Is this what socialists want?

[Azadina]

You're aware that monopoly was designed by a Stalinist communist to show the "horrors" of capitalism (when in reality, its showing the horrors of anarcho-capitalism with the pure greed of a tycoon). Funny, because instead of making people hate capitalism, it became a fun family game lmao, I always found this fact to be hilarious.

I always found it to be frustrating game, because pretty soon from the start, all players are in deadlock with the territories, and usually no one owns all colors to build on them. Then it seems to be a matter of who screws everyone, by selling the last light blue area for someone to own all of them. Then that person will cash in from everyone nearly every round.

[Kathandira]

Socialists and the far-left want a fantasy. Every time a hard socialism or communist government takes control and everything goes to pot, they inform you that "isn't real communist" in an attempt to explain away 100,000,000 dead along with famine and wide-spread starvation/corruption such as that in Venuzuela right now.

Communism fails in the same way that capitalism fails. Greed wins, and the innocent suffer. There is quite literally no economic system that will not have the same result.

[Acidbaron]

Better to keep the proletarians stupid and wait for them to come at you with knives and guns so one can enjoy their temporary excess of luxury which you wouldn't even notice is gone.

If you don't wish to invest in your fellow countrymen you are an enemy of your own nation, simple as that. Americans speaking of such terms they clearly don't understand, blindly indoctrinated sitting on reagans cock parroting terms from a person who was nothing more than an empty barrel echo interests of others.

And so you continue to be a nation where the education level instead of rising as in other western nations is heading towards a divide where you'll have parts of the population not better education than people in some poor African country.

But it's your own funeral. No surprise that America is a nation build on immigrants, they neglect and cast off their own as if they are nothing so they need outside forces to correct this.

Also since americans struggle with this still, taking social democratic constructs does not make your nation socialist, it simply makes it modern western nation in this day and age, but you guys still struggle with that concept so, best build out your military since in 200 years that's all you'll have going for you.

[Kathandira]

You're aware that monopoly was designed by a Stalinist communist to show the "horrors" of capitalism (when in reality, its showing the horrors of anarcho-capitalism with the pure greed of a tycoon). Funny, because instead of making people hate capitalism, it became a fun family game lmao, I always found this fact to be hilarious.

Simply because people are blind and dumb, and those greedy tycoons slithered their way into being posted up as role-models.

[Mittens]

You don't lose the right to choose.

Think of it this way: you can attend college and pursue whatever your heart desires. Just like today. The difference is, the government subsidizes degrees and skills that society is in need of (or will be in need of), and if you want to pursue one of those, it is free (assuming you perform adequately).

I'd also still argue for more affordable college as well, there's little need for students to pay $60k/year for a private school.

If you are poor you don't have a choice.

[Spectral]

If you are poor you don't have a choice.

In what sense? I grew up in a household well below the median and funding a university education through a combination of scholarships, financial aid, and smallish loans (~$14K from the start of undergrad through a doctorate) wasn't really much of a problem. Were I a bit poorer, the financial aid available would have fully defrayed the cost rather than even having the small loans. If you're thinking about elite schools, here's Harvard's calculator; a significant portion of their students pay zero tuition.

[Mittens]

In what sense? I grew up in a household well below the median and funding a university education through a combination of scholarships, financial aid, and smallish loans (~$14K from the start of undergrad through a doctorate) wasn't really much of a problem. Were I a bit poorer, the financial aid available would have fully defrayed the cost rather than even having the small loans. If you're thinking about elite schools, here's Harvard's calculator; a significant portion of their students pay zero tuition.

Im sceptical of I managed to do it you can stories. Whatever, I dont think it's a stretch to say that the government subsidizing certain degrees is limiting the options for those that cannot afford degrees outside those approved by the government. Also, I don't trust the government to manage the supply side of the job market.

[Spectral]

Im sceptical of I managed to do it you can stories.

That's fine. I think many people can't do it and poverty is part of why. My goal isn't to state that everyone that wants a degree can get one, but to note that lack of money is generally not the reason that people aren't able to get a solid education - there are substantial programs in place from state governments, the federal government, private scholarship organizations, and tuition waivers from private universities. It's not perfect, but I actually don't think we're losing all that many talented students to a lack of resources.

Whatever, I dont think it's a stretch to say that the government subsidizing certain degrees is limiting the options for those that cannot afford degrees outside those approved by the government. Also, I don't trust the government to manage the supply side of the job market.

I don't really know what you mean about the government subsidizing certain degrees. What are you referring to?

