Discussion : Capitalism or Socialism?
BigBlindMax
Banned
Welcome! I've decided to start a discussion about all things ideology and economy related!
Where do you stand on the debate between capitalism and socialism? Why? What are the merits of your preferred system?
Do you adhere to a specific philosophy? (Ex: Libertarianism, Marxism, etc). Why?I
What economic issues (if any) are important to you?
Be as general or specific as you like, and of course, feel free to bring in current events, debate and ask questions!
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Theocratic government is the only moral form of rule. Everything else is irrelevant.
You should rename this thread "Argument Clinic," lol. Anyways, I learn towards Libertarian philosophy, because I value liberty over security and restrictions. Naturally by extension I'm a supporter of free and open markets, meaning I prefer Capitalism over Socialism. The major merit of Capitalism is that it works on a meritocracy. Businesses that do good, and provide quality products that people need or want are rewarded by creating their own way to stay in business. Workers that work hard and do a good job are able to succeed. Granted we only have pseudo-capitalism now, and things like bailouts of failed companies can happen, but the system is still preferable to Socialism for me.
I'd say the biggest economic issue, at least in my opinion, is the Federal Reserve and the eternal spiral of debt and inflation it creates. Since its creation in 1913 the value of the dollar has gone down drastically, devaluing long terms savings and creating a system that promotes short term spending to maximize the value of one's money. I'm not saying that right now off the top of my head I have a foolproof alternative, but it's certainly a major issue that should be looked into further by more people. Here's an interesting site to look at how the value of the dollar has changed in the last 102 years. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TxjrHPHypA
Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds tempting to me, but when I take closer look at it, it just kinda falls apart.
Most middle-class workers, even the good ones who 'work hard and succeed', are usually a few missed pay checks away from financial ruin. For example, if I got laid off from my job right now, I'd have about 10 weeks until my expenses eat away my savings and put me in a terrible financial situation. Thanks to the government, I can collect unemployment until I find a new job, but in a libertarian society, there's no such option. Of course libertarian dogma dictates that I should get off my ass and find a new job, right. No problem! Unless it's a bear market, in which case that's a very very very big problem.
What if I got into a car accident and wound up in the hospital for an extended period of time. Employee coverage is well and good, but if I can't do my job, I don't doubt that my company might find an excuse to get rid of me. Bye bye employee coverage. What then?
What about a little boy who's born into poverty? How will he get an education without public schools? How will he receive medical care? How does any of this help him avoid falling into the death spiral of intergenerational poverty?
In short, my problem with libertarianism is that it makes three key assumptions
1.) Everyone is smart. 2.) Everyone is healthy. 3.) Everyone has access to the resource necessary for success. In America, we aren't always smart, we're rarely healthy, and 46.5 million of us don't have a pot to piss in.
I live in a country that has a system that combines traits of both. But in the end, I think I prefer the security of socialism. I prefer a society where everyone is equal and everything goes like clockwork. People get their education. People get their hospital benefits for free. People are happy and comfortable with their lives. I know it is not a society that helps the ambitious folks who want to make success.
Libertarian has this survival of the fittest mentality in a way. The best and smartest in the society will thrive and make a living. Those who aren't will live in the button and will struggle to go by every day. I have been to United States during my trip and I have seen many people living in poverty and in some bad quality neighborhood.
I don't know, I guess I have been living in a more socialism society for so long that I have grown comfortable with how the government is taking care of us. However, I am aware of the flaws of such a system. It needs a strong economy to sustain it and people who are willing to work for it. If the government is taking care too much and people are relaxing instead of working, we are ending up with a society that is essentially eating and self-destruct itself. The rate of unemployment growing and that means people have to pay higher tax in order to compensate.
I hope this isn't too confusing, I am just writing what I have in mind.
Interesting viewpoint. What country do you live in?
This is why, even though I lean socialist, I'm not a huge fan of the welfare state. Of course, Capitalism has it's own parasites who leech off workers, while contributing nothing to society. You can find plenty on Wall Street and in DC.
Denmark
Ah, that explains it.
Man, I wish my healthcare was covered by the state. It would make my life way less complicated.
Edit: You wanted discussion, well here it is lol.
