Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

socialism, what is it?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> socialism, what is it? Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 1:47:55 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"Hayek's views were echoed by Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945:

. . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[61]

This statement was challenged the next day by the Labour Party candidate, Clement Attlee, who went on to win the election:

The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners.[62]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

......socialism is often characterised by some posters here as anti-individual. The above exchange is an interesting rebuttal of that argument. However, how do you, the CM discerning reader, define socialism?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 2:00:25 PM   
JackStar


Posts: 9
Joined: 4/21/2008
Status: offline 		their can be varying degrees of socialism their isn't just one definition i think everyone has a different definition. like canada is socialist but they are not communistic. which is what churchhill was describing with this part of his definition:
"It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance."
furthermore it sounds like churchhill was describing militaristic communist society.

don't bring up old definitions to describe things in this world old definitions are just that old they do not keep up with the ever changing non static definitions of todays society.

if you are going to call socailists communists then why don't you call liberals rebels against the King since that is what they were back in the day of King Henry.

nothing is static things change with the flow of time.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 3:53:43 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JackStar

if you are going to call socailists communists then why don't you call liberals rebels against the King since that is what they were back in the day of King Henry.




....er....i didn't mention communism, you did. The point i was trying to make is that most anti-socialist posters on these fora define socialism as anti-individual. As the exchange i quoted in the earlier post suggests, individualism may not be the unalloyed delight that some suggest it is.


(in reply to JackStar)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 4:38:00 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JackStar

if you are going to call socailists communists then why don't you call liberals rebels against the King since that is what they were back in the day of King Henry.




....er....i didn't mention communism, you did. The point i was trying to make is that most anti-socialist posters on these fora define socialism as anti-individual. As the exchange i quoted in the earlier post suggests, individualism may not be the unalloyed delight that some suggest it is.




Phil, socialism can be "anti-the collective" too.
Obama says he is for the second amendment to our constitution.
But, if you look at his actions it's obvious that he is against the second amendment.
And, the people who support him and who he associates himself with are against it too.
If you hang around the barbershop long enough you're going to get a haircut sooner or later.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 5:19:32 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		I don't see anything wrong with socialism in its proper place. Thing that everyone universally utilizes, like water infrastructure, access to mail services,most roads, law enforcement, fire department, etc....

Socialist concepts in my mind should only exist in areas where we all draw a benefit. That's it really.  I don't like socializing business though, regulating business is fine, socializing it is not. My view of the government is the same as a corporation, all are universally corruptible . I don't like monopolies in private business, so I certainly don't like a company(government), holding a monopoly with the backing of the military.

Socialism is fine, outside of business,  the government should regulate, and prosecute, not enter business deals, nor own means of production, ever.... That's my line with socialism. I think the reason we are in this mess is because we mix socialism and capitalism in the worst possible ways, Fannie, Freddie would be an obvious example.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 5:37:33 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JackStar

if you are going to call socailists communists then why don't you call liberals rebels against the King since that is what they were back in the day of King Henry.




....er....i didn't mention communism, you did. The point i was trying to make is that most anti-socialist posters on these fora define socialism as anti-individual. As the exchange i quoted in the earlier post suggests, individualism may not be the unalloyed delight that some suggest it is.




Phil, socialism can be "anti-the collective" too.
Obama says he is for the second amendment to our constitution.
But, if you look at his actions it's obvious that he is against the second amendment.
And, the people who support him and who he associates himself with are against it too.
If you hang around the barbershop long enough you're going to get a haircut sooner or later.



lets not get me started on fake GOP bush... 

a real conservative would set out to reverse the Brady bill.

Which certain criminal offenses, lower then felony- but higher then a ticket..  means too bad for amendment #2.

one could pretty much add in that psychotrophic drugs also void a person.

locally a few guys were charged- caught lying to obtain a gun permit.

anyhow- in PA it is easy to not "qualify" to "legally" own a gun....

So Obamas intention is only so alarming... as you must consider that right now Brady pretty much keeps some from legally....   owning a gun.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 7:30:37 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		       It's a Utopian dream, Phil.  An idea that looks so attractive and simple on paper, that fills the air beautifully when students and idealists sprawl on cushions and low furniture, but goes stagnant at best, or transforms into an authoritarian dystopia when attempted.  It is based on beliefs about human nature which are not in evidence.  I completely agree that it is the enemy of individualism.

      The goals and ideals are noble, but the methodology is unworkable crap.  Well...  Not completely unworkable.  There are a couple of ways it could be forced, for a while at least.  The more common vision of those is where the driven, the achievers, are systematically crushed to a steadily declining lowest common denominator.  The other is the cold-blooded approach, where the highest law becomes "you don't work, you don't eat." 

