How many houses does a socialist actually need?

[-]

Really has nothing to do with his positions. However, you could say he's hypocritical because he called for a tax on millionaires years ago, which has somehow changed to only billionaires now. Being able to draw the line, especially when it's outside your tax bracket is hypocritical to me. However, he doesn't ever suggest people sell personal assets to feed the poor...

[-]

ly5ergic@reddit

I don't believe Bernie has ever advocated really going after your average millionaire, he has said people with lots of millions. To this day he wants higher taxes on people with over 30 million and he doesn't want anyone to have over a billion. So where is the hypocrisy?

20% of US households are worth a million or more. It's just the high end of middle class today.

[-]

dassix1@reddit

The hypocrisy is that he believes the knows where "line" is to increase an already progressive tax structure. I think the fact you mentioned over 30M is a good point, it's always more than what he has, as to what should be targeted. He's never advocated for more taxes for his current tax bracket.

Why not at least advocate for another tier in the tax bracket, if he was truly wanting to increase taxes to benefit society. Earned income for a single filer over $650k, pays the same as earned income over $10M. Perhaps we should add a new tier for people who make over $800k

[-]

ly5ergic@reddit

Probably because he's never made a lot of money? Do you have any evidence of him getting more money moving up a tax bracket and then moving up his targeted wealth class? You're just saying nonsense.

Paycheck employees pay all the taxes already no breaks for them really. It comes right out. People that have a million aren't rich the vast majority are just paycheck employees. Taxing Drs, lawyers, and Tech workers extra doesn't do much as they aren't the truly wealthy. Bernie has never tagged these people and it has nothing to do with his personal tax bracket.

[-]

dassix1@reddit

Maybe I live in a different segment of society, average people I'm used to at his age don't have 2 vacation homes in addition to their primary residence. Maybe that's normal for your circle, I wish it was for mine!

[-]

ly5ergic@reddit

I am just talking statistically across america, has nothing to do with who I know. We live in the wealthiest country in the world. Even having a few million still puts you in entirely different world than then 50 million 100 million or billionaires. A couple million at retirement age are people that got a paycheck and managed their money responsibly. These aren't the people that Bernie has ever been after.

He has more than the median american. But if you take college educated professionals that have worked their whole life and are retirement age he is average. He has 3 smallish houses bought for $400k, $490k, and $575k. They aren't extravagant mansions it doesn't put him in the top 1% and it really has nothing to do with his tax beliefs.

Average Net Worth by Age:

55-64: $1,566,900

65-74: $1,794,600

75+: $1,624,100

There are places where for the price of his 3 houses you could only get 1. The median price across the whole country is $400k. California is $750k. That's median the average is even higher.

People that make $20k a year think people with a couple hundred thousand are rich. But really from people in debt to people with a couple million are all peasants compared to the people at the top.

We don't have lobbyists, we don't have a team of lawyers to pay little to no taxes, we aren't having meetings with politicians to push an agenda we want. It's a whole different thing.

A person that gets $500k a year salary is going to pay close to half in taxes. A person making 10+ million per year is not paying 50%. When you get up to those levels some of those people are paying an effective tax rate of like 5% that's a problem.

[-]

Hotel_Oblivion@reddit

He's a democratic socialist, though he sometimes uses "socialist" as shorthand. He's not against markets, profit, or private property. He's not against the idea that people should be able to have nice things.

[-]

Captain-Crayg@reddit

Sounds like capitalism with welfare. Maybe he should rebrand.

Also it’s curious that self labeled dem socialists seem to think they are part of the proletariat despite having way more money than the average citizen.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

Democratic Socialism is legit socialism.

He's really more like the equivalent of a "Social Democrat" in Europe which has nothing to do with socialism. They're capitalists that support tax funded social safety nets and the like.

Stop trying to whitewash socialism. It's fucking evil and should be treated like Nazism.

[-]

Faladorable@reddit

Hey so treating someone like a nazi because they think everyone should have access to things like healthcare, highways, parks, etc., is fucking insane.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

Nazis had government healthcare too. Sorry I don't feel like ignoring the horrific rights violations socialists advocate for.

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

Fascism and Leninism are both statist politics. One channels racism/hate and nationalism into state control, the other channels resentment and class war. Only the latter is socialist, obviously.

Anarchism on the left and libertarianism on the right are anti-state, though libertarians usually advocate for state monopoly on violence (defence and policing), which is sus to a libertarian socialist.

You probably know all this already.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

Socialism requires society to obey 5 billion rules that interfere with otherwise peaceful interaction and so is impossible without a state.

