Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why do the right want to return us to the 1800s? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    A left wing cliche and nothing more.

    In case you hadn't noticed, socialism doesn't work.
    oh rlly?

    please do show me a case of a society where socialism has failed.

    btw, NK, USSR arent socialist, they were/are totalitarian regimes run for the enrichment of the ruling class, just like capitalism
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    The minimum wage is enough for people to buy the basics. Just make the exempt from paying as much tax and ensure they won't be better off on benefits.

    What is your vendetta against the rich? 1) They're not a collective entity with similar wages, outlooks or intent and 2) they're still people...
    the minimum wage is pathetic.

    i dont have a vendetta against the rich, if they paid their fair share of taxes, and instead of pursuing obscene profits paid their workers a fair wage with good working conditions this thread would be irrelevant but they do not, they pay as little as possible with the worst conditions legally possible and campaign for the removal of workers rights to make them even richer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    what would change apart from we would have no starvation, no poverty, no homelessness, i cant think of anyone not a rabid right winger like you who would be against that.

    well the ussr was totalitarian, pretty much from the start, however it was extremely successful up until after ww2 when the capitalist western states decided it was time to force it to fail
    Stop putting words in my mouth, I dislike starvation, poverty and homelessness but it's a host of other factors, not just capitalism. In this country relative poverty is more prevalent than absolute poverty (the latter is more worrying than the former). Socialism wouldn't solve it, it would just make everyone worse off.

    "Extremely successful"? Oh yeah apart from everyone Stalin killed :rolleyes: If socialism was as good as you make it out to be, it would have put up a better fight against the "capitalist western states" than they did or there would have been more opposition to keep socialism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    oh rlly?

    please do show me a case of a society where socialism has failed.

    btw, NK, USSR arent socialist, they were/are totalitarian regimes run for the enrichment of the ruling class, just like capitalism
    What does that tell you though? Whenever it has been tried it has resulted in a despotic regime. That's what happens when you give everything to the government.

    The closer countries have got to free market capitalism, the wealthier they have become. Meanwhile the leftist toilets wallow in their own ****.

    US, UK, Western Europe, SK, Hong Kong > USSR, North Korea, Laos, Cuba.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Stop putting words in my mouth, I dislike starvation, poverty and homelessness but it's a host of other factors, not just capitalism. In this country relative poverty is more prevalent than absolute poverty (the latter is more worrying than the former). Socialism wouldn't solve it, it would just make everyone worse off.

    "Extremely successful"? Oh yeah apart from everyone Stalin killed :rolleyes: If socialism was as good as you make it out to be, it would have put up a better fight against the "capitalist western states" than they did or there would have been more opposition to keep socialism.
    so why do you not want to do anything about it? other than cry some **** about markets.

    socialism would improve the majority's living standards.

    if the majority of the world was socialist and decided to band together to destroy one capitalist bloc im pretty sure they would succeed.

    i said it was totalitarian but you cant deny it was an economic success until after the war
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    the minimum wage is pathetic.

    i dont have a vendetta against the rich, if they paid their fair share of taxes, and instead of pursuing obscene profits paid their workers a fair wage with good working conditions this thread would be irrelevant but they do not, they pay as little as possible with the worst conditions legally possible and campaign for the removal of workers rights to make them even richer.
    The minimum wage isn't successful in creating employment. Say I start a business (a small restaurant chain) and I can afford to pay employees £5.50 per hour, along with free Friday night dinners for the first month, but the government says I need to pay more which I simply cannot afford: the building, tax, expenses, ingredients, etc. I have a sixteen year old come to me, she needs experience for her catering course, extra pocket money, but I cannot offer her the job (despite her reassurance that it's enough for her) as I will be prosecuted. That's where the minimum wage fails young people.

    Richer people shouldn't have to pay obscene levels of tax. Firstly due to living costs and commitments and secondly it's treating them like a cash cow. Tax as much is necessary (like everyone else), but enough is enough. If tax wasn't so high, fewer people would avoid/evade it.

    In a free market, if consumers are unhappy with working conditions for employees they will take their money elsewhere, then the business will have to close down due to less money coming in. It's in a business' interests to have good working conditions for that reason, they will realise this so there is no need for reckless state intervention.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    What does that tell you though? Whenever it has been tried it has resulted in a despotic regime. That's what happens when you give everything to the government.

    The closer countries have got to free market capitalism, the wealthier they have become. Meanwhile the leftist toilets wallow in their own ****.

    US, UK, Western Europe, SK, Hong Kong > USSR, North Korea, Laos, Cuba.
    revolutions have led to despots not the political and economic system. i favour non revolutionary socialism via social democracy.

    you do know the concept of wealth doesnt exist in a socialist system, so of course capitalist economies are "wealthier", when production is based on social demands and the needs of the population everyone is better off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Socialism can make everyone equal, rich people will leave therefore everyone equal. Good or bad thing is debatable
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    so why do you not want to do anything about it? other than cry some **** about markets.

    socialism would improve the majority's living standards.

    if the majority of the world was socialist and decided to band together to destroy one capitalist bloc im pretty sure they would succeed.

    i said it was totalitarian but you cant deny it was an economic success until after the war
    So what will it take to "destroy" this capitalist block? Blood shed?