I personally don't agree with every libertarian principle, that's just the direction I lean in. I for one would not see our standing army dissolved, nor would I see completely open immigration policies. The difficulties of attaining citizenship I agree could be changed, but I do still agree with the idea of citizenship.
Some ways in which I lean towards the libertarian side of things is that I think the war on drugs can be ended, income tax can be ended, and the Federal Reserve can be ended. The drug war costs billions every year, and just like prohibition, has done very little towards accomplishing its goal. As for income tax, the US didn't have an income tax for I believe 125 years, and during that time it rose from a colony into the makings of a superpower. The government made its money through property taxes, and other such methods. As of right now income tax accounts for a little less than half of the government's total income, and if the government was to be scaled down accordingly, the income tax could be removed. As for the Federal Reserve, I stated before about the cycle of inflation and debt it has created.
The issue with changing things to suit any ideals though, is that there's so many more underlying factors. It's never a matter of changing one thing, because everything in government is ultimately connected.
If you were to retain the additional roughly 30% of your annual income you might find yourself in a better financial situation should you be laid off. You also might find yourself in a better financial situation if our currency held a more stable value, and prices didn't raise disproportionately to wages.
This is an issue that I've heard my father and grandfather speak of, namely in how health care has gotten so inefficient and expensive over their lifetimes. I wasn't around, but I've spoken to people as well who have confirmed the assertions of low cost health care. I'll quote the Libertarian Party's site and leave the link for you if you want to check it out. "As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare. Since then the federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies." https://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare Going by what I read there, and what I've heard, it seems to me that as the government gets more involved in healthcare it just gets more convoluted, and more expensive as a result. So if we take into account an end of the income tax and a return to the lower prices of yesteryear as a result of less government interference, it seems that you would be able to afford medical care as a result.
Libertarians believe that government interference into an issue should be a last resort, but if no sustainable alternative is found then it can be done. So if no excellent alternative was found, public education would still be on the table. Libertarians wouldn't see an end to the education of America's youth, they'd seek first and foremost to change the system in place if they could. For example, private education. Schooling after highschool is already done through private means, so I'm sure it could be worked out to create a private sector of schooling for lower levels of education as well. Pricing would become the number one concern, especially if you look at the cost of attending college, but here again we have an issue that once delved into further has the Pandora's box effect.
Here I would refer you to the previous quote from the Party's website. Specifically this line, "Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare." My family is a working class family, and my mother was raised by a single working mother, and even she always had access to healthcare.
By increasing his income, providing a more stable currency, reducing the cost of healthcare, and potentially creating an improved school system I would say that that would be most of the help he would need right there. Here are some statistics that I think back up the idea that our current education model at least needs to be revamped in some way, even if it's not done through privatization or any means a libertarian might suggest.
"According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html
I disagree with all three of your assumptions about the party. All three of which imply that the party is making claims with no real basis. The truth is that their claims aren't attempting to mend the current systems, they're trying to eliminate or replace them. The ideas of education going away if it isn't federally funded, and healthcare being a commodity of only the rich pretty much go against the core values of the party. These things wouldn't go away under a libertarian system, instead they would be available differently.
I believe that democratic socialism is the best way to build a more sustainable and diversified economy that produces jobs, reduces energy use and combats climate change. That is because the aim is to benefit everyone rather than just the wealthy and powerful and in doing so would reduce poverty and homelessness through progressive tax and giving the lower-class and unemployed more opportunities to find work. Due to support of the transition to clean energy and efficiency instead of relying on fossil fuels that, when burned, destroy our environment, we can work to combat climate change and global warming. Through expanded access to doctors and nurses in clinics, hospitals would not be flooded with patients seeking treatment for minor illnesses and injuries, resulting in less waiting time (a HUGE problem in Canada right now) and lower costs. Additionally, funding for mental health services would also increase and, in turn, mental health professionals would be more readily available. That, I believe, is very important, and the country I would want to live in is one where everyone is able to get the treatment they need regardless of economic stance instead of being institutionalized by the government because they are unable to afford therapy. Had I lived twenty years ago, I would have been, however people with more serious disorders are often locked away for years.