     Wasn't there something else Churchill said?  Something about capitalism being the worst of all the economic systems, except for all the others?  Some things can only be achieved by unified effort for the greater good, but such occurences should be the exception, not the norm.
     

    

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 10:05:32 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
       Some things can only be achieved by unified effort for the greater good, but such occurences should be the exception, not the norm.    


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Socialist concepts in my mind should only exist in areas where we all draw a benefit. That's it really.  I don't like socializing business though, regulating business is fine, socializing it is not.


......broadly i agree with both these statements. i've said before that i favour a mixed economy. Infrastructure socialised, all other industry not socialised but regulated to stop the worst excesses of rampant capitalism.
i've said it before but it hasn't stopped me being called a socialist. 

There are certain aspects to a modern economy that benefit society universally. Transport infrastructure, health services, military, power, water, the post office, law enforcement etc. These i believe ought to be run, not for maximum profit, but for maximum efficiency. The free market doesn't always provide this. The UK experience of privatisation of the rail network is a good example. Operating costs went up, efficiency went down, costs to consumers went up, safety issues became more of a problem......oh, but the food got a bit better.
However, the converse is also true.....there are elements of society (large elements) that need to remain in private hands. Competition is good in some areas, bad in others.
There are ideologues from both camps on these fora. Some have no problem with total nationalisation, some have no problem with total privatisation. Me, i'm in the middle.....and arguably that makes me a real socialist. Not someone who wants to move on to communism, not someone who wants to bring down Western society......but someone who wants society to work as efficiently as possible.

Now, i've heard Obama referred to, disparagingly, on these fora as a socialist. i don't see too much in what he plans that is blatantly socialist, nevertheless the label is thrown around willy nilly. It's an attempt to demonise his motives, his vision of how a society works best. This word needs to be reclaimed by the middle ground, which it most accurately describes. Socialists....not monsters.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 10:53:04 PM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		 
Socialism can be easily defined by the "words" of Barack Obama.  It is a belief that government has all of the answers that the "little people" need, that a big central government in control of all the production of goods and services would not all the solutions to people so much better than individuals acting on their own...

There is no where on earth where socialism has not resutlted in huge tax burdens by the serfs unlucky to live within its borders. Ever wonder why European countries that democrats so want to emulate pay hold such outrageously high taxes on goods and services...socialization of their economies was the root cause.  For Amerca, socialism would be be the beginning of the end of our young republic.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 10:58:26 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Phil, read Obama's Senate Bill "S-2433."
That is one reason that he's a global socialist.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/16/2008 11:19:38 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub



Ever wonder why European countries that democrats so want to emulate pay hold such outrageously high taxes on goods and services...


...want to actually back that assertion up with a link?

(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 1:01:29 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub


There is no where on earth where socialism has not resutlted in huge tax burdens by the serfs unlucky to live within its borders. Ever wonder why European countries that democrats so want to emulate pay hold such outrageously high taxes on goods and services...socialization of their economies was the root cause.  For Amerca, socialism would be be the beginning of the end of our young republic.


The average western European, is better educated, has better healthcare and has more social mobility that the average American.

As for higher taxes, Merc posted what Americans as a nation pay in tax, it was comparable to western European social democratic nations pay. The difference is, western European tax systems are generally more progressive than the American tax system ie. the greater you income, the greater your share of the tax burden. America is a welfare state for the rich. If you are poor in the US it is seen as your own fault for being shiftless and you are abandoned, this is born out by the fact that an American born poor, has a much higher chance of dying poor that a poor western European. (See 2006 OCED report on social mobility). Even the conservative Japanese have a much higher social mobility rate than America. Hell, look at New Orleans after Katrina to see what American capitalism does for the American poor.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 1:05:22 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"Hayek's views were echoed by Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945:



Where I grew up, Churchill was hated. He thought he would be thanked for his leadership in the war but people were smart enough not to vote for a war leader for peace time and any way, it was his socialist cabinet that ran the economy so well through the war.

EDIT - The first pair of new shoes and clothes both my uncles had was when they joined the army at the beginning of the war. The new shoes being army boots and the new clothes being their uniform. No one was going to vote to go back to that sort of shitty freedom again. 

