So…what’s exactly wrong with the clip above? Her solutions to various issues would probably we extremely dumb and/or outright dangerous but plugging your ears and chanting “na-na-na I don’t want to hear AOC socialist propaganda” when she’s able to articulate a seemingly coherent thought is plain dumb.
Speaking of socialism - if someone told people living behind the Iron Curtain that in 30 years’ time Americans will be sharing their cars, letting complete strangers stay in their homes, buying everything from one store and having government listen in to their phone conversations… they wouldn’t believe that America could go socialist.
It’s idiotic…I did love(LOVE) when she asked whether the bad business/congressman could deregulate his industry in order to enrich himself. Yep-deregulation is what people always seek when they get political power. I don’t care whether it’s her, or a ninth-grader, or a high school teacher-dumb is dumb.
I’m not sure what your point is here. I’m sure most people living behind the Iron Curtain weren’t well-educated. I don’t know why they would doubt something that had been happening for years.
*(I should note that the things you listed are not necessarily “socialist,” but are ways of either dealing with or enforcing socialism)
Not really. There’s a big no go built into that, which is that she is attacking a class of people’s (public servants) ability to own real assets and property (stocks and securities).
I wouldn’t make that assumption. I daresay their curriculum could even have been tougher than the US. How much contemporary information about foreign countries was allowed to be circulated without censorship would be the question.
I think at least AOC brings up issues to the public’s attention and people are debating about them. Things like coporatism are very real.
Socialism is dangerous when it’s roots are in the Marxist-Leninist nonsense, i.e State Socialism. Although I’d rather use a different term for much earlier variations of this philosophy(?) to avoid confusion, millenials have grown up with stuff like this since the days of Napster.
She throws a lot of noise over it, but that is what it boils down to (for me).
Like when a lot of leftists were attacking the NRA and its membership. I asked a couple of people that thought it really held water if they would forfeit their right to free association (union membership, collective bargaining, choice of church attendance) in exchange for the disappearance of the NRA.
None of them thought that would be a fair exchange either.
Nope. People go to politics to enrich themselves. Pretty much all of them. Whether her questions were loaded or not, that’s not the point. She illustrated a plausible scenario how one can enrich himself through politics and not break any laws.
When it came to technical sciences for example, education was top-notch. Medicine as well.
It’s just that the perception of USA was skewed. Our primary source of information about the States were movies - bizarrely, the Party organized screenings of blacxploitation movies (Shaft, Cleopatra Jones…) with the underlying spectacularly racist message “sure, they’ve might have two cars and two color TVs per household, but they’ve also got BLACK people, and you know what that means”
Thanks to this, as a kid I believed that half of the US population were black drug dealers.
The points is, as @dt79 illustrated, that modern-day economy displays some peculiarly socialist elements (sharing, monopolies…) that were enforced under communist rule by force.
The police forced you to take up a tenant in and now you’re supposed to do the exact same thing, only on Airbnb under the guise of being financially responsible?
Um, point of order. The US has had a huge social safety net program since the new deal and especially since the great society. Every industry is regulated and occasionally subsidized/sued/closed by the government. Companies have to ask permission to merger.
Something like 60% of the budget is safety net spending. We’re fairly socialist and have been for some time.
Sorry. As both you and @dt79 have pointed out, I poorly articulated what I meant to say. “Not well-educated in regards to United States economics,” or something like that.
I’m not sure what you meant here, so I’ll refrain from commenting for now.
That is true. Financial literacy was non-existent. After all, money was a bourgeois concept that we were supposed to transition away from soon. And that’s why in the early 1990s MLM schemes were rife in most post communist countries.
For example, two thirds of the total population of Albania invested all of their savings in pyramid schemes, totaling 1,2 billion USD as they transitioned from Maoist communism into capitalism in the span of two months. The ensuing fallout resulted in a de facto civil war and around 2000 people were killed
Agreed, but “can” can quickly turn into “must” out of economic necessity - if automation and wage stagnation force you to monetize everything, including your house to maintain a desired standard of living.
Woah, hold on lol. I’m not talking most of those things. I’ve said before the amount of welfare in the US blows my mind, I’m not a fan of over regulating but think proper legislation needs to be there and properly enforced, and things like corporate taxes were too high before the latest revision.
My mother-in-law living in China still drinks protein powder from Amway lol.
It was also hot in most of Asia by the late nineties. At the time, spouses of prominent politicians over here were outright endorsing a top MLM company. The company even started sponsoring major state events like charity drives broadcast on TV with their logo prominently displayed while everyone in their right minds knew this was all a scam. Politicians made a lot of money out of this.
You’re right. We need more hot women in politics. It’s all theater anyways. Hollywood figured out what sells a long time ago. Can’t believe Washington is so far behind.