Another issue I find important regards student debt and college tuition. I do not want to spend the rest of my life in debt because of a society that requires a college degree to find most work. Universal education from pre-kindergarten to post-secondary should be a priority to ensure quality schooling for all. How can we hope to stimulate the economy when as much as 62% of people can't afford post-secondary and 58% of college graduates struggle to pay their debts? Let's take Norway for example. Almost everyone knows that their taxes are much higher than those in the US and Canada, however the fact that students are able to attend public universities at no cost aside from a small €50 fee per semester ($73.53 CAD/$56.79 USD) provides open gateways for better paying jobs that make paying for these taxes possible. Furthermore, Norwegian graduates do not have to worry about student debt, thus stimulating the economy through supply and demand while also providing more opportunities for the unemployed.
Nvm
Socialism if implement correctly can be a massive success and can even open the doors to pure communism. Socialism benefits poor and middle class peoples while big businesses suffer greatly, though in socialism if it is implemented successfully it can be a massive success economically as it reforms infrastructure in attempted to make a country self reliant to keep itself on its feet while establishing political and economic ties with other socialist country to strength their economies and eventually opening up to communism. It builds up its economy while slowly transitions its economy to socialism and with a communist government it will be possibly a example of the worlds first Communist nation.
I'm still a teen so my opinions are all over the place. I see many of the common issues today in various shades of gray, most of them, there are a few I'm 100% one sided on.
I may not be the greatest person to debate with on any of this but I think a combined system of Capitalism and Socialism would be very beneficial to a country if the government isn't corrupt or anything like that. As well as I see myself mainly as an independent libertarian, mainly because I hold several libertarian values but other values completely different.
Imma capitalist.
Too much government control, too much potential for the power to corrupt (Total Socialism). Too little control, and we have the plenty of potential of people becoming dirt poor without any way of which to recover (Total Capitalism/Libertarianism). There has to be a balance. What that balance is, I cannot say, though.
Alright, let's start by establishing a bit of common ground.
I'm just going to tell you straight up that I'm conceding the Fed. While I'm not comfortable with a completely unregulated alternative, I'm acutely aware of the Fed's numerous shortcomings.
This is an libertarian principle that I agree with wholeheartedly. Before the drug war, addiction was treated as a medical situation. instead of a legal one. The drug war is not only a complete failure on our land, but we've also dragged countries like Mexico and Thailand into enforcing our dogma at the threat of economic ruin, should they refuse. We should dissolve the DEA and give doctors to power to prescribe most hard drugs at an affordable, strictly controlled price. The police can be downsized and the taxpayer wins. That said, the libertarian approach to legalization scares me, because it doesn't account for important safety valves, like needle exchanges, strict price controls and an overhauled drug treatment/mental health system. A completely laissez-faire legalization could end in a humanitarian disaster.
First off, America became a superpower because of aggressive imperialist expansion and gunboat diplomacy, both of which are anathema to libertarian principles. Just saying. There's also a major problem with this. Many states, especially the poor ones, are largely dependent on federal funding, and a lot of that funding comes from the federal income tax. When you shrink the federal government and take states off the federal teat, so to speak, one of two things happens. 1.) The state cuts expenses until they've gutted their infrastructure. 2.) the states raise taxes...a lot. Both will hurt the working class, especially if that latter is a sales taxes
Yeah, maybe. Maybe if that 30% doesn't catch up with me some other way (state tax, property tax, privatized retirement), I'll have more money in my bank account. Maybe I'll have a few more weeks before I can't pay for my rent and medication. Maybe I'll have a few extra months or years before my endocrine function completely shuts down and I die homeless. Maybe you now understand why I will never support the elimination of the social safety net.
It's worth noting that the benefits of drastic tax cuts increase in proportion to one's base income. America's 46.5 million poor stand to lose more than they gain.
My dad was alive back then and he backs up everything you're saying, except for one key component. Healthcare in the 60's sucked. In fact, there have been so many advances in healthcare practices across the board that it's entirely baseless to compare the merits and costs of medical care today versus how it was 50 years ago. It's also incorrect to place full responsibility for these price hikes on government interference.
