Why do you hate Socialism?

[loosecannon]

try to be real and mention critical details like what you believe socialism is, some examples of real socialism that you love to hate and why.

Does socialism threaten you? How?

Are you more comfy with fascism or socialism? Why?

Please do dwell on the theory or philosophy that underlies your beliefs.

There are no wrong answers I just have not ever seen such a reaction towards socialism as within this board.

Rep points will be awarded for sound responses.

[Roomy]

I love diversity, socialism has it's good and bad points, communism is a fantastic concept, it's such a shame it doesn't work in the real world, people being what they are.

[OCA]

Socialism kills individual spirit and seeks to redistribute wealth from earners to non earners.

Got it Mr. Yellowbelly?

[Roomy]

Socialism kills individual spirit and seeks to redistribute wealth from earners to non earners.

Got it Mr. Yellowbelly?

Which is why it doesn't work, greedy bastards always want more than anybody else, people being people.

[loosecannon]

Socialism kills individual spirit and seeks to redistribute wealth from earners to non earners.

Got it Mr. Yellowbelly?


how does socialism kill inde spirit?

How does socialism redistribute from earners to non earners?

Does this threaten you if it happens in Cuba or France?

[OCA]

how does socialism kill inde spirit?

How does socialism redistribute from earners to non earners?

Does this threaten you if it happens in Cuba or France?

Ain't happening in France anymore, they just kicked the socialists out on their asses.

Socialism says everyone has to have this and has to have that such as health coverage and taxes earners at a high rate to pay for the coverage for non earners.

True socialism bordering on communism places you into a work situation of which you have no choice and pays everyone the same exact rate for that position and with little chance of moving out of that position so their is no incentive to better ones self.

It is not any governments responsibility to take care of all health and welfare of its citizens.

Government basically has two responsibilities, infrastructure(roads etc.) and national defense.....maybe laws too although the citizenry would eventually handle that.

[Hobbit]

Because socialism fails to reward accomplishment or punish incompetance. Socialism only works for those not willing to work for themselves.

[loosecannon]

Ain't happening in France anymore, they just kicked the socialists out on their asses.



actually the failed to replace their moderate conserv PM with a socialist PM. IOW, nothing changed but the face.

[Yurt]

Who controls/decides the distribution? Who enforces it?

[OCA]

Because socialism fails to reward accomplishment or punish incompetance. Socialism only works for those not willing to work for themselves.

Amen!

[OCA]

Who controls/decides the distribution? Who enforces it?

Government types. Much like the wonks who were in the Politburo during the Soviet days they take a majority for theirselves and redistribute the rest to the citizenry.

[Said1]

I think socialism isn't super detrimental if the idea is to gradually privatize. With the exception of health care, the Canadian government has withdrawn major dollars in industries such as the arts, publishing and of course oil.

[Yurt]

Government types. Much like the wonks who were in the Politburo during the Soviet days they take a majority for theirselves and redistribute the rest to the citizenry.

And in short, that is why I feel socialism is bad.

[OCA]

And in short, that is why I feel socialism is bad.

Its the same in Cuba today, you have Fidel and his cronies who live in opulent wealth and the rest of the country lives 12 people in a two bedroom dwelling.

VIVA EL REVOLUCION!

[Said1]

Its the same in Cuba today, you have Fidel and his cronies who live in opulent wealth and the rest of the country lives 12 people in a two bedroom dwelling.

VIVA EL REVOLUCION!

But Cuba is a Nationalist Socialist country - communist moreso than a social democracy.

[loosecannon]

Government types. Much like the wonks who were in the Politburo during the Soviet days they take a majority for theirselves and redistribute the rest to the citizenry.


socialism isn't commyism OCA

no more than capitalism is fascism

[Hobbit]

Who controls/decides the distribution? Who enforces it?

The same people who run the DMV. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

[loosecannon]

Its the same in Cuba today, you have Fidel and his cronies who live in opulent wealth and the rest of the country lives 12 people in a two bedroom dwelling.

VIVA EL REVOLUCION!

Cuba is dirt poor but still has excellent education, health care and emergency preparedness.

Considering the sanctions I can not imagine them being more prosperous today.

But why do you even care if Cuba tries some commyism? Or some democratics socialism?

Did you know that most Iraqis are now of the opinion that they don't even want democracy? They associate democratic elections with no security and lots of violence. Whereas they associate a dictator with stability and relative peace.

Why do you care what government form other nations attempt?

[loosecannon]

How do you know, or why do you believe that
socialism fails to reward accomplishment or punish incompetance.

[loosecannon]

I think socialism isn't super detrimental if the idea is to gradually privatize. With the exception of health care, the Canadian government has withdrawn major dollars in industries such as the arts, publishing and of course oil.


Why do you favor privatization?

[loosecannon]

The same people who run the DMV. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

actualy that DMV is in a republic, not a socialist state

flip side, would you prefer that the cable company assigned you to your job, or your benefits? Your health care?

[tim_duncan2000]

Churchill said it best:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

[OCA]

But Cuba is a Nationalist Socialist country - communist moreso than a social democracy.


They are all intertwined, the differences are minute.

[OCA]

Cuba is dirt poor but still has excellent education, health care and emergency preparedness.

Considering the sanctions I can not imagine them being more prosperous today.

But why do you even care if Cuba tries some commyism? Or some democratics socialism?

Did you know that most Iraqis are now of the opinion that they don't even want democracy? They associate democratic elections with no security and lots of violence. Whereas they associate a dictator with stability and relative peace.

Why do you care what government form other nations attempt?

How do you know Cuba has excellent education, health care and emergency preparedness?

If that were true people wouldn't be leaving in fucking dingys every chance they get.

[Abbey Marie]

How do you know Cuba has excellent education, health care and emergency preparedness?

If that were true people wouldn't be leaving in fucking dingys every chance they get.

:laugh2: You speakum truthum.

[Said1]

They are all intertwined, the differences are minute.


I beg to differ. The differences between Cuba and Sweden or Canada are gynormous, regardless of economics.

