Are governments just protection rackets for the 1%?


Okay? This has nothing to do with the topic.


this place has no mods,


You’re right. As a Euro what do you think of the EU?


Neoliberal union that is the greatest danger right now to any serious pan europeanism. If the EU dies now it will take pan Europeanism along with it including less shitty models like a true confederation (sexy socialist one too), and set back pan europeans like George orwell and euro communists a century.


The problem with “just making or joining” a coop is that the bourgeoisie hinder the success of such institutions, as they sacrifice worker well-being for profit to expand and dominate the market. Strong labor movements should be allowed and fostered by the government, and should have a direct connection to said government to negotiate better wages and more power with business owners. This is the first step in a capitalist economy to promoting more solidaristic, socialist policies.

As I said, reform is often more viable than revolution.

In the US, the bottom 90% of income earner’s have a statistically non-significant, almost non-existent influence of popular legislation passed. The system in the US is corrupted by middle-men and a highly capitalist economy. By no means is it an optimal system.

There are no prime examples of such a system, however, examining the Swedish model of social democracy, we see a history of a large and effective organized presence of labor, combined with a large public sector, which itself is enforced by a state. I’m not entirely opposed to a state, but it must be held to quite high standards. Regardless, this system has lead to fairly low inequality, high quality of life, high levels of human development, and high levels of happiness. This increased power of labor and a public sector lead to more egalitarian and beneficial results.

I apologize, I misread the data when I looked up this a while ago.

Well I mean, when someone that is not necessary to a productive business is extracting values from the workers that are operating the business, I don’t think that is quite optimal.

They are more productive, but are not able to expand too much due to the nature of their goals (typically being communal) and since they use more of their profits to benefit the workers outright than trying to expand and grow.

Well in a coop you can get individuals with those special sets of skills. You’re trying to make a moot point. People do have the ability to organize themselves and work as a coop, but bosses have come into possession of most private property and largely use the state as an apparatus to maintain dominance over the means of production, and therefore control the means of production.

Well you’re factually incorrect, the outcomes of the parents greatly affect that of the children. There is an inextricable, statistical, and objective connection.

The Nordic models have succeeded as far as market economies go due to a large and effective labor presence throughout their history. That article makes the point that Nordic success predates organized government welfare states, and attributes their success to their culture. What is ignored is the fact that their culture entails greater organization of labor and a more collective mindset. What this means is that, essentially, Nordic countries have had great success due to a powerful, organized, and influential public sector, even if it was not formalized per se until the formation of a welfare state around the 1960s. While they are not currently a socialist state, they do show the merit of a large public sector and labor presence.

While you are factually wrong in claiming welfare eliminates all incentive to work, as welfare clearly doesn’t, especially with a well structured system, evidence has shown that more powerful and organized labor unions help mitigate this disincentive. This is probably also why the Nordic countries see such success with their large welfare state.

They don’t call themselves socialist, but anyway, the United States has traditionally been unfriendly to unions and organized labor, but if such was fostered and protected by the government, our welfare state (which is already in concept a good thing that does give aid to those who need it) would be much more effective via the mitigation of adverse effects and perverse incentives.

Wait times are not optimal, but are really necessary when you are providing the entirety of the public with care that provides health and well-being. While they are not optimal, they aren’t horrendously detrimental to quality of health in said systems, as the right so frequently claims.

Healthcare costs have continued to rise despite measures to provide for the public. Public provision must be accompanied by cost restrictions, as many medical costs are jacked up due to inelastic demand, aka the exploitation of the sick and dying. Cutting medical profits isn’t going to lead to a crippling medical shortage, if any.

People aren’t really “choosing” if they are forced into accepting such due to socioeconomic and personal circumstances.


This is the central component of several european economies, and is how the nordic model fundamentally works.


The government has no role ownership, sponsoring, or giving aid to businesses; that is how you get inefficient, bureaucratic business. Labor movements should be unregulated by the government, meaning there is no government respect of such establishments. Also your idea that the middle class hinder the success of the coops doesn’t really have much backing. If the coop offers higher quality goods or cheaper goods then people will be willing to spend money there.