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

And property rights demand a state to enforce them. That's why we can't have pure ideology.

Anarchism is based on treating people with the respect they deserve. Like when you interact in a community like a normal person instead of through artificial hierarchies of wealth, race, age, etc. If you're a normal person, that includes respecting people's personal property, unless they're hoarding and using it to exploit and harm others.

The big difference would be that the local community determines through situational consequences if someone is out of line, rather than a state's arcane legalism.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. The core tenet of libertarianism is private property beginning with the recognition of ownership of self and your own body and extending to ownership of that which is self-acquired and self-produced with that body.

Socialism and communism deny private property rights, and the right of ownership of what is self-acquired and self-produced.

This means they deny the ownership of self, and someone who does not own themselves is a slave.

Socialism and communism are totally incompatible with libertarianism, and are nothing more than forms of chattel slavery dressed up in pretty words to serve collective masters. Wealth robbery by the collective is just as immoral and unjust as much being robbed at gunpoint by an individual.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

Well I'm not gonna argue with a bot. I will lurk moar

[-]

trufus_for_youfus@reddit

Everyone would have access to all of those things in ancapistan. They just wouldn’t be paid for by having jackboots rob their neighbors.

Insert Bastiat quote

[-]

SirPycho@reddit

How would everyone including those too disabled to work have those things without taxes?

[-]

ILikeBumblebees@reddit

Through participation in the 99% of civil society that isn't the political state.

[-]

SirPycho@reddit

How does participating in society turn into money and housing and good food?

[-]

FruitTrue1933@reddit

Boomer ass meme

[-]

VerneUnderWater@reddit

It's pretty accurate. Bernie is a piece of shit actor.

[-]

GrizzzlyPanda@reddit

Holy shit you're dumb.

Tearing out the foundation beneath Bernie while Technofeudalism speedruns through constitutional, legislative, and economic obstacles unopposed...

Is a good way to tell people you're a mark at absolute best, like a volunteer bot network snuffing out any trace of significance so special interest runs unopposed.

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

[-]

HuskerStorm@reddit

gif

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

[-]

FruitTrue1933@reddit

I mean I’m not mad at the message but this really is a boomer ass meme lmaoo this shit not funny at all

[-]

SevereMany666@reddit

I through with jokes and laughing at the right wing tyrants dismantling everything important to line THEIR pockets. It's time to stop cracking jokes and REVOLT!

[-]

Coballs@reddit

That’s my biggest issue with talking to people online about politics, they make a good point? I’ll respond. I make a good point? Meme. It’s always die hard republicans too.

[-]

VerneUnderWater@reddit

LMAO spot on.

[-]

aquitam@reddit

BASED and REDPILLED

[-]

Faladorable@reddit

literally all this guy posts is boomer shit

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

I bet OP drives on public roads

[-]

SocialAnchovy@reddit

So if one Reublican receives $100s millions in donations that's fine, but if one Democrat buys a house on a lake that's anti-socialism? I thought this was r/Libertarian where people are free to buy a house without gov't regulation.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

No one thinks Bernie shouldn't be free to buy a lake house. It's just fun to mock his hypocrisy.

I mean he's a self described socialist who claims it's justified he's a millionaire because he authored a book, despite not working to produce the book, ship it to bookstores, sell it to customers, etc. And apparently ignoring the possibility that other wealthy people are responsible for their wealth in a similar way...

[-]

SocialAnchovy@reddit

I thought socialism was not about equal outcomes. I thought socialism was a means for citizens to share ownership of public goods and services. You can still have wealthy individuals under socialism, right? But those people would just pay a large sum for their fixed percentage of ownership. Or am I crazy?

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

I'd say ignorant more than crazy. Socialism bans private property ownership.

So a guy that owns a landscaping company. The socialists would come in and forcibly confiscate the landscaping equipment and give it to his employees, or the "community as a whole" depending on the flavor of socialism.

It's a collectivist system that treats individual labor as a public good. And in practice leads to horrific rights violations, death and destitution.

[-]

TheDFactory@reddit

I think your take is overly exaggerated. Socialism comes in so many different forms including classical libertarianism. Worker ownership of the workplace doesn’t have to look like a violent collectivist overthrow. It can be as simple as worker owned shares of the company. There are plenty of employee owned businesses that still operate on a traditional hierarchy of management.

Private and personal property can still exist under a socialist economic model. The only difference being that a single individual doesn’t own the company. Free markets can still exist and should under a model like that.