Oh, and four families lived in one house, all be it a relativily big one, a decaying merchant house for the middle of Victorian times.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/17/2008 1:11:01 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 4:40:30 AM   
kidwithknife


Posts: 193
Joined: 9/9/2008
Status: offline 		Socialism is an umbrella term for various differing ideologies. I think it's common core is an economic one.  Theoretically, it's a belief in the common ownership of the 'means of production' (to use a somewhat archaic term).  But the actual methods vary.  From the nationalisation proposed by the early Labour Party. To the single party dictatorship of the Marxist-Leninists.  To the direct ownership methods proposed by the various strands of libertarian socialism.  (I fall into the last category).
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

It's a Utopian dream, Phil.  An idea that looks so attractive and simple on paper, that fills the air beautifully when students and idealists sprawl on cushions and low furniture, but goes stagnant at best, or transforms into an authoritarian dystopia when attempted.  It is based on beliefs about human nature which are not in evidence.


Couple of points on this. 

Firstly, do you accept that any attempt to replace feudalism with democracy would have met exactly the same kinds of objection? 

Secondly, all attempts to change the world for the better are utopian, by their nature.  A utopian is someone who doesn't believe the current situation. is as good as it gets.

Thirdly, some counterexamples to your claims that it either always stagnates or turns into an authoritarian dystopia.  The first two were destroyed militarily, rather than doing either of the things you outline.  The third still exist.  The anarchist controlled areas of Spain in the civil war.  The Paris Commune.  The 'primitive communism' still practised by some Native American tribes.

Obviously, many socialist experiments have done exactly what you describe.  But not all of them.  Which means we have to look for other factors.  I would draw attention to the fact that my examples have two main common factors.  A massive decentralisation of power.  And the decision making process being one of direct democracy.

quote:

I completely agree that it is the enemy of individualism.


The state is the enemy of individualism.  How could it not be?  It gives one group of armed men an exclusive monopoly on the use of violence.

I think you're heading in the wrong direction here.  Individualism is not the enemy of either socialism or capitalism.  Those are economic descriptors.  The crux here is the libertarian/authoritarian divide.  Stalin's authoritarian socialism does not make me an authoritarian.  Anymore than Pinochet's authoritarian captalism discredits libertarian capitalists.

I think the problem actually arises when people start making the mistake you make here and priortising the socialism/capitalism divide instead of the libertarian/authoritarian one.  That's when people start making dubious allies, and we've seen that from both economic viewpoints.  Whereas I have no real problem with the anarcho-capitalists.  I'd consider our disagreements to be 'family disputes', as opposed to considering them my ideological enemies.

quote:

Wasn't there something else Churchill said?  Something about capitalism being the worst of all the economic systems, except for all the others?


As well as saying to Mussolini that "Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world.".  I think that illustrates my point about how people like yourself who prioritise the economic question end up in bed with authoritarians rather splendily indeed.

quote:

Some things can only be achieved by unified effort for the greater good, but such occurences should be the exception, not the norm.


Are you talking about voluntary co-operation?  Or are you supporting "unified effort for the greater good" being imposed on people?  If it's the latter, I don't think it's unfair to suggest that I'm actually a lot more supportive of individualism than you are.
    

 

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 5:06:03 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     It's a Utopian dream, Phil.  An idea that looks so attractive and simple on paper, that fills the air beautifully when students and idealists sprawl on cushions and low furniture, but goes stagnant at best, or transforms into an authoritarian dystopia when attempted.  It is based on beliefs about human nature which are not in evidence.  I completely agree that it is the enemy of individualism.

    The goals and ideals are noble, but the methodology is unworkable crap.  Well...  Not completely unworkable.  There are a couple of ways it could be forced, for a while at least.  The more common vision of those is where the driven, the achievers, are systematically crushed to a steadily declining lowest common denominator.  The other is the cold-blooded approach, where the highest law becomes "you don't work, you don't eat." 

 

As usual Heretic your analysis is complete and utter rubbish. Everything that European socialists wanted in 1900, they have now got and the world hasn't collapsed and people are still free. Most European democracies have a hybrid system which is called social democracy. Germany, the last time I looked, exports more manufactured goods than the USA, so much for lazy socialists. They also have a better education and health system than the USA. Yes, Americans can choose the education and health care they want with one proviso, they have to be rich enough which is a big proviso but them Europeans can do the same.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


   Wasn't there something else Churchill said?  Something about capitalism being the worst of all the economic systems, except for all the others?        

  


No, he said democracy was the worst system of governance excapt for all the others.

Of course Churchill was a capitalist, he came from a rich family of landed gentry who thought it was their god given right to exploit the poor.

Churchil was an absolute disaster as the Chancellor (finance minister), returning the pound to the gold standard and increased an already high post WWI unemployment by an estimated 11%. He was virulantly anti worker, sending troops to intervene in strikes which killed several workers and became the most hated politician in Britain.