[OCA]

socialism isn't commyism OCA

no more than capitalism is fascism

Like a blood orange isn't an orange lol:laugh2:

[OCA]

I beg to differ. The differences between Cuba and Sweden or Canada are gynormous, regardless of economics.

One is cleaned up the other is messy, the inner workings are still similar.

[Said1]

One is cleaned up the other is messy, the inner workings are still similar.

How? How are the inner workings between Sweden and Cuba similar.

[OCA]

How? How are the inner workings between Sweden and Cuba similar.

The ideas, the goals. Honestly I don't know much about Sweden but socialism is socialism, oh sure they might have a different twist here and there but if they were radically different then they wouldn't be socialists.

Yes, yes I know, technically Cuba considers itself communist but in practice they are a socialist country.

[Said1]

The ideas, the goals. Honestly I don't know much about Sweden but socialism is socialism, oh sure they might have a different twist here and there but if they were radically different then they wouldn't be socialists.

Yes, yes I know, technically Cuba considers itself communist but in practice they are a socialist country.

So you don't know?

[diuretic]

I beg to differ. The differences between Cuba and Sweden or Canada are gynormous, regardless of economics.

I think the shallowness of the responses of those vociferously opposed to the concept of socialism would be ameliorated if they had a clue about it. It's a dialogue of the deaf here, the opponents are merely mouthing slogans.

Good point there Said1. Since all wealth comes from land and labour it's obvious that Cuba, with its limited natural resources, is going to be poorer in direct economic terms than Sweden or resource-rich Canada. Cuba under Battista was probably worse than under Castro. I have a problem with totalitarianism such as that practised by Cuba but I can separate that from a recognition of the economic issues.

[OCA]

So you don't know?


Don't know what? How socialism works?

Why don't you explain to me the differences between Cuba and Sweden?

[OCA]

I think the shallowness of the responses of those vociferously opposed to the concept of socialism would be ameliorated if they had a clue about it. It's a dialogue of the deaf here, the opponents are merely mouthing slogans.

Good point there Said1. Since all wealth comes from land and labour it's obvious that Cuba, with its limited natural resources, is going to be poorer in direct economic terms than Sweden or resource-rich Canada. Cuba under Battista was probably worse than under Castro. I have a problem with totalitarianism such as that practised by Cuba but I can separate that from a recognition of the economic issues.

Actually no we are not just mouthing slogans.

You never addressed the problem with individualism in a socialist setting.

[loosecannon]

How do you know Cuba has excellent education, health care and emergency preparedness?

If that were true people wouldn't be leaving in fucking dingys every chance they get.

Life expectancy/health care
Cuba 76.2
US 77.1
Iraq 66.5
India 62.5
Haiti 49.2
UK77.1

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

education


Historically, Cuba has had some of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America, both before and after the revolution. In the 1950s, Cuba's literary rate of 76% ranked fourth in the region. Since the revolution, Cuba has maintained high standards of educational development.[16] In 1995 rates were 96%. This was second after Argentina of thirteen Latin American countries surveyed.[16]

A 1998 study by UNESCO reported that Cuban students showed a high level of educational achievement. Cuban third and fourth graders scored 350 points, 100 points above the regional average in tests of basic language and mathematics skills. The report indicated that the test achievement of the lower half of students in Cuba was significantly higher than the test achievement of the upper half of students in other Central and South American countries in the study group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba#Level_of_achievement


emergency preparedness:


With this year's hurricane season expected to be every bit as fierce as last year's, international disaster organizations are looking to Cuba for disaster-management strategies.

"Cuba is one of the best prepared, if not the best prepared for natural disasters," U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland told Reuters. "The same hurricane which would take zero lives in Cuba would kill massively in Haiti."

When Hurricane George struck in 1998, only six people died in Cuba; 209 were killed in Haiti. The six hurricanes that hit Cuba from 1996 to 2002 killed 16 people, compared to 649 killed elsewhere in the region.

Key elements of the island's hurricane preparedness strategy are extensive training, community planning, and simulation drills.

Disaster-response training starts in childhood as part of school curricula and continues with adult education at the community level. It is also part of standard training for healthcare professionals. Over 95 percent of the population has been trained in a four-step framework: information, alert, alarm, and recovery. As a result, virtually all Cubans understand weather warnings that refer to these steps and know their roles during every stage of a storm.

Community-based disaster planning uses the same four-step framework. Before the hurricane
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1471


They leave in dingy's because they are dirt poor under the sanctions imposed by the US.

[loosecannon]

They are all intertwined, the differences are minute.

Minute as in the difference between a dictator and a democracy.

[loosecannon]

The ideas, the goals. Honestly I don't know much about Sweden but socialism is socialism, oh sure they might have a different twist here and there but if they were radically different then they wouldn't be socialists.

Yes, yes I know, technically Cuba considers itself communist but in practice they are a socialist country.

OCA, Really truly not trying to slur, but the differences between totalitarian communism and say French/US socialism are as large as the differences between Capitalism and fascism like in Nazi Germany.

This may seem like a minor diff to you, but it is recognized around the world as a very major difference.

[loosecannon]

I think the shallowness of the responses of those vociferously opposed to the concept of socialism would be ameliorated if they had a clue about it. It's a dialogue of the deaf here, the opponents are merely mouthing slogans.

Good point there Said1. Since all wealth comes from land and labour it's obvious that Cuba, with its limited natural resources, is going to be poorer in direct economic terms than Sweden or resource-rich Canada. Cuba under Battista was probably worse than under Castro. I have a problem with totalitarianism such as that practised by Cuba but I can separate that from a recognition of the economic issues.

I have to admit that was a very tactful response. The mission of the thread is fact finding. Asking questions and divining the underlying Bitch if you will with socialism.

Agreed knowing what socialism is would appear prerequisite to the untrained eye.

But unmasking the prejudice is part of the goal here.

I am trying to focus just on asking questions.

You could be a big help in that regard.

[Yurt]

I have to admit that was a very tactful response. The mission of the thread is fact finding. Asking questions and divining the underlying Bitch if you will with socialism.