You also make the assumption, that if government healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, etc) was stripped away, insurance would go back to rates that are proportionate to what people paid in the good ol' days. Given what I've seen of insurance companies, this assessment is incredibly hopeful and naive. Surely prices would go down somewhat, but somehow, I doubt the charity hospitals and house calls would be making a triumphant return. Times change, after all.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think people should have to rely on charity to receive medical care. I think that by now, in the 21st century, it should be a collective responsibility and a human right.
So basically, the magical free market will sort everything out and make everything better. Fair enough, but I don't buy it and probably never will.
I completely agree that education is in dire need of reform, but I don't think that privatized education is the way to go, especially if it follows the model practiced by U.S. colleges.
I'm not even going to try to defend my summary, it was a stupid idea.
I bet this man would know what to do...
John Maynard Keynes. The guy who's responsible for encouraging states to put the brakes on unfettered capitalism.
I am what most Americans (but not Europeans) would consider a socialist, but I must admit that I never bought into the idea of pure communism on a mass scale. People are greedy; they need at least some competition and gratification.
That's why socialism often turns into oppressive state capitalism. People can't compete in the private sector so they compete within the party hierarchy, with predictably messy results.
Essentially I'd say I espouse a sort of utilitarianism constrained by individual rights. Of course, the level of harm caused is proportional to the potential benefit, though some rights are absolute. And that's where it gets incredibly subjective. Even if everybody would be made infinitely happy by selecting a group of people at random and sacrificing them, I think it would be morally wrong to do so. Violating 'property rights' by taxing a certain amount of income doesn't qualify.
I think those priorities should dictate public policy. I do not believe, as many extreme capitalists do, that the free flow of capital will inherently bring the biggest benefit to society. Conversely, as to Marxism, Marx has two main flaws, I believe, the first being that Marxism is too heavily predicated on Hegelian dialects, something of which I am rather skeptical. The second is effectively Marx's false reading of Hegel, in that the dialectical system cannot be used to read the future - even if the master/slave dialectic eventually lead through aristocracy to guilds, the bourgeoisie, finally the capitalist, to predict that the accumulation private property will eventually disappear (and it's important to distinguish - Marx was not talking about all property being owned by the state, but rather a society in which the concept of property was eliminated), is wishful thinking at its worst. I realize that I remembered the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey incorrectly, but I like my version better. There's the opening section 'The Birth of Man,' and the monkey used bones to break up other bones, signifying the beginning of tools - the way I misremembered it was that the monkey used the bone to beat up and chase other monkeys; tools being used to exert control over a particular thing. In my scenario, 'The Birth of Man' is, in essense, the birth of private proprety, in which force is used to control access to particular goods (which is most of what law is, really, the exertion of force to control a population, whether for resources or otherwise). How access to resources and to the means to manufacture them (remember, Marxism was born out of industrial society) is controlled is the role of force, state or otherwise, and that means private property, something which I believe is effectively endemic (if not necessary) to human civilization.
The result of these two premises is that, the state is morally authorized (and even required, I'd say) to use force to distribute resources and access to their creation while simultaneous being contrained by the rights of the individual, a least insofar as the limitations in those rights can be morally justified. How that kind of system is enacted, is difficult. I would say democracy, but to be honest, at least America has never been a complete democracy - the US Constitution was enacted contingent on the Bill of Rights, a document which is, in essence anti-democratic. Even if 80% of Americans are Christian, they cannot impose Christianity as the official religion of the USA. So it's a mix of democratic methods and judicial 'activism.' As it were, perhaps those judges and educated statesmen of conscience are the closest thing we have to an enlightened dictatorship, perhaps the best form of government but also the most difficult, near impossible, to find and keep. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.
As to my personal beliefs, how I would advocate that such a system behave, I'd have to go based on what we have, and as I've talked with you about on previous posts, that effectively means both the Bill of Rights, and, in an economy as advanced as America's, Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights, in which every citizen has the right to healthcare, education, living wages, and adequate housing. While I consider myself an internationalist believing in Fair Trade, I also believe that the state has the duty to enact protective tariffs if needed by their people.
Interesting little economics lesson. I think I mostly agree with you on how the government should work
Is one of the cardinals the guy from Screenjunkies?