I agree that the system is corrupted and not representative. However I think we should give the bullet to lobbyists and Congressmen for treason and instead have a Stratocracy instead of full blown “Representative” Democracy.

All coolio

I do not think the government has a say in this issue, however I do agree that people with no merit or production capability should be fired. It really comes down to the work place environment and if you are able to Unionize (which should be unrestricted).

This is poor business choice. The workers would benefit if they put their money towards expansion, however it seems they might be shortsighted.

Bosses aren’t third parties, they don’t just appear and say, “I own this business now.” If you want to start a coop just purchase some property, it isn’t like there is a property shortage in the US.

I have reviewed some studies and you are half correct, because the greatest factor in success is education, which is something that needs to be improved in the US.

The US is missing the key elements that can make up a functioning welfare state, which is the homogeneous culture, race, language, etc. However as we see now the migrant crisis is destroying their ability to function well. I do think that only a National Socialist state will work, however that would require race laws, religious regulations, speech codes, etc. so the control scenario is not compromised and malignant factors are minimized. I love the idea of a ethnic state, however it is extremely unethical in my opinion.

Welfare, if it offers a better standard of living than working does, can and will often eliminate the incentive to work; this is why American cities are full of poor black communities (that and the cultural, racial, and historical difference between white Americans and black Americans). However I cannot see America being able to follow the Nordic Model, as we do not have a cohesive population and unless there is massive change, then I don’t see a welfare state being able to form in the US.

As I have stated, cohesion is key, the US is not a cohesive State. I do agree that labor unions have been attacked multiple times by the government and that is wrong, we should repeal most or all labor regulation in my opinion, however I do not think the US government should fund, support, or assist in any ways labor unions; just as they shouldn’t do so for businesses. Labor unions are a natural and important step in the economic flow (which I have a hecka’ theory on, I should PM you that.)

They aren’t optimal and they don’t really attract great doctors. However I do think a good fix would be to offer government doctors or military doctors.

They rise because of the attempts of nationalization of the healthcare market, however that nationalization is a horribly botched effort which is why healthcare is such a fudged up system as of now, honestly it would be better if we did fully nationalize, but it would be best if it was fully privatized.

They can always chose different ways in life, they aren’t forced to sign there name, they aren’t forced to apply, they aren’t forced to do anything. If inaction or relocation is an option, then maybe they should chose that rather than submit to a system that they would deem evil, vile, and corrupt.


Well no, you get preferable, more egalitarian outcomes when you have a direct connection from labor to government and companies as to negotiate the rights, privilege’s wages, and various other components of the workplace for workers. Government needs to not only allow labor unions to exist and give the workers sufficient ability to organize and strike, but should also allow them a strong influence over corporations and business owners. Optimally, the means of production are controlled by the workers themselves, but stronger labor is still progress.

And you think this can be accomplished under, or wouldn’t come back into existence under a heavily capitalist economy?

The government has an obligation to stop oppression and provide optimal conditions for its citizens.

Making tremendous profits to them does not matter as much as improving the quality of life for the workers in said coop. Just because a capitalist market dictates a choice is not justification for such. The disagreement is in fundamental motivation, and just because it works in a market (for the bosses at least) doesn’t mean it is best for everyone involved. They aren’t shortsighted, they just care about their employees and what they can do.

They are a medium through which the vast majority of workers must go through, and cause the overwhelming majority to accept some form of wage labor. The majority of private capital producing property is held by business owners. As I have also elaborated upon before, there is a problem in spreading the influence of coops when they value their workers more than profit.

Well the problem is that the US culture has been forged by presupposition of the working class, propaganda and lobbying from the bourgeoisie. If labor was allowed to take hold like in Scandinavia, worker culture would be able to thrive and organize. You could argue that some modifications would be made to make it more palpable for the US, but the evidence is there that allowing greater labor organization mitigates adverse effects of a universal welfare system, while allowing its benefits to truly shine. The OECD has mentioned this in their studies and recommendations on reducing unemployment.

By allowing labor unions direct power to negotiate with business, they gain more power, leading to better outcomes, as I have stated before.