Agreed knowing what socialism is would appear prerequisite to the untrained eye.

But unmasking the prejudice is part of the goal here.

I am trying to focus just on asking questions.

You could be a big help in that regard.

Why don't you try addressing this:


Who controls/decides the distribution? Who enforces it?

[loosecannon]

Why don't you try addressing this:

A) it wasn't addressed to me

B) I am trying just to ask questions

[loosecannon]

Churchill said it best:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

He also said


“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government......



except all the others that have been tried.”

But Churchill was also known to be a strictly black or white kinda guy. He either loved something or hated it. No middle ground.

[Gunny]

try to be real and mention critical details like what you believe socialism is, some examples of real socialism that you love to hate and why.

Does socialism threaten you? How?

Are you more comfy with fascism or socialism? Why?

Please do dwell on the theory or philosophy that underlies your beliefs.

There are no wrong answers I just have not ever seen such a reaction towards socialism as within this board.

Rep points will be awarded for sound responses.

True socialism leads to mediocrity. Where is the incentive to excel if no matter what you achieve, you get paid the exact same as the guy next door; who, in turn, could be a complete deadbeat sucking off the work of others.

Those who achieve deserve the fruits of their labors, just as those who underachieve deserve what they get.

I'm comfortable with neither socialism nor fascism. While the former may lead to mediocrity, in the latter, the state decides ones value based on one's value to the state; which, could easily be arbitrary rather than based on actual merit.

Where I am willing to concede limited socialism is I believe we, as citizens of this nation, have a responsibility to take care of the indigent. I'm not talking about the current nanny state that has as many deadbeats as truly needy, but those who are truly in need and cannot do for themselves should be supported at least at the basic level.

[Yurt]

A) it wasn't addressed to me

B) I am trying just to ask questions

Of course it was addressed to you. You are the thread starter and in order to better address your thread, you need to answer the questions. If you are not going to answer anything, then say so, not "I'm trying."

In order to give you a well thought out answer, I need you to tell me your understanding of the question.

[OCA]

Life expectancy/health care
Cuba 76.2
US 77.1
Iraq 66.5
India 62.5
Haiti 49.2
UK77.1

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm

education


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba#Level_of_achievement


emergency preparedness:


http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1471


They leave in dingy's because they are dirt poor under the sanctions imposed by the US.

So actually the U.S. has better healthcare.

They leave because it sucks to live under any kind of socialism.

[loosecannon]

True socialism leads to mediocrity. Where is the incentive to excel if no matter what you achieve, you get paid the exact same as the guy next door; who, in turn, could be a complete deadbeat sucking off the work of others.

Those who achieve deserve the fruits of their labors, just as those who underachieve deserve what they get.

I'm comfortable with neither socialism nor fascism. While the former may lead to mediocrity, in the latter, the state decides ones value based on one's value to the state; which, could easily be arbitrary rather than based on actual merit.

Where I am willing to concede limited socialism is I believe we, as citizens of this nation, have a responsibility to take care of the indigent. I'm not talking about the current nanny state that has as many deadbeats as truly needy, but those who are truly in need and cannot do for themselves should be supported at least at the basic level.

THAT was a great post.

I agree with the sage comment on socialism contributing to mediocrity.

And BOREDOM!

I have a minor question about whether the aging deserve state sponsored assistance in your world view.

But my major questions are:

>Do you hate socialism?
>Feel threatened by it?
>Care whether Cuba attempts to make it work?

[loosecannon]

Of course it was addressed to you. You are the thread starter and in order to better address your thread, you need to answer the questions. If you are not going to answer anything, then say so, not "I'm trying."

In order to give you a well thought out answer, I need you to tell me your understanding of the question.

I wasn't involved in the discussion between yourself, Hobbit and OCA in which you asked who would regulate/decide or whatever the word used was.

So I have no reason to answer it.

[loosecannon]

So actually the U.S. has better healthcare.

They leave because it sucks to live under any kind of socialism.

Sure the US has better healthcare by a hair.

The US is also 26 times wealthier than Cuba on a per capita basis. ($44,000/year US vs $1750/year Cuba 2000)

So if Cuba can sport the same basic education, healthcare, obviously food and emergency preparedness as the US (maybe better) on 1/25th the income they are doing damned well under the circumstances.

BTW did you know that Louxembourg is twice as wealthy as the US /capita? And socialist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Neither of us can speak for every Cuban deserter.

But since Cuba's poverty is heavily influenced by the US sanctions it is a strong probability that most Cubans are leaving because communism is great save for some caveats and the poverty.

But OCA, why do you care if Cubans attempt to make commyism work?

Does commyism or even socialism threaten you?

[manu1959]

lets se what do i like about socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

so those who can't ..... loaf and get the same as the rest......nope....don't like it.....

[Gunny]

THAT was a great post.

I agree with the sage comment on socialism contributing to mediocrity.

And BOREDOM!

I have a minor question about whether the aging deserve state sponsored assistance in your world view.

But my major questions are:

>Do you hate socialism?
>Feel threatened by it?
>Care whether Cuba attempts to make it work?

I do not hate socialism. It is an ideal. I just do not agree with it for the reasons mentioned, except for a limited basis which I also mentioned.

The perceived threat of socialist policies would include the fact that I pay a higher percentage of tax to support a corrupt, bureuacratic perversion of socialism so those who will not do for themselves can have cable TV, high speed internet and wear brand name clothing. Yes those are generalizations, but the contributors to those generalizations are the ones that make peole like me resent socialist policy.

The ideal of socialism itself is not a threat. The various perversions of it implemented at times by our government are.

There are some nations that based on geography, natural resources, production capability, et al would probably fair better under a socialist society than one such as ours. No matter what our ideals are, if we did not have the geography, natural resources, production capablity that we have, this nation would not have flourished as it has.

Cuba would probably be one such nation, IMO, that would do better under socialism.

As an advanced, educated and cultured society (versus being savages), I think we owe it our old people to at least provide them with basic care and comfort. Without them, we wouldn't be here. We spend our tax dollars on far stupider things.

