- Dec 15, 2017
I grew up pretty poor in a rural part of the US, I had to work on farms and sell firewood at minimum wage. Anyone can easily make it in my opinion if you don’t make mistakes.Good for you, but not everyone has that luxury. Have you ever worked at a fast food restaurant or retail for minimum wage? I guarantee you would find it intolerable as opposed to working for yourself.
I do see it has a problem, but it’s the same problem that the USSR had: Ignorance leads to stagnation of a community or region. Like I said, the poor rural region where I used to live was prime land for a freeway to develop, but the council voted nay to the freeway, citing that the freeway would damage the small town image. They instead move the freeway to a town 7 miles north and that town has since doubled in size while the village I lived in as since stagnated in population growth and economic futures. A way for closed communities to reform is to open up, but still keep an eye on their past so that they won’t lose their future.Is that not a problem? I would hope a conservative (I'm assuming you are one, but correct me if I'm wrong) would see one's community and homeland as essential to their identity, and that the erasure of those things is a great tragedy. I guess I should follow that up: How would you suggest that people reform close communities?
I see the irony, but ultimately life isn’t no longer hard to the average joe, for he is able to run to his local supermarket to grab some groceries instead of counting on his local crops to make it through the season. I don’t necessarily have issues with cities as well, I just don’t like the homogenization of ideas that cities ultimately develop, leading to corruption.It is. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, less than 10% of all humans lived in cities. Now, I am not personally anti-city, but I see people complain here all the time about the "urbanites" while supporting the same economic system that leads to the death of rural communities. Look at #2 specifically. Do you not see the irony here?
I disagree on this one. It makes sense for a government to engage with free trade, just for simplicity and low-cost factor, plus you wouldn’t need to worry about potential trade wars with local countries in your region. I also disagree that globalization is capitalism at work, because that ignores a trait that we sought to avoid: Greed. Now while capitalism makes greed a lot more transparent, Capitalism also makes acquiring money for anyone 10 times easier than than it was/is for typical Peasant in Cuba or USSR. We should combat greed, not capitalism.Well, obviously. But why do those Free Trade Agreements happen? They don't spring out of thin-air. It's not a government ploy either (they are largely about taking down legal barriers towards trade, not making new ones). Corporations push so heavily for them because it's in their best interest. Globalization is nothing but Capitalism at work. Certainly so-called Nationalists would recognize this.
Ideally no, but the best way to combat this would be to cut trade deals and impose tariffs on local countries in your region. But it’s too late for that, I have been called a fascist for this idea. Also rockets is better than woke shit.And in any case, while the conflict of class interests is constant throughout history, capitalism has the distinction of some uniquely base elites. At least the aristocracy of the Early Modern era had some sense of the Noblesse Oblige when they used their wealth to build beautiful cities and patronized some of the greatest art ever created. Even America's own elites, like the Rockefellers and the Carnegies, at one point still had enough residual aristocratic virtue to use their wealth to create beautiful buildings, build hospitals, and fund the art in their hometowns. Look at our elites now. Their tastes are thoroughly proletarian despite never interacting with the common folk, they have no ties to any city or country, their version of architecture are ugly lifeless skyscrapers, and they feel no obligations to anyone other than themselves. Their version of aristocratic virtue is throwing money at woke shit and rockets to space. Are these the people you want to support?
Socialism has been growing popular due to people ultimately looking for a easy way out of discontent and hardship, especially with those who were sold a dream if you gone to college and didn’t get the job of your dreams.Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "viable". I'm not asking whether it would work, I'm commenting on the fact that it has grown more popular, which I don't think anyone would really dispute. For what it's worth, I think the odds of a socialist president getting elected in the near future are very slim. Nevertheless, the youth are embracing it. This doesn't happen out of thin air. People like Bernie Sanders and AOC, with a message of discontent and anger, don't get elected or gain popularity in happy countries.