That would only allow the further expansion of prices, exclusion for a large portion of the population from even basic healthcare,and would lead to quite a few deaths. Like, this isn’t a topic that there is little data to draw conclusions from, countries with universal healthcare (i.e. much more government intervention than in the US) have much lower costs, comparable outcomes on an individual basis, and much better results on a societal basis.

No, they can’t. People don’t have unlimited money, infinite time, or boundless knowledge from which to draw and make decisions. They are forced by their immediate and long-term socioeconomic necessity, which will frequently drive them to the inevitability of accepting exploitation and oppression to even survive, while with a significant enough societal push, the average person would see greater economic prosperity, political representation, and individual liberty.


If the labor unions exist with the government support and the roles are reversed, then the men the labor unions bully the industrialists, the CEOs, the engineers, the scientists, out of their money, they will take their share and leave; you seem to forget that these men are human and they have options. If the business is not profitable, if the unions and the government bully them out of their money, they will leave. This means of production non-sense is just aimed at making people in charge of businesses out to be evil men, and just as Hitler vilified the Jew, Lenin vilified the landowner, and just as Mao vilified the nationalists, the ideals propagated in your manifesto offer only a path to slaughter and death. Every single action taken to push for Socialism, real by the book Socialism, has only resulted in death en mass.

What I gave to you was an ideal, it cannot be accomplished in our situation, however the status quo is much better than any Socialist state.

Just because you change the oppression from the small minority on the bottom to the middle class and up doesn’t mean you’re not oppressing anyone. The citizen has an obligation to provide for themselves, the government does not have the obligation to feed, cloth, and treat their citizens as children.

Then it has poor judgement and will either fail as a business or just stagnate until something more able steps up and out does it. Such is the way of the world, the government shouldn’t ban this from happening because they think that they are entitled to a profit even though they chose not to expand.

The problem is not everything but the coop, the problem is the system the coop offers is one of stagnation and of reluctance to change or adapt to a business environment. Bosses aren’t bag guys either, they are people, not robots who want to ensure everyone under them is oppressed, used and neglected.

Once again I must remind you that the bourgeoisie is in reference to the middle class and the middle class is the largest portion of people in the US. Also I don’t have to argue that speech codes, race laws, religious regulations, etc. would have to be implemented, in all attempts to propigate a socialist state, there must be control and heavy control at that. Personal freedom is given up for the “greater good”; this to me is heinous and an insult to the ideals of real libertarians. OECD is run by people who have it in their best interest to propagate an international world and impoverished and ignorant population.

As long at the government has no involvement, I agree that workers in a organization should be able to form a union.

The real question is would you rather pay with your taxes or pay with your savings. I would rather pay with my savings as I am my own man and do not need a government to coddle me. I don’t care if someone goes without healthcare because they made poor fiscal decision. Waiting times is still an augment and high taxes too.

The average person sees economic prosperity and individual liberty, your system doesn’t really offer political representation (or less in our case) as it would require the collective to actually agree with your Socialist system, which in the past has lead to the genocide of the Jews, murder of a royal family and millions of Russians, and destruction of a thousand year old empire in China. You think far too ideally and unrealistically. The middle class is huge, CEOs don’t want to impoverish all workers, and Socialism is a totally unrealistic and unsound system of economics and government.


Okay, this is ridiculous. You’re claiming that a system that values the well-being, health, and happiness for most people is oppressive. Oppression isn’t limiting the destructive and selfish behavior of individuals that limit the freedom of others to democratically own businesses, as well as the well-being of most people through maldistribution of wealth. “Bourgeoisie” can mean middle class, but in more specific terms, it can refer to those owning the means of production, which are actually a very small societal majority. For instance, in the US, only around 13.3% of people are business owners. As I said before, when the workers own the means of production, you have democratic and more egalitarian enterprise, and those with special skills can still hold special managerial positions, but don’t dominate the means of production and societal distribution of wealth. I want the government to give labor a direct avenue to negotiate with business and corporations, at least as a first step to transferring means of production to the worker (the majority) from the business owners (the minority).