In the case of my family, we have never let any of our elders eek out an existence in an old folks home. We take care of our own, and always have as far as I know. That, IMO, would be the ideal solution, but it doesn't mesh real well with reality.

[Yurt]

I wasn't involved in the discussion between yourself, Hobbit and OCA in which you asked who would regulate/decide or whatever the word used was.

So I have no reason to answer it.

It was not a discussion between us. I asked the question in general and as such it is directed at the thread starter as well. Regardless, I then "specifically" asked you to answer it. Stop being snide and answer the question.

[loosecannon]

I do not hate socialism. It is an ideal. I just do not agree with it for the reasons mentioned, except for a limited basis which I also mentioned.

The perceived threat of socialist policies would include the fact that I pay a higher percentage of tax to support a corrupt, bureuacratic perversion of socialism so those who will not do for themselves can have cable TV, high speed internet and wear brand name clothing. Yes those are generalizations, but the contributors to those generalizations are the ones that make peole like me resent socialist policy.

The ideal of socialism itself is not a threat. The various perversions of it implemented at times by our government are.

There are some nations that based on geography, natural resources, production capability, et al would probably fair better under a socialist society than one such as ours. No matter what our ideals are, if we did not have the geography, natural resources, production capablity that we have, this nation would not have flourished as it has.

Cuba would probably be one such nation, IMO, that would do better under socialism.

As an advanced, educated and cultured society (versus being savages), I think we owe it our old people to at least provide them with basic care and comfort. Without them, we wouldn't be here. We spend our tax dollars on far stupider things.

In the case of my family, we have never let any of our elders eek out an existence in an old folks home. We take care of our own, and always have as far as I know. That, IMO, would be the ideal solution, but it doesn't mesh real well with reality.

OK, that was a fair and outstanding response. I would rep it again but I can't.

See I couldn't care less what government form others try. The more the better.

I would like to see our own nation restore states rights so that individual states could try a variety of approaches to today's challenges and see what works.

With 50 or 250 chances to experiement we are far more likely to find solutions.

As far as old people go. Social Security was ill conceived. If a solution was to be found to provide for the nations unable, elderly, disadvantaged to even eek by we need a better way to pay for it.

A 14% tax across the board is FAR too expensive.

You may not like the solutions but they would eliminate that 14% tax on every middle class and lower American's income.

[loosecannon]

It was not a discussion between us. I asked the question in general and as such it is directed at the thread starter as well. Regardless, I then "specifically" asked you to answer it. Stop being snide and answer the question.


Yurt, I am specifically NOT interested in the question at this point.

I am asking questions, trying to flesh out why many here have a genuine hatred of other nations and even our own governmental form.

I encourage you to participate in spelling out your own POV.

And I WILL answer questions about my POV.

But I will not answer every question about the nuances of other's POV. Sorry. I can't fill in the gaps in other's paradigms.

[Gunny]

OK, that was a fair and outstanding response. I would rep it again but I can't.

See I couldn't care less what government form others try. The more the better.

I would like to see our own nation restore states rights so that individual states could try a variety of approaches to today's challenges and see what works.

With 50 or 250 chances to experiement we are far more likely to find solutions.

As far as old people go. Social Security was ill conceived. If a solution was to be found to provide for the nations unable, elderly, disadvantaged to even eek by we need a better way to pay for it.

A 14% tax across the board is FAR too expensive.

You may not like the solutions but they would eliminate that 14% tax on every middle class and lower American's income.

The fear of communism got the West and its allies all huddled together on our side of the fence. Some people just can't let go. The problem with communism was communist nations DID seek to spread communism by choice.

In the true American spirit, we should have supported Castro against Bautista's corrupt, have's and have's not government. Because we did not, Castro courted teh Soviet Union in a day when you were either for or against, no middle ground. We probably ought to review our Cold War policies toward Cuba.

I am an advocate of state's rights and a federal government the size it was in 1780.

I don't know that social security was so much ill-conceived as it is now antiquated and does not meet the demand placed upon it. Anyone certainly counting on social security as a sole means of income are in for a rather spare existence.

While I'm sure I'll get the 100% capitalists on my ass for this, I have NO problem jacking taxes on the wealthy to foot the bill, and denying social security to those who don't need it. All I see are these gazillionaires getting that way by taking while doing there best to give back as little as possible to teh society that allowed them to become rich.

[Yurt]

Yurt, I am specifically NOT interested in the question at this point.

I am asking questions, trying to flesh out why many here have a genuine hatred of other nations and even our own governmental form.

I encourage you to participate in spelling out your own POV.

And I WILL answer questions about my POV.

But I will not answer every question about the nuances of other's POV. Sorry. I can't fill in the gaps in other's paradigms.

As you said in your interview with Jim, you are an asshole. You could have simply said this when I specifically asked you:


If you are not going to answer anything, then say so, not "I'm trying."

In order to give you a well thought out answer, I need you to tell me your understanding of the question.

Instead you chose to be an asshole. Since you do not care to answer those very simple questions, I cannot properly address your questions for I have no idea of your understanding of socialism.

[diuretic]

Actually no we are not just mouthing slogans.

You never addressed the problem with individualism in a socialist setting.

I know you are mouthing slogans. I'm used to it. I discount it.

[diuretic]

Okay helping out here.

Question - which socialist-type policies do posters disagree with?

[Pale Rider]

Which is why it doesn't work, greedy bastards always want more than anybody else, people being people.

And the sit on their ass lazy bastards want some of the worked hard for what he has greedy bastards earnings for free.

Don't work that way... unless you'd like to start by giving me half of everything you own.

[avatar4321]

it's responsible for more death and destruction i society than any other system conceived by man. It kills human ingenuity. Promotes idleness. Pride. Supresses religion and freedom. Makes false promises that it can't deliver and false hope for the future. it creates nothing and destroys everything.

What is there to like about socialism?