Granted most socialists are some flavor of Marxist, but Marxism and its derivatives aren’t the only form of socialism that exists. That’s why I’m here, I agree with socialism in the sense that worker ownership of the workplace should be encouraged so that exploitation is minimized, but I think that markets are currently still the best way to distribute and create most goods and services until we are truly post-scarcity.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

Co-ops can and do exist within capitalist economies. That's not socialism. And certainly, employee stock ownership is definitely not socialism because employees are allowed to sell to outside investors.

I spend a lot of time in socialism vs capitalism and ultimately, socialism is banning private property ownership. It's not just the government doing stuff.

And whitewashing it is really disingenuous and ultimately generous in my book.

[-]

TheFixer_1140@reddit

Spend some time somewhere else.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

If you love a socialist statist that was a cuck for Soviet leadership so much... how about you?

This is for libertarians.

[-]

TheFixer_1140@reddit

Wtf are you even saying? You said you spend a lot of time on "Socialism vs. Capitalism" like it's a good place to learn anything about either. Spend your time somewhere else and maybe you won't sound like such a misinformed dork.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

You're the one arguing socialism isn't socialism.

See a therapist or something.

[-]

TheFixer_1140@reddit

I'm not arguing at all dipshit. Get your comments straight.

[-]

TheDFactory@reddit

Those options exist in capitalist systems, but very few employers operate that way. It would be a socialist economy if the majority of companies were co-ops or employee owned by share. In definition private property would still exist as an exclusive right to access to those employees.

Again, just because the majority of socialists follow Marx does not mean that is the only definition of socialism. In the same way that capitalism can exist under an authoritarian government or no government at all, so can socialism.

Capitalism has also been whitewashed, most colonial powers were capitalist and slavery existed longer under capitalism. Most people attribute those actions to an evil government and not the economic system. Socialism is the only one that ties every negative action to it and not the government instead. Propaganda did a good job of that.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

Capitalism is essentially just an economic system. And while traditionally there are government systems associated with it, I agree that a government supporting capitalism could be good, evil, or anything in-between.

While socialism is inherently evil because it necessitates hostile force to violate individual rights.

And any and all definitions ban private property. If your version of socialism allows capitalism it isn't socialism.

[-]

TheDFactory@reddit

I don’t think this is a good faith discussion. Socialism is an economic system just like capitalism. If you boil it down to its simplest forms the only real hardline difference is how ownership is handled at the business level. Private property matters are a separate issue. There are capitalist countries that don’t have private property, the land is leased by the government. China is an example of state capitalism which has no true private ownership, when you start a business or buy a home you lease the land from the government.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

I'm using "private property" how socialists do. Essentially, any property that can be used to profit from.

Which is part of the core of the issue. It can be the output of labor. If I use my labor to make business productivity software that I lease subscriptions of to businesses, that's private property. Socialists claiming the community as a whole, or employees of businesses using it, depending on the flavor of socialism, should own that software are effectively claiming my labor is a public good. It's a massive rights violation. The right to self ownership which implies ownership of one's own labor and the output of that labor.

Further, capitalism as an economic system is essentially... freedom. Whereas socialism requires the use of hostile force to enforce the 5 billion rules it has in restricting economic freedom.

If I have a business idea for example, but don't want to risk my personal finances on it, I can negotiate with an angel investor about funding and ownership terms. No government required. Though one could be useful in enforcing our contractual agreement should one party violate it. Whereas socialist need to use hostile force to violate our otherwise free and mutual interaction because socialism specifically forbids such investment funding avenues for businesses and entrepreneurs.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

State capitalism

noun A term to describe socialist countries after they inevitably turn into a humanitarian crisis.

Example: Venezuela used to be praised by socialists as real socialism™ and an economic miracle:

But now that bolivars are no longer worth their weight in toiler paper, we call it state capitalism.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

SocialAnchovy@reddit

Yes, and thank you for articulating that so well. I’m not sure why some people create counter arguments using extreme forms of socialism that are practically corrupt communism. We all enjoy fire departments because they are socially owned by the community it serves. It doesn’t ban anybody from developing their own private fire department, but doing so is not economically viable given that you would have to convince people to pay for a service for which they already received through the publicly owned fire department.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

The government doing stuff isn't socialism. It's not a fire department funded by taxes in a capitalist economy...

And whitewashing socialism is both disingenuous and dangerous. No different than trying to make Nazism more palatable.