I’m not proposing a supposed socialist state per se, I want a quasi social democratic state (public spending is at about 50% of GDP or a bit higher, and universal welfare is implemented), but a socialist society by transferring the remaining means of production to the workers, not the state, and not business owners. I want universal welfare provided by the state, and democratic and more egalitarian enterprise provided by the people.

Also, capitalism is not the only system that generates wealth. To claim such is sheer ludicrousy, and really telling of fundamental ignorance, not that you necessarily are defined by such, but I’m rather saying this as to preempt possible points.

Taxes, not everyone has immense savings due to maldistribution of wealth under capitalism and due to fundamental socioeconomic disparity and conditions out of their control. In taxes, people contribute to what if most efficiently delivered by the public sector of the state. Universal healthcare works and leads to better overall societal outcomes. This really isn’t a point of contention, the evidence is overwhelmingly in its favor. You resort to nit-picking flaws with the system while ignoring the massive benefits it ushers in for the health and well-being of many in a society, and try to say that since you’re apparently an individual completely devoid of any need for government assistance, and that some people fake financial mistakes, that no one should get a vital service if they cannot afford it.

You’re really avoiding any moral responsibility and inclusive analysis of the subject as to fit your bias.


Every time anyone attempted to install this ideology, millions of people suffered. Sure it may sound nice to some people, however it cannot be implemented without the corrosion of civil rights, implementation of a large and overpowering government, and the deaths of those deemed unsociable to the standards set in the society. A list of the most successful Socialists ever will show you that it can only bring death and destruction to a nation, Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot. Just because you do evil to achieve good does not make that evil any less heinous.

What you want is not Socialism, then don’t call it Socialism. However what you offer, a democracy that disenfranchises landowners and business owners and is also a welfare state, that is Socialism. You do want Socialism. The means to achieve Socialism can only come through the reduction of liberty and the ousting of any non sociable or malignant elements within your State. I don’t doubt that Hitler was doing what he did to benefit his people, however what he did was wrong. I don’t doubt that you want to help people, however the means of doing so will hurt more people than it will help.

I have never said this, where did you get this from my statement?

I don’t have moral responsibility to help those I do not know. Also waiting times are a huge part of actually getting covered by healthcare, because they are vital to your condition. A healthcare system that is 100% government owned is lackluster at best. I already stated it scares good doctors away as they won’t be able to have a profit motive, the wait times are long, and the service is subpar due to the good doctors taking their practice else where. Why do you think when some one in Israel takes a plane to the US if they have an actual problem? Because it is faster and better.


That is factually incorrect. Do you not understand that I want the workers, not the state, to own the means of production that are not included in the social democratic state I am proposing? Socialism in the owning of the means of production by the community as a whole, which can entail workers. On the contrary to your point, when the public sector has been expanded, we see an increased flourishing of humanity. The Nordic countries, once more, are prime examples of such. A powerful labor movement and collective, compassionate mindset, which eventually was formalized by a generous welfare state, has been the paragon of high living standards for the world for quite some time. To ignore this, or dismiss it merely as cultural or ethnic homogeneity is really just confirmation bias extracted from various articles that try to debunk the success of the Scandinavian public sector to push their right-wing agenda.

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Yes it is, I’m literally using the definition of the socialism. I want the economy to be owned by the public sector, with some parts of collective ownership going to the state (welfare, infrastructure, education (to an extent), justice system etc…), and the remaining part (which would actually be quite large) of the economy being collectively owned and operated by the workers, circumventing inefficient and exploitative bosses. It’s not a wholly socialist state, but that’s because you don’t need a state for socialism. The people can offer socialism.

It’s not disenfranchising landowners when everyone can now collectively own the capital producing property. Instead of a few being the primary beneficiaries, everyone can now be a prime beneficiary. Giving power and wealth to the people in order to free them from oppression is not disfranchisement, you are delusional if you believe that to be the case.

