by college students straight from a judeo-christian or similar background, wholly dependent on education to reach their employability, in real life not original thinkers and unable to produce business without a herd mentality in education.

That's what you just did in the OP. Trying to invalidate other systems in order to juxtapose the worth of capitalism. That is not a worthy comparison. Either the capitalism stands on its own or it doesn't. Comparing it, apples to oranges, will never work. But that's what you tried to do. No matter what I select in my own mind as what works economically, your argument is skin-deep good for college courses not good for the real world.

Nothing different at all, but it's all ok if you call it capitalism and claim the wage slavery is voluntary. Considering the alternative (homelessness and starvation) is it really voluntary?
Yes, you parasite, says the hardcore capitalist, slave happily or starve or start your own business right this minute and then you'll be free. We did and we're not. It's no different. Just another game piece.

OP, it's not entirely accurate.

Money is the greatest generator of poverty. Money gets it's value from disparity. This means that the less of something people have, the more value that thing has.

Think about why a $1 dollar bill is less then a $100 bill. It's because less people have access to $100 bills, compared to $1 bills. If you gave everyone $100 bills, they would suddenly be worth what $1 bills are now. That's how inflation works. And this is why raising minimum wage has never worked in the long run.

So there for in order to create "wealth" whether it be capitalism or socialism, you have to make the majority of the population poor. That's what generates wealth....poverty.

Socialism is, in my opinion, is a symptom of people wanting to cure the troubles of money, but not realizing that money itself is the issue. People like socialism because it negates the inequality of money, but they try to do this by making money equal. You cannot do this, and that is what makes the economy crumble. Because you are trying to use an economy based on money, but not allowing money to work it's natural way.

Socialism can absolutely exist, but not in a world that uses money.

Money is simply a means by which to store value. One can't dig a ditch today and exchange that labor for a sandwich next month. But one can dig a ditch today in exchange for an instrument that they can trade for a sandwich next month. Unless you have the ability to alter human nature so that people dig ditches and give away sandwiches on demand out of the goodness of their hearts, we will always need a means of storing value. If you have a better way of doing things that does not encroach on individual liberties, I'd like to hear it.

By all means, this system of exchange is all very functional now, more so, in fact. You can overthrow a country or murder a slew of people if you offer the correct pile of the worthless green paper to an idiot that believes that it has than much value, but once foreign entities, or heaven forbid, the American Idiot, comes to the realization that these bullshit pieces of paper (or zeros added to your account sheets in USD) are far less valuable than toilet paper, well then the fun will begin.

The true value of anything is determined by what another will give you in exchange for it. One's current situation always dictates what is most valuable to them at the time. The poster I was responding to suggested that socialism can exist without some type of currency as a means of exchange, suggesting that the use of currency is the fundamental problem with socialism. I was asking what was their alternative store of value. The fiat currency debate is another issue.

Money is simply a means by which to store value. One can't dig a ditch today and exchange that labor for a sandwich next month. But one can dig a ditch today in exchange for an instrument that they can trade for a sandwich next month. Unless you have the ability to alter human nature so that people dig ditches and give away sandwiches on demand out of the goodness of their hearts, we will always need a means of storing value. If you have a better way of doing things that does not encroach on individual liberties, I'd like to hear it.

You are absolutely correct. You are dealing with 10's of thousands of years of ingrained thinking. Even I have a hard time grasping something not being "of value".

We can have a system that does not use money. We have to come with an alternative that in round about addresses the desire for self worth.

But money by itself does not preclude you from doing anything you do on a daily basis. In fact the only true purpose that it serves is to limit what you can do. Money does not empower you, it just limits you.

It's a distraction from the major cause of poverty in the world: usury, otherwise known as banking. It's the ultimate wealth redistribution system that moves capital from the poor and middle class to the rich, by leveraging the ability to make money out of nothing and convert it into real assets at the stroke of a keyboard. Banking is legalized fraud, and everybody knows it (or should).

Oh ok, so that explains why bank bailing world policing America is not poor, since they too have OIL!!!!

That also means Venezuela should be rich!

It's a distraction from the major cause of poverty in the world: usury, otherwise known as banking. It's the ultimate wealth redistribution system that moves capital from the poor and middle class to the rich, by leveraging the ability to make money out of nothing and convert it into real assets at the stroke of a keyboard. Banking is legalized fraud, and everybody knows it (or should).

Are you trolling, or are you a genuine illiterate idiot?

Nothing different at all, but it's all ok if you call it capitalism and claim the wage slavery is voluntary. Considering the alternative (homelessness and starvation) is it really voluntary?
Yes, you parasite, says the hardcore capitalist, slave happily or starve or start your own business right this minute and then you'll be free. We did and we're not. It's no different. Just another game piece.

This is a great thread and the title is especially great.

Another great anti-socialism thread has been around for several years already and is now up to 19 pages:

No Dhimmi thread:
Thread: The collapse of Socialism (aka: Leftism) is unfolding before everyone’s eyes

The major cause on poverty in the world is life. We are all born with nothing and remain with nothing unless something of value is created. Poverty is a natural given. Its the natural state of man and always has been. But I see where this thread is going. Just as all the Occupy Wall St threads with people posting about "bringing down the system". When I ask of the aftermath of that and the alternative, nothing but crickets chirping up in here. If you have an alternative to banking, usery and / or the use of currency, please post what exactly it is and how it will pay out in the average person's daily life.

Check the link in my sig for starters.

Governments don't need banks to create money. It can be created without any debt or interest obligation to a bank. That's the dirty little secret that the banksters don't want people to know. The bankster bail-outs of Greece and other countries are completely unnecessary, along with the austerity programs. The IMF uses loans created out of nothing to gain control over nations, and eventually the world. If you knew your history, you'd know that the banksters created and financed communism in Russia and China.

All well and good but entirely irrelevant subject matter to the thread.