[-]

Ianerick@reddit

Just because you want to tie leftist ideas to miilions of deaths intrinsically doesn't make it a fact. Saying something like that is gross and is definitely whitewashing nazis instead. Are there people who want a violent revolution tomorrow where we seize the means by any means? Yeah, there's a lot of freaks around all over right now. But im more of the mind that if we dont head in a more equitable direction, at least give the people fucking SOMETHING, that violence is inevitable. Where do you think the freaks are coming from?

Nobody is going to take your pool supply store from you, buddy. Not if they can eat and fuck in a house. You better let them keep doing that, though.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

Yeah socialism is fucking evil.

Sorry if that offends you because you want to be edgy and call yourself a socialist while also denying what that means. See a therapist or something.

[-]

Ianerick@reddit

oh k never mind I'm on the same level as someone who wants to remove a race of people from existence because stalin, who I don't support or defend, got people killed. we should probably regress since like 4 countries tried to go from falling empires and shithole monarchies straight to authoritarian "communism" with morons as leaders while the world capitalism police waged war on them and it didn't work out very well. markets can just solve everything anyways, that's common sense!

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

I think you can believe that markets can't solve everything.

And also not be a socialist. Which is inherently evil. It's not just when Stalin does it or whatever. I guess unless you're cool with blatant rights violations around individual autonomy.

[-]

M-y-P@reddit

And do you think that Bernie Sanders wants to abolish private property? Have you ever heard him advocate that? Do you think that anyone that criticizes the current American system wants to change it exactly to what someone wrote that socialism is about?

If you want to criticize his beliefs that's fine, but criticize things that he actually advocates for, not some random idea in your head.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

No he's not really a socialist. But he calls himself one. So he's an idiot. And we're free to mock him for it.

Especially as he earns royalties from his book while doing nothing. Which is actually what he takes a moral opposition to wealthy business owners doing. It's like he's trying to make himself look stupid.

[-]

M-y-P@reddit

And we're free to mock him for it.

You can mock anyone for whatever you want, you can even lie about anyone however you want. And people can call you out on it the same way.

I just wanted to know if you were ignorant or just lying.

[-]

hardsoft@reddit

What have I lied about?

[-]

ContinuousZ@reddit

And do you think that Bernie Sanders wants to abolish private property?

yes

[-]

Fuck_The_Rocketss@reddit

Both are shitty. But the republican doesn’t claim to believe in wealth redistribution. Bernie is for sure entitled to his lake house. It’s the hypocrisy that OP takes issue with

[-]

M-y-P@reddit

Do you know the scale of wealth redistribution that he is advocating for? It's faaaaar from people not being able to have a lake house.

[-]

SocialAnchovy@reddit

gif

[-]

SocialAnchovy@reddit

Thanks for clarifying. Just seems like issues of scale sometimes. But I see your point

[-]

Nyx666@reddit

I want to know how it became a thing that anyone advocating for the working class can’t earn money, let alone buy a house. Like when did it become taboo for someone to invest their salary into modest real estate. He doesn’t own mega mansions. He’s going to retire but apparently he shouldn’t have any savings or a retirement fund?

He has two homes in Vermont, one was a family home to his wife’s family I believe. He has a condo in Washington D.C where he works.

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

“I want to know how it became a thing that anyone advocating for the working class can’t earn money.”

Advocating for the working class and lying to the economically-illiterate doesn’t give you a free pass to earn money and vilify others that do not grandstand.

It’s hypocritical for a self-proclaimed socialist to vilify the wealthy that earned their money by investing or starting businesses while self-proclaimed socialist earned his money by leaching off of gullible taxpayers for decades.

[-]

AmericanaCrux@reddit

Based on what I’ve read from you, I question your economic literacy…

Let’s debate. I’ll give three prompts:

1) Can consent really be valid in anarcho-capitalism?

2) Can Enlightenment frameworks of private property and Capitalism effectively combat modern understanding of global climate change?

3) Does the state really have a monopoly of power, or is it more akin to a tradeoff by the governed? Subsequently, sans democratic principles, is there any less threat of monopoly of power?

4) Why do you think Rothbard has any clue about economics? Could your positive assessment of Libertarian economics stem from systemic global exploitation routed in Enlightenment values historically held fundamental primarily to demographics of privileged Caucasian Judeo-Christian males?

Go.

[-]

Nyx666@reddit

lol are you serious? You are hell bent on trashing a man who spent the majority of his life advocating for civil rights and the working class because he earned a few million throughout his career? The man is 83 years old and your expectation is for him to be raggedly poor to represent the working class?

Bernie has been protesting against the billionaires hoarding wealth that exploited** cheap labor from other countries or exploited the working class here in USA and circumventing the system to avoid paying taxes.