[Kokolums]

Socialists want people who own a greater proportion of the wealth to pay a greater proportion of the tax to keep money flowing through society and keeping the economy moving instead of investing and saving it all for decades and grinding everything to a halt.

This is absurd. 500 years ago, western civilization had KINGS who outright owned all of the land AND the people (the people were subjects of the crown and not citizens). Society did not grind to a halt.

[Spectral]

This is absurd. 500 years ago, western civilization had KINGS who outright owned all of the land AND the people (the people were subjects of the crown and not citizens). Society did not grind to a halt.

Economic development really was incredibly slow relative to liberalized economies in later years. Aside from tech or living conditions, it's just obviously the case that it was better to be starting a business in mercantilist Britain than feudal Britain, and better still be starting a business when Smithian classical liberalism gained broader sway.

So maybe "grinding to a halt" is an exaggeration, but there really wasn't particularly impressive innovation during the Middle Ages.

[Deleted]

The issue is, its the kind of person Socialism tends to attract. Young naive Idiots.

Unlike what, exactly? You find any anti-establishment ideology attracts idiots who just want to "fight The Man".

[Logwyn]

Sounds like the same demographic that gets attracted to libertarianism.

I'm guessing that all you took from libertarian is that liberal is in the name. If you think that libertarians are the same as socialist you should go look up the party platform. It would appear that it is the opposite of what you think it is.

[Mittens]

That's fine. I think many people can't do it and poverty is part of why. My goal isn't to state that everyone that wants a degree can get one, but to note that lack of money is generally not the reason that people aren't able to get a solid education - there are substantial programs in place from state governments, the federal government, private scholarship organizations, and tuition waivers from private universities. It's not perfect, but I actually don't think we're losing all that many talented students to a lack of resources.

I don't really know what you mean about the government subsidizing certain degrees. What are you referring to?

My original comment is a response to GothamCity floating the idea.

[Elba]

In a lot of European nations taxes do indeed pay for college education. Or at least subsidize it. This is good.

[Elba]

I'm guessing that all you took from libertarian is that liberal is in the name. If you think that libertarians are the same as socialist you should go look up the party platform. It would appear that it is the opposite of what you think it is.

Liberal and libertarianism are close because both support capitalism. Liberals are indeed right wing.

Socialists are left wing.

[Spectral]

My original comment is a response to GothamCity floating the idea.

Ohhh, gotcha, sorry for the missed context.

I will say that I basically agree with the idea, at least on a limited basis. The United States presently has a number of professions that are engaged in massive economic capture and rent-seeking rather than production and I think subsidizing the creation of more of those professionals is contractionary. I'm specifically referring to law and finance - we have no shortage of lawyers and finance wonks, to put it lightly.

Really though, that's part of a much larger web where we've created a system that has massive capture and dead-weight loss (hi tax accountants!). Just stripping out education subsidies for these professions is a start, but doesn't address the root of the problems.

- - - Updated - - -

What is poor living conditions, lack of sophisticated medician (so people died sooner), and constant waring between counties?

I'll take "What made the middle ages shit" for 400 Alex

This ties together with the poor economic models. These aren't exclusive from feudalism and earlier systems, they're intricately tied.

[Kathandira]

Liberal and libertarianism are close because both support capitalism. Liberals are indeed right wing.

Socialists are left wing.

This seems to contradict the right wing folks hating liberals.

[Elba]

This seems to contradict the right wing folks hating liberals.

That's because America does not actually have left wing politics. Democrats are center right. Republicans are far right. But call Democrats pinko Nazi commie socialists.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that why the US ranks so low in education compared to the rest of the world's universities? Oh... shit nope, that's just American k-12.

American elite universities being among the best places for higher education is beside the point. The point is that the average American can't properly effort higher education without going into massive debt. If at all.

[unbound]

Let me preface this with saying yes the video is a couple years old but pretty sure it's still a good indicator of what socialists want out of society. Am I correct? Would really love to hear from some of the socialists on this site.

The odds of a Fox News / Business video bringing on a real expert on socialism is about as likely as a snowballs chance in hell. Similarly, you aren't going to find coherent conservative views on Huffington Post.

As far as what socialists want, you can read it from the horses mouth here - http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

Like every idealized system (e.g. pure capitalism), it will never work as well as advertised which is why no country ever tries a pure simplistic system. The US (like most countries) is (and always has been) a mixed economy.

[ipaq]

The issue is, its the kind of person Socialism tends to attract. Young naive Idiots.

Contrary to republican, which attack old racists idiots?