It looks like him doesn't it. I did a little research and found that Trevor Moore has been in at least one Screenjunkies video, so it seems highly likely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzUkhaHjH8g
I am surprised that someone as young as you, and I'm assuming that you are a young person, someone who is in there teenage years perhaps, thinks the way that you do.
And I must admit, that I am inclined to agree with you! Every form of human government that I've ever known about, has some form of problems, injustices, and outright corruption within it.
God doesn't make mistake, only humans do!
God doesn't act unjustly, only humans do!
With that said, and I've heard other people say this as well; even big named celebrities who believe in God, I have often wondered: "Why would a God who is all loving burn people in hell?"
And after thinking about it for a long time, I must admit that I don't believe in hell.
I've always heard the phrase: "We are all God's children."
And I honestly cannot imagine ANY parent holding their child's hand over a hot fire, to punish them for doing something wrong.
I'm not a parent, and yet I could never imagine holding a child's hand in a burning flame as punishment for doing something wrong.
If I could never do that, and I'm not a parent, I ask myself how could God possibly do that, when he is the parent of the entire human race?
That's why I don't go to church anymore.
The thought of hell doesn't make any sense to me!
Now I realize that I'm straying way off topic with the subject of this thread.
But when I read your comment, it triggered some feelings in me that I haven't thought about in a long time, and thus I felt compelled to share them.
However, to stay on topic with this thread, I must admit that if America is suppose to be "One Nation Under God", than it seems to me that Americans need to go back to the Judeo-Christian principles this nation was founded on.
Now I know that many today will give the argument that America is not a Christian nation.
But I disagree!
And here's why: Many of the founding fathers who wrote the constitution were in fact Christian.
And if you read the Bible, both the Old and New testament, you will find that a lot of the laws here in America are founded on those laws in the Bible.
For example.
"Thou shalt not kill. He that smiteth a man, so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.- Exodus 20:13, 21:12.
In here, God was obviously referring to the crime of murder.
For the crime of murder, here in America, the death penalty is still in use, and rightly so.
"Thou shalt not steal". - Exodus 20:15.
For the crime of theft, people get locked up.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." - Exodus 20:16.
This is what's now known as perjury.
And the penalty for such can include fines, and/or jail-time.
And these few comparisons are just to name a few.
Plus, being a Christian, when Abraham Lincoln wrote the words in the Gettysburg address: "One nation under God", it's not hard to figure out which God he had in mind.
Lincoln had in mind the God that sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of Mankind.
I think the best thing going forward would be for a one world government lead by a Sunni Caliph. That way we could all become so much closer to God and the wisdom he has to share with us. With the Caliph at the helm there would no longer be room for injustice or corruption. We would finally see a peaceful world, basked in the eternal loving glow of God's light.
Cheers my friend,
Abdul-Hamid Mohammed-Abdullah Abbasid.
There is no greater hubris than a man who claims to speak for God...other than a government that claims to speak for God.
I don't know if America was born a Christian nation, and frankly, I don't care. What I do know is that a lot has changed since then. We are not a nation of Judeo-Christians. America is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Athiests. If any of them have less of a say tomorrow than they do today, then the government has failed it's constituents.
Keep your religion in the church and we'll keep our democracy in the Capitol building.
You do realize I was being satirical, right? I've no interest in living under a goverment run by religious doctrine. . . at all. I find the very idea of such lunacy abhorrent.
As for the proposition that our laws, specifically the ones you gave, are based on Christian teachings is ignorant at least. We didn't know murder was wrong before the 10 commandments? Laugh out loud? That's just one way that religion spits in the face of human decency. To say that we, as individuals, cannot know murder is bad without an invisible man telling us so is ridiculous, and I for one find the idea extremely offensive.
Your stance on hell is respectable. I find it refreshing that a religious person such as yourself can identify the complete lack of coherency when saying, "God loves everyone" and, "If you don't believe you will hurn for eternity".
Yeah, hopefully when Vietnam has completely transitioned into a socialist economy will give us a chance of seeing what pure communism looks like as-long as everything stays the same with the government, North Korea nearly succeeded but was destroyed economically by NATO and turned into what it is now. China are just capitalist, Cuba will become China and Laos, nobody really cares about Laos, Laos is that one kid nobody ever talks about.