He did however set up unemployment insurance in 1904 but he said about that, it was cheap at the price to stop a revolution.

The establishment have done a wonderful PR job on him since WWII.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/17/2008 5:16:02 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 7:04:34 AM   
rookey


Posts: 100
Status: offline 		Socialism's chief characteristic and fatal flaw is its high degree of state intervention.  Socialism involves a planned economy.  The state thinks it knows better than the individual, so the state takes away the liberty of the individual.

Market economies have generally performed better then planned socialist economies over the past fifty years.  Just compare North America and  Western Europe to the former USSR and China.  More people enjoy a higher standard of living.

Clement Attlee was justified in criticising the, so-called laise-faire, attitude that the state should hardly ever intervene with how employers should run there businesses.  Some legalisation is necesssary to protect workers rights.  But this does not justify going to the absurd extreme of the state trying to run the economy. 

Instead the state simply assume the roll of the abusive employer.





_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 7:11:38 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rookey

Socialism's chief characteristic and fatal flaw is its high degree of state intervention.  Socialism involves a planned economy.  The state thinks it knows better than the individual, so the state takes away the liberty of the individual.

Market economies have generally performed better then planned socialist economies over the past fifty years.  Just compare North America and  Western Europe to the former USSR and China.  More people enjoy a higher standard of living.

Clement Attlee was justified in criticising the, so-called laise-faire, attitude that the state should hardly ever intervene with how employers should run there businesses.  Some legalisation is necesssary to protect workers rights.  But this does not justify going to the absurd extreme of the state trying to run the economy. 


Most of western and northern Europe have better health and education than Britain and on average their citizens are richer than the average Brit, that has to do with the socialist policies of western European social democracies.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to rookey)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 7:12:54 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

it hasn't stopped me being called a socialist. 


        It's probably the hair, Phil.  Darn hippies...

       You've raised a couple of points I'll try and get back to when time permits.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 7:57:21 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

it hasn't stopped me being called a socialist. 


       It's probably the hair, Phil.  Darn hippies...

      You've raised a couple of points I'll try and get back to when time permits.


..appreciate it...look forward to it too

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: socialism, what is it? - 9/17/2008 10:17:01 AM   
Raechard


Posts: 3513
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
There are certain aspects to a modern economy that benefit society universally. Transport infrastructure, health services, military, power, water, the post office, law enforcement etc. These i believe ought to be run, not for maximum profit, but for maximum efficiency. The free market doesn't always provide this. The UK experience of privatisation of the rail network is a good example. Operating costs went up, efficiency went down, costs to consumers went up, safety issues became more of a problem......oh, but the food got a bit better.


I've always been of the belief similar to this that some services which enable profitability in other areas should be run and paid for by the government in a not for profit type arrangement. The rail services will never be profitable unless it comes at the expense of the commuter and they won't stand for that for long, they will just travel to work other ways.

The problem is that if an organisation has no need to perform for it shareholders there is no incentive for people in that organisation and they start to get too comfortable in their jobs. As people in my industry and probably many others point out continuously: people need a certain amount of pressure to get things done. I don't have confidence the rail system in the UK would do better if it was entirely re-nationalised.

The government train company is fined for bad performance by the government regulator > the train company passes the fine onto its customers.

Always the cost is passed onto the customer and the only way that would change is if government put a cap on fare rises but why would it do that if any shortfall would need to come out of government money? It isn't going to come from anywhere else in a government owned system?

Personally I think private companies should be involved, they should get profit from ticket sales and advertising on trains but only after spending to achieve a certain standard of safety, comfort and reliability as set by government regulatory bodies, contracts they sign up to and are legally bound by. The problem with Railtrack was that nobody regulated the safety side. If the HSE gets involved it's already too late because there has been a major incident, why is it you never hear about government inspectors finding safety issues? You certainly wouldn't hear about government inspectors finding safety issues on a government run railway.

Socialism for me is the ethos of looking out for one another through the sacrifice of individual profit. If I go private rather than the NHS I may get a better service in some specialist areas but being cared for would feel like an illusion. On the NHS I wait because my social standing is no more important than anyone else’s, my condition is the only factor in when I’m seen not how much money I have. Money isn’t everything and doesn’t make one person more special or important than another and only a socialist would recognise that.



< Message edited by Raechard -- 9/17/2008 10:18:11 AM >

_____________________________

えへまにんへえや
Nobody wants to listen to the same song over and over again!

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> socialism, what is it? Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094