[loosecannon]

As you said in your interview with Jim, you are an asshole. You could have simply said this when I specifically asked you:



Instead you chose to be an asshole. Since you do not care to answer those very simple questions, I cannot properly address your questions for I have no idea of your understanding of socialism.

Yurt, IF you do wanna know my take on Socialism, then ask a question that isn't framed around OCA's perspectives on socialism.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or do you really not realize that i do not subscribe to OCA's POV?

[Yurt]

Yurt, IF you do wanna know my take on Socialism, then ask a question that isn't framed around OCA's perspectives on socialism.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Or do you really not realize that i do not subscribe to OCA's POV?

This is old, you are either truly ignorant or playing some game to get me riled. I am doing my best to stick to your topic, however, your attitude is not helping. I have no idea how any logical person could somehow link my question to something about OCA.


Who controls/decides the distribution? Who enforces it?

It is really at the heart of your thread. For while socialism may seem like a rosy idea, the actual implementation of it, given that people are inherently not perfect, is a far cry from the rosy picture. So, I wanted to know YOUR understanding of who controls/decieds the distribution. Given that, who enforces it, given that some people in any given group will inherently do bad.

If you don't want to answer it, then no problem. But don't play games and make accusations that I am being obtuse or somehow framing things around OCA's understanding. Any reasonable person can see that I directed the question to you, did not copy/quote anything from OCA, but merely "responded" to the thread. I then specifically asked you and gave you a reason why. Stop derailing your own thread and simply give a brief answer:

1. I will not answer

2. My understanding


It is really that simple.

[Mr. P]

Yurt, IF you do wanna know my take on Socialism, then ask a question ....
What are your views and opinions of socialism?

Please give supporting examples.

[loosecannon]

This is old, you are either truly ignorant or playing some game to get me riled. I am doing my best to stick to your topic, however, your attitude is not helping. I have no idea how any logical person could somehow link my question to something about OCA.



It is really at the heart of your thread. For while socialism may seem like a rosy idea, the actual implementation of it, given that people are inherently not perfect, is a far cry from the rosy picture. So, I wanted to know YOUR understanding of who controls/decieds the distribution. Given that, who enforces it, given that some people in any given group will inherently do bad.

If you don't want to answer it, then no problem. But don't play games and make accusations that I am being obtuse or somehow framing things around OCA's understanding. Any reasonable person can see that I directed the question to you, did not copy/quote anything from OCA, but merely "responded" to the thread. I then specifically asked you and gave you a reason why. Stop derailing your own thread and simply give a brief answer:

1. I will not answer

2. My understanding


It is really that simple.

I have not made a single reference in this thread to the topic of who decides the distribution.

But I will ask you: distribution of what?

But the distribution OCA mentioned is still just a construct of his POV.

It has nothing to do with anything I have been discussing and as of yet I can not imagine a reason to answer that question.

I mean seriously dude, are you asking who controls the distribution of ________ in a capitalist state, a socialist state?

I can't even guess how that is pertinent to anything I have been discussing.

Is your wallpaper a floral pattern with or without violets? Is your wallapaper floral pattern communistic or domionionistic in nature? Answer that question or I will freak the fuck out.

Just like you do.

[Yurt]

I guess I did not make it simple enough for you:


If you don't want to answer it, then no problem. But don't play games and make accusations that I am being obtuse or somehow framing things around OCA's understanding. Any reasonable person can see that I directed the question to you, did not copy/quote anything from OCA, but merely "responded" to the thread. I then specifically asked you and gave you a reason why. Stop derailing your own thread and simply give a brief answer:

1. I will not answer

2. My understanding
It is really that simple.


loosecannon;53621]I have not made a single reference in this thread to the topic of who decides the distribution.

Irrelevent to my question.


But I will ask you: distribution of what?

LOL, you are thick. What is the subject of this very thread? Socialism and what people don't like about it. Further:


It is really at the heart of your thread. For while socialism may seem like a rosy idea, the actual implementation of it, given that people are inherently not perfect, is a far cry from the rosy picture. So, I wanted to know YOUR understanding of who controls/decieds the distribution. Given that, who enforces it, given that some people in any given group will inherently do bad.


But the distribution OCA mentioned is still just a construct of his POV.

???? This has nothing to do with the question.


It has nothing to do with anything I have been discussing and as of yet I can not imagine a reason to answer that question.

I mean seriously dude, are you asking who controls the distribution of ________ in a capitalist state, a socialist state?

You shouldn't need to ask. It has everything to do with it. There is not just "one" socialist theory. In order to give MY opinion, which you ASKED for, I want to know, in your understanding of "socialism", who controls, etc., the government, the "collective" citizens, etc. I was hoping to narrow it down and discuss what I don't like about socialism on only your understanding of it, rather than debate the various "socialist" theories.


I can't even guess how that is pertinent to anything I have been discussing.

I am not surprised.


Is your wallpaper a floral pattern with or without violets? Is your wallapaper floral pattern communistic or domionionistic in nature? Answer that question or I will freak the fuck out.


You already have, thus again, an irrelevent comment.

Again, keep it quite simple and I will aslo s-p-e-l-l it out for you nice and s-l-o-w:

1. I will not answer

2. My thoughts on who controls/distibutes/enforces the principles of my understanding of "socialism."

[loosecannon]

Yurt, take your meds.

[Yurt]

Yurt, take your meds.

:laugh2:

Again, keep it quite simple and I will aslo s-p-e-l-l it out for you nice and s-l-o-w:

1. I will not answer

2. My thoughts on who controls/distibutes/enforces the principles of my understanding of "socialism."

[diuretic]

it's responsible for more death and destruction i society than any other system conceived by man. It kills human ingenuity. Promotes idleness. Pride. Supresses religion and freedom. Makes false promises that it can't deliver and false hope for the future. it creates nothing and destroys everything.

What is there to like about socialism?

You need to stump up some evidence for those claims. Here's some to counter yours.

Post-war Britain. Left on its knees after WWII. It had a mountain of debt owing to the US as result of WWII. No Marshall Plan. Instead a Labour Government, a good, old-fashioned Democratic Socialist government was elected under Attlee. It used socialist policies to get the country back on its feet again in an age when its Empire was falling apart and the Bretton Woods agreement ensured the US was the dominant economic power in the western world. Socialism saved the UK after WWII.