You’re hypocritical for lacking the critical thinking skills to understand that. Instead you hate on someone for advocating bringing back ownership to the working class because you honestly believe billionaires “earned” their money fairly.

[-]

quasiburneraccount@reddit

1) “villify others that do not grandstand” is your opinion and requires you classify all billionaires as “not grandstanding” — and every time I check the news I see examples of a certain prominent billionaire grand-fucking-standing.

[-]

samuel_clemens89@reddit

I think rich people can have nice things and care for the poor. Then there’s rich people who “steal” from the poor to have more nice things. Bernie isn’t the latter. I don’t care for his vacation home.

[-]

forksofgreedy@reddit

This is dumb, having a lane slot in northern New England never used to be a rich man’s game

[-]

quasiburneraccount@reddit

This. My grandfather used to eat ketchup sandwiches as a kid because it’s all the family could afford, but they lived on a lake in a house built by my great grandfather. The house was passed on to him. When he retired he got a house in Florida for the cold months and kept the northern house for the warm months, because he had finally saved enough. Not a millionaire.

[-]

ExploringMartian@reddit

I mean, it says financially he earned 3 million in the past 10-16 years. He's got at least a mortgage. He claims his millions came from writing books.

There is no denying he's got a lot of money, but he made this over the course of his career. The old man intends to retire when he's 89. Honestly, it's great. He lived a life trying to push for justice and create a better life for people, and later he gets to kick up his feet and not have to work. Let the old man rest.

[-]

balne@reddit

How many houses does he actually have? iirc he has 2 - one in his home state, and one in DC. which makes sense to me, considering he actually spends time there and back a ton - hell, i'd wager that his first home was actually his parents? even if im wrong, he's not really the example of 'real estate investor' so i think that he's not the problem.

[-]

Ok-Nobody-9505@reddit

Certified boomer joke :).

[-]

Free_Mixture_682@reddit

Remember, the highest ranking members of Soviet leadership all had second houses provided by their positions in the party.

[-]

Royal_IDunno@reddit

Downvoted for spitting facts? Ffs Reddit lefties are so easily triggered!

[-]

Free_Mixture_682@reddit

I had not seen this until now. Interesting. One wonders what the downvotes are for. But here is a little reminder from the past:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/dachas-of-the-rich-and-famous

[-]

Royal_IDunno@reddit

They downvote you when you spit uncomfortable facts. It has happened to me all the time they cannot handle it 😂😂

[-]

Wonder_Boy90@reddit

Uh oh OP you've triggered the lefties

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

I brought extra diapers for them 😂

[-]

Hench999@reddit

Yeah, that's how I know there are tons of lefties on here posing as libertarians. If you say something negative about Bernie, prepare for 15-20 downvotes

[-]

Royal_IDunno@reddit

This 👏🏻

[-]

DaKing1718@reddit

Is there a libertarian circle jerk somewhere you can post this in instead?

This is terrible

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

Great rebuttal, tankie 👏👏👏

/s

[-]

darthpurpleturtle@reddit

Facebook ahh meme

[-]

ENVYisEVIL@reddit (OP)

[-]

SevereMany666@reddit

Looks like people are happy with a monarchy/oligarchy...intresting

[-]

SevereMany666@reddit

Well at least he's not dismantling all the programs that are there to HELP people I hope whoever made this never needs help cause when they do they will be like,"what happened to the programs that are supposed to help me?" OH that made a wierdo multimillionaire even richer than God ,sorry.

[-]

Royal_IDunno@reddit

Struck a nerve I see op with the lefttoids in the comment section…

[-]

chermi@reddit

Jesus what happened to this subreddit? This is such low effort partisan bullshit.

[-]

nein_nubb77@reddit

Love the meme! Anyways… that two faced political scumbag! Duping people left and right with his “I’m a commoner” shtick. He’s not the only one obviously but he’s a statist and constant liar. He went to the former Soviet Union for his honeymoon for God’s sake! Pathetic politician.

[-]

TimmyChangaa@reddit

I think you misunderstand Sander's actual positions, but you are beating the strawman you've made.

[-]

hoopdizzle@reddit

This is so dumb. Bernie sanders is 83 years old, his net worth is within an average range for people who are that old and had a lifetime of working a job, appreciating assets, and inheritence. Even if his ideology is highly incompatible with libertarianism, I think his will to weed out corruption and establish an economy/tax structure that works for everyone instead of just giving handouts to billionaires is legit, and his lifestyle is more on point with what he preaches than practically anyone else in congress

[-]