This is incredibly subjective, however, the results of a large public sector re not. The results are what matters, and with a greater public sector, time and time again, we have seen quality of life increase because of such. Extreme authoritarianism isn’t good, and socialist states typically go bad because of such. I’m not proposing and incredibly authoritarian socialist state. You’re going to keep thinking that socialism means destruction of civil liberties if you only ever look at authoritarian states that tried to implement socialism. However, socialism or socialist policy has existed in moderate or even libertarian forms. If you look at the collective result of said policies, they have proved to generally be a net good thing for the societies that implemented them. Capitalism has also been implemented with authoritarianism, just look at the Gilded age attacks on labor movements or the disruption of unionizes strikes, or even the constant action of the state against worker movements, as well as militant action in order to protect lucrative business interests. You’re examining this issue through a very, very narrow lens, and refuse to acknowledge the actual historic happenings and developments of socialist and capitalist economic systems.

Hitler was not a socialist, he didn’t believe in egalitarian outcomes due to discrimination, and actually privatized many industries, and certainty didn’t push for owner ownership of the means of production. I don’t want to debate this right now, but I’m saying this because Hitler actually represented privatization and racial and ethnic discrimination, which are both fundamentally anti-socialist, making him a quite poor example for your point.

I said within the bit that you quoted, that you didn’t say this, but if you thought this (which i didn’t say you did), then that would be ignorant.

Yes, you do. People besides yourself also feel pain and pleasure, and both anguish and happiness. Your life is roughly equal in terms of value to those around you, so don’t act like you don’t have a moral obligation to society. You only know the people you do due to circumstance and your personal development. Their lives are not much lesser or greater than most other peoples’ lives. You can’t run away from this responsibility when, in terms of sensation, you are essentially equivalent to everyone in society.

Yes, and that is why more urgent conditions get treated faster. More urgency=less wait time, less urgency=more wait time, there are limited resources, and to ensure that the people who need healthcare the most get it, sometimes people with less serious conditions have to wait a bit longer so those who are suffering more and need treatment quicker, can get treatment quicker.

If you can afford it, any many people cannot. Take for example, under the UK’s NHS, only 2% of adults skip out on medication because they can’t afford it, whereas under the United States’ healthcare system, 18% of adults, nearly 1 in 5 people, skip out on medication because they can’t afford it. It is ridiculous to say that a system in which nearly 1 in 5 people can’t get enough medicine is superior to a system in which only around 1 in 50, can’t get enough medicine. That is ludicrous. Not to mention the US also pays the world’s highest healthcare per capita costs, all for below par societal outcomes. There must be some form of government negotiating with healthcare companies and government provision to ensure that society’s healthcare needs are met. systems. A universal healthcare system is by far superior.


History is factually incorrect. You are deluded.

You said something about you not wanting Socialism per se, that was what I referenced. However a State is pretty important to push for the welfare state aspect of your utopia.

If you revolt the person’s right to property you are disenfranchising them. Your ideology is one that yells peace and love as it drops the sword upon free man’s head.

I say it is authoritarian because it requires the use of force to disenfranchise the land owners and business owners. The gilded age is over and we have legislation restricting business from forcefully crushing labor strikes. I deny history? Pal you are the one who advocates for a system the removes persons liberties for the sake of the “greater good”. You are nothing but an altruist who either willingly lies to others to push his leftist agenda, or a useful idiot who is willfully ignorant of history and the development of Socialist states.

He was, just look at his parties name. They saw the Jew as the business owners and land owners and did what Lenin and Mao did. He is a Socialist and believed in the ideals of getting rid of the land owners and business owners.

That’s stupid to bring up then. I never said it then why bring it up? I do not deny the capital that is generated through Socialist states, Germany rejuvenated itself under Hitler, Lenin was able to make capital through the State, and Stalin could make enough tanks to make Patton blush. Don’t assume things pal; you look like an idiot if you do.

No I don’t. I am not a altruist like you, only when I am directly impacted, only when I have to give something up am I directly responsible. That doesn’t mean I won’t donate to a private charity, however I do not have a responsibility for the next guy, and the next guy doesn’t have a responsibility for me.

Still half right, urgent means emergency. If I have terminal cancer I still have to wait extremely long times, or until my next emergency issue comes up.

The US system isn’t superior, I never said that. Our system currently is plagued by nationalization, until that legislation is removed then the stats will go up. The universal healthcare system is not superior in wait times, actual medical care, or in terms of doctors.