[Hobbit]

You need to stump up some evidence for those claims. Here's some to counter yours.

Post-war Britain. Left on its knees after WWII. It had a mountain of debt owing to the US as result of WWII. No Marshall Plan. Instead a Labour Government, a good, old-fashioned Democratic Socialist government was elected under Attlee. It used socialist policies to get the country back on its feet again in an age when its Empire was falling apart and the Bretton Woods agreement ensured the US was the dominant economic power in the western world. Socialism saved the UK after WWII.

Sounds like the economic equivalent of martial law. Like just about everything, socialism has its uses, but as a basic tenet of government, it's just stupid. In postwar Europe, infastructure was destroyed, and roads were closed off by the military. A socialistic system had to be put into place on a temporary basis to keep the people from starving. It was, however, just a band-aid, meant to hold everything together for a very short amount of time before being ripped off and discarded.

Edit: You bring up a very good point. Tried to rep you, but...

[diuretic]

Sounds like the economic equivalent of martial law. Like just about everything, socialism has its uses, but as a basic tenet of government, it's just stupid. In postwar Europe, infastructure was destroyed, and roads were closed off by the military. A socialistic system had to be put into place on a temporary basis to keep the people from starving. It was, however, just a band-aid, meant to hold everything together for a very short amount of time before being ripped off and discarded.

Edit: You bring up a very good point. Tried to rep you, but...

No worries, thought that counts, thank you for that.

The economy was broken. It needed control to recover. And yes, when it did recover then the controls were relaxed and capitalism unleashed itself and did a reasonable job of recovery.

I'm not a fan of totalitarian governments with planned economies because......it doesn't work. I've never lived in a communist country but I have visited some, back when Brezhnev was alive, before even Gorby was on the scene. Czechoslovakia - great beer, nice people, bloody hopeless economy back then; Hungary - very nice people, beautiful country and city (Budapest), much more relaxed than in the Stalinist Czechoslovakia, economy a lot better too but still not as free as it could be; Yugoslavia before the breakup, felt like anywhere else really, it had a form of market socialism. But I have to admit I was still pleased to drive across the border into Greece.

I do like some socialist policies. I like the idea of safety nets and socialising the cost of necessary services such as healthcare and education. I don't believe in dragging down but building up.

[loosecannon]

What are your views and opinions of socialism?

Please give supporting examples.

Not all that many actually. I disapprove of some of the core ideas about socialism like taxing the wealthy to provide services for the poor.

On the other hand it is in the best interests of a society to have a healthy, educated population that has it's basic needs met.

But IMO taxation is the wrong way to raise funds to operate a government.

I like the idea that there are a variety of socialist experiments at work, many appear to work quite well like most of europe, cuba. But most of the socialist programs in the US either failed, were ill conceived or decayed.

I believe we should have a war on poverty, a new deal, a great society. We should have free education thru 16 years (4 years of college). But we can not afford to waste 20 years on programs that do not work. We need results. Our education is abysmal. So is our healthcare system.

So maybe that does make me an advocate for a kind of socialism. Out of some neccesity.

But absolutely not one who favors communism or taxation.

[loosecannon]

The fear of communism got the West and its allies all huddled together on our side of the fence. Some people just can't let go. The problem with communism was communist nations DID seek to spread communism by choice.

In the true American spirit, we should have supported Castro against Bautista's corrupt, have's and have's not government. Because we did not, Castro courted teh Soviet Union in a day when you were either for or against, no middle ground. We probably ought to review our Cold War policies toward Cuba.

I am an advocate of state's rights and a federal government the size it was in 1780.

I don't know that social security was so much ill-conceived as it is now antiquated and does not meet the demand placed upon it. Anyone certainly counting on social security as a sole means of income are in for a rather spare existence.

While I'm sure I'll get the 100% capitalists on my ass for this, I have NO problem jacking taxes on the wealthy to foot the bill, and denying social security to those who don't need it. All I see are these gazillionaires getting that way by taking while doing there best to give back as little as possible to teh society that allowed them to become rich.

Another great post Gunny. I owe you two reps.

Capitalism and western democracy are also trying to force their way into other nations. Examples range from Iraq to Peru and thru channels as diverse as the world bank and the US military.

[loosecannon]

it's responsible for more death and destruction i society than any other system conceived by man. It kills human ingenuity. Promotes idleness. Pride. Supresses religion and freedom. Makes false promises that it can't deliver and false hope for the future. it creates nothing and destroys everything.

What is there to like about socialism?

Well it would make your post more credible if you explained how socialism accomplished all of those evils.

The US is a semi socialist nation now. Is the US an example of those evils?

[loosecannon]

No worries, thought that counts, thank you for that.

The economy was broken. It needed control to recover. And yes, when it did recover then the controls were relaxed and capitalism unleashed itself and did a reasonable job of recovery.

I'm not a fan of totalitarian governments with planned economies because......it doesn't work. I've never lived in a communist country but I have visited some, back when Brezhnev was alive, before even Gorby was on the scene. Czechoslovakia - great beer, nice people, bloody hopeless economy back then; Hungary - very nice people, beautiful country and city (Budapest), much more relaxed than in the Stalinist Czechoslovakia, economy a lot better too but still not as free as it could be; Yugoslavia before the breakup, felt like anywhere else really, it had a form of market socialism. But I have to admit I was still pleased to drive across the border into Greece.

I do like some socialist policies. I like the idea of safety nets and socialising the cost of necessary services such as healthcare and education. I don't believe in dragging down but building up.

Excellent points Diuretic and Hobbit.

Socialism and democracy are at least attempts to provide a more fair kind of government. They will both be corrupted and to degrees will fail if they are not revamped regularly.

And they are not mutually exclusive.

Socialisms feature democracy and capitalism as a rule.

[CockySOB]

Not all that many actually. I disapprove of some of the core ideas about socialism like taxing the wealthy to provide services for the poor.