Hmm. Well, yes and no.
I can't see this happening. Since the late 90's, Vietnam has done quite well for itself by allowing limited private enterprise, but maintaining government control on a macroeconomic level. I can't see them transferring to full communism when their current policies are working so well.
Actually, you'd be wrong on that. Ready for a little history lesson?
As you said, North Korea was doing comparatively well in the 60's and 70's, especially compared to the south, which, at that time, was an underdeveloped dictatorship. Thing is. while Kim il-Sung pushed an ideology of self-reliance. The DPRK economy was build on generous foreign aid and low interest loans by the Soviets and Chinese. Kim was a master at playing both powers against each other and reaping the rewards,
In the 80's this changed. China started to become more free-market oriented and the Soviet Union started to fall apart. Gorbachev cut the flow of money to North Korea and informed Kim that his government would have to start paying back loans at full interest. At this point, China basically wanted nothing to do with North Korea, so the DPRK economy imploded. Then Kim il-Sung died and his decidedly shittier son took over. An age of overly ambitious construction projects, isolationism, flooding and government negligence ensued, turning the DPRK into what it is today.
North Korea is certainly not a nice place to live.
Unless you like starvation, disease and summary execution. In that case, I hear it's a lovely place to live.
and the reason why north korea has never recovered is because the US is afraid that if they let North Korea rebuild then the DPRK can start beefing up there military to really challenge South Korean-US dominance over the region. North korea even though of Juche did have trading partners other than China and Soviet union having established connections with Pakistan, Vietnam and other Communist and Pro-Soviet Nations especially East Germany however those never reached the amount of money and resources that China and Soviet Union gave to North Korea. North Korea still has massive trade with China but is blocked from trading with other partners, they currently seeking economic ties with India. North Korea was also under massive pressure from US remember since there was still a war in Korea as DPRK which had a massive part to play in North Korea's economy shattering. North Korea ever since had need China for support and China needs North Korea as a buffer-zone and to keep economic superiority in the region.
Oh really, so it's all a plot by NATO to keep the DPRK down huh?
Here I thought the economy was in shambles because the government cares more about rockets than fixing it's crumbling infrastructure. Or because they've proven to be unreliable trade partners that rarely pay off loans, or because they run off any humanitarian groups that are brave enough to deploy there.
Nato, shmato. North Korea is nothing but a toxic kleptocracy that's stays afloat through aggressive panhandling and narcotics manufacturing.
Do you never here or see any UN or NATO council meeting about North Korea ever, I don't agree with some things North Korea does either but It doesn't take a lot of knowledge to know how many damn sanctions the UN/NATO/US have put on the country, they cant trade, they cant feed their people, they cant do anything because they aren't allowed to trade with other nations because of sanctions, they cant rebuild their economy because of the sanction, they cant modernize because of sanctions, It isn't a case of history, its a case of world politics. China needs north korea since they are strategically important economically and politically to secure Chinese power in Far East Asia.
Funny how I was just stating on what I believe in and it had to burst into a ideological shit storm.
Oh dear, they're sanctioning poor North Korea?
Of course they are! The North Korean regime violently extorts the international community every few months and mass produces drugs. The Kim regime made their beds. It's a shame that innocent people are caught up in it, but NATO is completely in the right on this one. And I say that as a frequent critic of U.S. foreign policy.
Funny how you describe a mildly heated discussion between two people as a shitstorm.
That said, I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way. It wasn't my intention.
Yeah Mild
Indeed. I didn't insult you, I just think you're dabbling in historical revisionism.
If your opinion is so sacred that you can't bear the thought of someone taking issue with it, then perhaps you don't belong in A political discussion.
Once again, I'm sorry if I've pissed you off. It's not personal and I think you're a cool guy.
A bit of advise, sometimes saying or doing nothing is the better option. I believe in what I think is truth, and you believe what you think is truth, there is nothing more than that, we both live in two different sides of the political spectrum.
The difference is, my truth can be backed up through academic sources.
And we don't exist on opposite ends of the spectrum. We're both on the socialist side of things, I just believe North Korea is a complete discredit to the ideals of socialism.