I’m done as you don’t seem to be moving, and I am unwilling to accept a genocidal ideology. Good talk though.


Fantastic arguement.

I want a state to provide welfare services, yes, but I want the workers to be those who primarily implement socialism.

What about the enclosure acts that marked the beginnings of capitalism, in which collective land was forcefully privatized, and the right to collective land taken away from most people?

Taking power away from oppressors and giving it to the people is bad. Alrighty.

Any state uses force. I would prefer a democratic transition into socialism, as defined by worker control of the means of production. Perhaps some force will be necessary, but force is okay when it is in the best interest of society, much like how we use force against violent criminals in order to protect the people. It is the same concept, but you’re too blinded by your ideology to recognize such.

I was saying those things happened and were instances of authoritarianism capitalism. I’m not wrong.


I’m advocating giving the liberty of ownership of collective property to the people. You’re advocating allowing a minority of society to own the overwhelming majority of private property, which allows for the oppression of the people. You try to act high and mighty, claiming how you champion the defense of civil liberties, but you are really only doing so for a minority, of society, an oppressive and exploitative minority at that.

You lack substantiation for your claims, as well as a substantial connection from your claims to my point of view.

That doesn’t tell you what his policies were, but okay.

By privatizing state industry?

I wasn’t assuming, I was preempting.

What a wonderful person you are.

“Even though our system is more private than other systems, and consistently does poorer for society, we just need to make it even more private, and that will surely fix our problems.”

According to world experts on health, universal systems consistently do better than more private systems.

Way to finish with a strawman.


Stop it, you’re shit-flinging. You’re associating socialism purely with Marxist-Leninism. To play devil’s advocate, he could also be referring to social democracy such as what they have in Sweden, Denmark, and Canada, or just straight up socialism (NOT communism), like what they have in India and Portugal


Our current system isn’t plagued by nationalization, its plagued by coruption, exploitation, and price gouging. Doctors’ salaries have been decreasing while medical bills have been drastically increasing. Instead of that extra money, including government investment, actually going to the doctors (you know, the ones who spend decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars perfecting their socially essential trade) it just goes to the hospital managers.


Our government have, and always will be protection rackets for the 1%. They are run by and for the oligarchs and billionaires who don’t care about the workers, and the corrupt bureaucrats who are in their pocket. They spend all our money on sending military troops to countries and messing up their lives, leading to the rise of Islamic fascism, which threatens our lives, and let’s the state use mass surveillance to spy on us. It also leads to mass immigration from the war torn countries such as Syria, which is a absolutely traumatic experience for them, and when they arrive they work in the worst, most basic jobs, are subject to large amounts of hate crime, and are vilified by the right-wing media and political parties. And that’s just one thing they do- but think about it, if you abolish the government, you essentially get rid of the military which means you end immigration, terrorism and government surveillance. And we haven’t even moved on to economics. Our economy is run in the interests of corporations and business leaders, whose sole aim is to increase their own wealth, either by corporate tax cuts, meaning there is even less money to provide welfare for the most vulnerable in society such as the disabled, the homeless, the unemployed, woman and the working class. The other way they attempt to increase their wealth is through paying their workers ridiculously low wages, forcing people into poverty, starvation and even death. To make this worse, the government is in these people’s pocket, the ruling parties in nearly all Western ‘democratic’ nations accept huge donations from these oligarchical criminals, making it virtually impossible for any citizens to truly live in a democratic society. To recap; the government is the root cause of terrorism, immigration, mass surveillance, most wars, unemployment and poverty, not to mention sexism, the power of organised religion and homophobia.

This why I’m an anarchist


Close enough to U C 20/20.

I do not think the solution to the problems you recognize is to go to anarchy. That would create chaos and goes against our natural instincts which pushes us to seek security.



What’s the solution, then?


To not be happy with the governments we have and seek to constantly improve the laws of the land.

That would begin by recognizing that we all live in oligarchies while allowing our bought and paid for politicians to continue spouting on about how we live in democracies and actually have a voice in legislation that is basically written by the oligarchs.