On the other hand it is in the best interests of a society to have a healthy, educated population that has it's basic needs met.

But IMO taxation is the wrong way to raise funds to operate a government.

I like the idea that there are a variety of socialist experiments at work, many appear to work quite well like most of europe, cuba. But most of the socialist programs in the US either failed, were ill conceived or decayed.

I believe we should have a war on poverty, a new deal, a great society. We should have free education thru 16 years (4 years of college). But we can not afford to waste 20 years on programs that do not work. We need results. Our education is abysmal. So is our healthcare system.

So maybe that does make me an advocate for a kind of socialism. Out of some neccesity.

But absolutely not one who favors communism or taxation.

I gotta spread rep around before giving it to you again.... And yeah, it's positive rep. Good post.

[Yurt]

Yurt, take your meds.

Please don't turn this into a pissing match. You obviously are answering questions, you answered Mr. P's which is very similar to mine. If you are not going to answer it, have the common decency to say so. If not, no problem, and I will stop trying to have a rational and intelligent debate with you about the policy of socialism.

Yurt

[loosecannon]

Please don't turn this into a pissing match. You obviously are answering questions, you answered Mr. P's which is very similar to mine. If you are not going to answer it, have the common decency to say so. If not, no problem, and I will stop trying to have a rational and intelligent debate with you about the policy of socialism.

Yurt

I am hoping that this remains a discussion not a debate.

I opened up by saying that there are no wrong answers, I just wanted to find out what people thought and why.

I am not going to asnwer your question as long as it is framed inside of OCA's vision of socialism. You could ask OCA whom he thinks will make those decisions.

[typomaniac]

try to be real and mention critical details like what you believe socialism is, some examples of real socialism that you love to hate and why.

Does socialism threaten you? How?

Are you more comfy with fascism or socialism? Why?

Please do dwell on the theory or philosophy that underlies your beliefs.

There are no wrong answers I just have not ever seen such a reaction towards socialism as within this board.

Rep points will be awarded for sound responses.Socialism refers to government control over a nation's means of production. As such, it is definitely not an "either/or" proposition. In theory, you can have absolute socialism (in which the government controls the production of everything), no socialism at all (in which the government does not control the production of anything), or any point along the continuum between the two.

IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" socialism, just as there's such a thing as too little. Also IMO, the US could have significantly more socialism in its economy than it now has without crossing the threshold of too much.

[loosecannon]

Socialism refers to government control over a nation's means of production. As such, it is definitely not an "either/or" proposition. In theory, you can have absolute socialism (in which the government controls the production of everything), no socialism at all (in which the government does not control the production of anything), or any point along the continuum between the two.

IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" socialism, just as there's such a thing as too little. Also IMO, the US could have significantly more socialism in its economy than it now has without crossing the threshold of too much.

That is the classic def Typo. And prob athe most commonly used among people who are well informed.

But it isn't the only one. For example many also include systems wherein the people own the means of production thru worker coops to be socialist stystems. Italy is structured along those lines I am told.

But the common use of the word evidenced in this thread reveals that people have several other uses of the word.

BTW, I agree with your comments with caveats.

[Hobbit]

Socialism refers to government control over a nation's means of production. As such, it is definitely not an "either/or" proposition. In theory, you can have absolute socialism (in which the government controls the production of everything), no socialism at all (in which the government does not control the production of anything), or any point along the continuum between the two.

IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" socialism, just as there's such a thing as too little. Also IMO, the US could have significantly more socialism in its economy than it now has without crossing the threshold of too much.

Purely a matter of opinion. I think we have already crossed the threshold of too much.

[loosecannon]

Purely a matter of opinion. I think we have already crossed the threshold of too much.

Specifically how? What socialist programs in the US would you recind and keep?

[Yurt]

Socialism refers to government control over a nation's means of production. As such, it is definitely not an "either/or" proposition. In theory, you can have absolute socialism (in which the government controls the production of everything), no socialism at all (in which the government does not control the production of anything), or any point along the continuum between the two.

IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" socialism, just as there's such a thing as too little. Also IMO, the US could have significantly more socialism in its economy than it now has without crossing the threshold of too much.

Thank you typo for post. This is where I have the biggest problem with socialism, is that too much control vested with the Govnernment will necessarily be bad as people are inherently less than perfect. Socialism rests on the theory that the people in charge will necessarily have the best interests of the whole, and not just themselves. When you have socialism vested in the "collective" group, it can lead to disorder if there is not a leader or leaders and then you will probably end up with government control, back to my original problem.

Also, it is good that people do good for themselves. Capitalism is not only about "self" for the business owner does good for society too as he employs, etc.. As has been said above, true socialism rewards those who do not necessarily do. Thus, incentive, an important driving factor for survival, is more than likely lost.

[diuretic]

Frankly I don't want to see pure unrestrained (by government) capitalism or pure unrestrained (by markets) socialism Both are dangerous for ordinary people for different reasons. I do prefer a form of market socialism though.

[loosecannon]

Frankly I don't want to see pure unrestrained (by government) capitalism or pure unrestrained (by markets) socialism Both are dangerous for ordinary people for different reasons. I do prefer a form of market socialism though.


Amen

[Psychoblues]

As an Australian I doubt if you have ever heard of J.P. Stevens or of Pullman Coaches or of Pinkerton Guards or of a thousand other poisonous Capitalist companies in the US, diuretic.




Frankly I don't want to see pure unrestrained (by government) capitalism or pure unrestrained (by markets) socialism Both are dangerous for ordinary people for different reasons. I do prefer a form of market socialism though.

Unrestrained capitalism gets a lot of people killed and a lot of others imprisoned under false pretenses. It would take more than a book to explain all this so I suggest you do your own googling and searches to find out some truths about American capitalism.

[Psychoblues]

Common myth=



Thank you typo for post. This is where I have the biggest problem with socialism, is that too much control vested with the Govnernment will necessarily be bad as people are inherently less than perfect. Socialism rests on the theory that the people in charge will necessarily have the best interests of the whole, and not just themselves. When you have socialism vested in the "collective" group, it can lead to disorder if there is not a leader or leaders and then you will probably end up with government control, back to my original problem.

