i'm far left, ask me anything

OP

do you think that the rich have an obligation to provide for th poor ( should the be forced to give money to the less fortunate)

As humans, we have an obligation to look after those poorer than us. As Christians, we have an obligation. That's why I believe socialism and Christianity are incredibly compatible.

Reply 21

username4528716

OP

18

Original post by Student 1011

Can you name one country in which socialism has worked effectively? Russia under Stalin? China under Mao? Venezuela? Cuba? North Korea maybe?

China is still socialist today and is working very well.
Cuba is still socialist today and no one has any problems.
Vietnam is socialist and is doing very well.
North Korea was doing better than Maoist china for a while and could see an economics revival.
Venezuela was doing great under Chavez.

And the USSR actually did very well under Stalin. Much better than the gorbachev years. There were food shortages in those years. There were some in stalin's era but mostly to do with the war. Regardless of what you think about him, over half of all Russians support Stalin.

Reply 22

lhabgabdgbfa

12

Original post by Ferrograd

As humans, we have an obligation to look after those poorer than us. As Christians, we have an obligation. That's why I believe socialism and Christianity are incredibly compatible.

but don't you think that rich people ( other than those who inherited money) have worked very hard for their money. Surely taking away their money would be stripping away what they've been working for. I agree that as humans, we should help everyone in need, but I don't think that this should be enforced on anyone.

Reply 23

username4528716

OP

18

Original post by Alt Tankie

I’m a Christian and an economic socialist too. 👍🏻

Are you socially conservative: as in want far less if any immigration, disagree with lgbt stuff, etc ? (I am)

I don't have a massive problem with immigration, but we should be ensuring they are somewhat assimilated and are providing skills to the economy. Of course, they should learn English etc.

I disagree with some LGBT stuff, because its all commercialised. The gay liberation movement was much more based than LGBT, when gay people were actually fighting for rights. Now LGBT is just westernised, commercialised BS.

I'm probably the least supportive of transgenderism to put it mildly.

Reply 24

username4528716

OP

18

Original post by lhabgabdgbfa

but don't you think that rich people ( other than those who inherited money) have worked very hard for their money. Surely taking away their money would be stripping away what they've been working for. I agree that as humans, we should help everyone in need, but I don't think that this should be enforced on anyone.

The way I see it, is that people who are very successful (most) generally are better placed at birth than other people. Ie, white people are far more likely to get a job as a poltiicain or banker than a black person. Working class people are disadvantaged at birth. Yes, there is more social mobility than before, but in general, social mobility is just a form of capitalist propoganda, as is the whole idea of meritocracy, which obviously doesn't exist, and only exists to try and give hope to the proletariat that one day they too can be rich, which is very rare, although of course, it can happen, it is just rare.

I think we should just set a limit on how much people are allowed to make, and tax rich people more.

Reply 25

BlueIndigoViolet

19

Original post by Ferrograd

The way I see it, is that people who are very successful (most) generally are better placed at birth than other people. Ie, white people are far more likely to get a job as a poltiicain or banker than a black person. Working class people are disadvantaged at birth. Yes, there is more social mobility than before, but in general, social mobility is just a form of capitalist propoganda, as is the whole idea of meritocracy, which obviously doesn't exist, and only exists to try and give hope to the proletariat that one day they too can be rich, which is very rare, although of course, it can happen, it is just rare.

I think we should just set a limit on how much people are allowed to make, and tax rich people more.

"just set a limit on how much people are allowed to make, and tax rich people more" - how to wreck an economy 101

Reply 26

username4528716

OP

18

A part of me is socialist just because its a viable counter culture to western consumerism, which I hate. There is nothing more I hate than the consumerist, culture that my generation are part of. We are incredibly ungrateful, we have little ethics and consideration for others. Socialist music is far better than western music.

That said, Most "western marxists" are just radical liberals (radlibs). They are hugely based on identity politics, which of course, race, and other issues are important and can effect one's success, but I'm a socialist first, ethnicity later/

OP

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

"just set a limit on how much people are allowed to make, and tax rich people more" - how to wreck an economy 101

I'm not going to ban business. In fact, I'm actually quite open about how I would achieve a strong economy whilst being soicalist. We would have special zones, let's call them Low Tax Economic Zones (LTEZs). These would be created up and down the country, particuarly in cities where there used to be industry. These zones would be especially for large companies and British startups who guarantee to keep manufacturing in the UK and production etc. They would be exempt from high taxes in these zones and other measures. This would encourage economic growth in parts of the country where it is low and move away from the London centred financial based economy towards a more industrial, decentralised economy

Reply 30

username4528716

OP

18

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

Why would I listen to a woman who destroyed our country's industry (along with the EU of course)

Reply 31

username4528716

OP

18

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

Go ahead believing your propaganda dude, China is a socialist country (albeit it with a socialist market economy) and they are on course to become the world's biggest economy. Also, you conviniently seem to forget Yugoslavia, which had a very good economy, and in general, was exempt from the human rights violations and other "bad" things done in say North Korea or China. Yugoslavia would have continued to this day if it wasn't for the Muslims and Croats revolting against the Serb majority and Serbian rule (even though they were all represented in the Yugoslav government)

OP

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

Socialism is the natural next stage of humanity and socialism is achievable, especially with young people so concerned about climate change. They will soon realise, if they haven't already, that the only way to counter climate change is to adopt an economic system that prioritises quality of life over profit. If socialism is so bad, how comes the Soviet Union was the second largest economy in the world ,and China is on course to become the world's largest?

Reply 35

username4528716

OP

18

You can keep re-regurgitating your bourgeoisis, capitalist propaganda at me, but you're merely an annoyance, not an actual threat. We will bury you.

Reply 36

username4501410

18

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

"just set a limit on how much people are allowed to make, and tax rich people more" - how to wreck an economy 101

I don't see Scandinavian countries having a ruined economy. If anything they are very successful due to how successful social democracy has been which has led to very low unemployment and crime rates.

Reply 37

username4528716

OP

18

Original post by Prussianxo

I don't see Scandinavian countries having a ruined economy. If anything they are very successful due to how successful social democracy has been which has led to very low unemployment and crime rates.

You're absolutely right, although Sweden does have quite high crime rates, but that's to do with uncontrolled migration and poor assimilation rather than socialism. Although these countries are socially liberal, and only economically socialist.

Reply 38

Lewito

19

Dropped on your head as a child?

Reply 39

BlueIndigoViolet

19

Original post by Prussianxo

I don't see Scandinavian countries having a ruined economy. If anything they are very successful due to how successful social democracy has been which has led to very low unemployment and crime rates.

actually cool with social democracy - problems with the far left, capping incomes etc. wanted to trigger our resident hipster commie

i'm far left, ask me anything

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you