    An economic success, but...what about the people killed? :eek: I thought you were a Man of the People?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    Are you seriously disputing that the country produced less wealth in 1900 than it does today? A lot of the technology we use today didn't even exist in 1900. If you want you can look up historical GDP per capita (which was less than 1/3rd of minimum wage today) but even that gives an overestimate of the wealth produced given that there were no televisions or computers being produced anywhere on Earth in 1900.
    In 1911 the top 1% of the population owned up to 70% of wealth, now the top 20% owned 51% of the wealth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    revolutions have led to despots not the political and economic system. i favour non revolutionary socialism via social democracy.

    you do know the concept of wealth doesnt exist in a socialist system, so of course capitalist economies are "wealthier", when production is based on social demands and the needs of the population everyone is better off.
    Of course I'm aware the left don't like wealth; that's exactly why they can't generate any.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    The minimum wage isn't successful in creating employment. Say I start a business (a small restaurant chain) and I can afford to pay employees £5.50 per hour, along with free Friday night dinners for the first month, but the government says I need to pay more which I simply cannot afford: the building, tax, expenses, ingredients, etc. I have a sixteen year old come to me, she needs experience for her catering course, extra pocket money, but I cannot offer her the job (despite her reassurance that it's enough for her) as I will be prosecuted. That's where the minimum wage fails young people.

    Richer people shouldn't have to pay obscene levels of tax. Firstly due to living costs and commitments and secondly it's treating them like a cash cow. Tax as much is necessary (like everyone else), but enough is enough. If tax wasn't so high, fewer people would avoid/evade it.

    In a free market, if consumers are unhappy with working conditions for employees they will take their money elsewhere, then the business will have to close down due to less money coming in. It's in a business' interests to have good working conditions for that reason, they will realise this so there is no need for reckless state intervention.
    or looking at it as its more likely to happen, you cant turn down a job when on benefits, a huge multinational offers you 1.50 an hour, you have no choice but to take this job or lose your benefits, either way your worse off. and you could employ a 16 year old in that situation by the way. look at the minimum wages before talking rubbish. even in your imaginary resturant chain, you might be able to afford 5.50 but would you pay 5.50 or pay as little as possible and keep the profit for you?

    i hardly see what they pay as an obscene amount, they still live lavishly.

    yes because clearly the consumer cares about where their stuff comes from, thats why we still have indian sweatshops.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Of course I'm aware the left don't like wealth; that's exactly why they can't generate any.
    ah pointless statements, i see many of them.

    wealth does not exist as a concept in socialism so your talk of wealthier countries is irrelevant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    So what will it take to "destroy" this capitalist block? Blood shed?

    An economic success, but...what about the people killed? :eek: I thought you were a Man of the People?
    simple, economic sabotage as was applied to the ussr.

    well it was given by you as an example of socialism, which it is not, it is an example of totalitarianism which i do not support but i dont try to deny that they were economically successful.


    stop putting words in my mouth and trying to create strawmen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cloud1)
    Socialism can make everyone equal, rich people will leave therefore everyone equal. Good or bad thing is debatable
    There is no debate. Equality is wrong as people aren't equal.

    You can only prosper under capitalism if you serve your fellow man. Richard Branson has offered more to the world than some bum from Barnsley. Why should he be at the same standing as someone who has lived off the tax payer all their life?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    In 1911 the top 1% of the population owned up to 70% of wealth, now the top 20% owned 51% of the wealth.
    You are most likely in the top 20% of the world in terms of wealth, do you pay people in cash to avoid tax, sadly all people are the same merely the scale is different. It is a bit like austerity is needed except on other people, people all selfish generally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    ah pointless statements, i see many of them.

    wealth does not exist as a concept in socialism so your talk of wealthier countries is irrelevant
    With more wealth comes a higher standard of living. The fact you and your ilk overlook this is precisely why left wing countries are degenerate dumps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    There is no debate. Equality is wrong as people aren't equal.

    You can only prosper under capitalism if you serve your fellow man. Richard Branson has offered more to the world than some bum from Barnsley. Why should he be at the same standing as someone who has lived off the tax payer all their life?
    I didnt say which side i agreed with but you do agree that if socialism implemented aggresively would end up like this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    With more wealth comes a higher standard of living. The fact you and your ilk overlook this is precisely why left wing countries are degenerate dumps.
    wealth is only important in capitalism.

    you and your ilk refuse to look at socialism outside of your capitalist minds and this is why you fail to see how good it is.

    further conversation with someone as aggressive, ignorant and insulting as you is something i wont be wasting my time on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cloud1)
    I didnt say which side i agreed with but you do agree that if socialism implemented aggresively would end up like this.
    You said it is debatable!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.