Also, it is good that people do good for themselves. Capitalism is not only about "self" for the business owner does good for society too as he employs, etc.. As has been said above, true socialism rewards those who do not necessarily do. Thus, incentive, an important driving factor for survival, is more than likely lost.

And Bullshit on any level of comprehensive thought.

[CockySOB]

Frankly I don't want to see pure unrestrained (by government) capitalism or pure unrestrained (by markets) socialism Both are dangerous for ordinary people for different reasons. I do prefer a form of market socialism though.

Agreed. I figure we'll eventually find the proper mix, but neither extreme is a working solution on its own. (Kinda like politics, heh :) )

[glockmail]

try to be real and mention critical details like what you believe socialism is, some examples of real socialism that you love to hate and why.

Does socialism threaten you? How?

Are you more comfy with fascism or socialism? Why?

Please do dwell on the theory or philosophy that underlies your beliefs.

There are no wrong answers I just have not ever seen such a reaction towards socialism as within this board.

Rep points will be awarded for sound responses.

You're such a wuss. :laugh2:

[typomaniac]

Thank you typo for post. This is where I have the biggest problem with socialism, is that too much control vested with the Govnernment will necessarily be bad as people are inherently less than perfect. Socialism rests on the theory that the people in charge will necessarily have the best interests of the whole, and not just themselves. When you have socialism vested in the "collective" group, it can lead to disorder if there is not a leader or leaders and then you will probably end up with government control, back to my original problem.

Also, it is good that people do good for themselves. Capitalism is not only about "self" for the business owner does good for society too as he employs, etc.. As has been said above, true socialism rewards those who do not necessarily do. Thus, incentive, an important driving factor for survival, is more than likely lost.If you've ever studied "risk management," - as it pertains to such things as investing - you'll have come across the observation that taking too little risk is just as bad as taking too much.

I believe the same can be said about socialist policies - having too few of them is just as bad as having too many.

[Birdzeye]

Frankly I don't want to see pure unrestrained (by government) capitalism or pure unrestrained (by markets) socialism Both are dangerous for ordinary people for different reasons. I do prefer a form of market socialism though.

:clap:

[avatar4321]

Specifically how? What socialist programs in the US would you recind and keep?

all of them

[typomaniac]

all of themAnd society would implode. That's why no one has ever listened to your "plan."

[Yurt]

If you've ever studied "risk management," - as it pertains to such things as investing - you'll have come across the observation that taking too little risk is just as bad as taking too much.

I believe the same can be said about socialist policies - having too few of them is just as bad as having too many.

Why I believe I have, "corporate finance and investing" among other such classes in undergrad. My professor, bless his "take little risk" motto, would probably love to have discourse with you, but this is a socialism thread :) I would agree with your observation though.

I really don't see how the analogy works at all. For example, say we are talking about an evil false religion (oh, lets *wink* and say Islam) instead of socialist policies, would you say the same?

[typomaniac]

Why I believe I have, "corporate finance and investing" among other such classes in undergrad. My professor, bless his "take little risk" motto, would probably love to have discourse with you, but this is a socialism thread :) I would agree with your observation though.

I really don't see how the analogy works at all. For example, say we are talking about an evil false religion (oh, lets *wink* and say Islam) instead of socialist policies, would you say the same?Actually, yes.

The former Soviet Union tried to run a society with no religion, and that turned out to create more problems than it solved, IMO. At the other extreme, theocracies create their own set of internal problems, which are equally bad.

[Yurt]

Actually, yes.

The former Soviet Union tried to run a society with no religion, and that turned out to create more problems than it solved, IMO. At the other extreme, theocracies create their own set of internal problems, which are equally bad.

That's no religion period, not just muslim. That is like saying:

The former Soviet Union tried to run a society with no "government." Remember I said replace socialism with Islam.

[Yurt]

Common myth=




And Bullshit on any level of comprehensive thought.


Damn homey cheese, with that logic, you have me convinced.... Please don't debate policy with me again, I hate going against such a formidable response.....

:laugh2:

[SassyLady]

try to be real and mention critical details like what you believe socialism is, some examples of real socialism that you love to hate and why.

Does socialism threaten you? How?

Anything that threatens to take what I have, and what I have worked hard for, and distribute it to the collective is a threat to me.


Are you more comfy with fascism or socialism? Why?

Neither - both want to take away individualism.

[diuretic]

Anything that threatens to take what I have, and what I have worked hard for, and distribute it to the collective is a threat to me.

Relax, it doesn't want to do that to you, that's not how socialism works.




Neither - both want to take away individualism.

No, socialism doesn't want to take away individualism either.

So, not much to fear :)

[Hobbit]

Relax, it doesn't want to do that to you, that's not how socialism works.




No, socialism doesn't want to take away individualism either.

So, not much to fear :)

Yes is does, on both counts. The very concept of socialism is that everything is collectively owned. Individuals have no possessions and no rights, only the collective.

[typomaniac]

Yes is does, on both counts. The very concept of socialism is that everything is collectively owned. Individuals have no possessions and no rights, only the collective.Wrong. You're thinking of communism. The two are very significantly different.

[typomaniac]

That's no religion period, not just muslim. That is like saying:

The former Soviet Union tried to run a society with no "government." Remember I said replace socialism with Islam.Well, Islam still has many common concepts about desired behavior that it shares with Judaism and Christianity. And you can't have a concept of "justice" in your system of laws without some sort of moral and ethical basis.

So I think my analogy still holds.

[Hobbit]

Wrong. You're thinking of communism. The two are very significantly different.

From Webster's:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Communism is a form of socialism. If something is communist, then it is also socialist.

[zefrendylia]

I think socialism is despised because it is inaccurately portrayed as being akin to communism. We have to remember that socialism, communism, and capitalism are just inert economic forms. It is the government that defines if the system will work or not. Corruption and one-party systems will usually destroy whatever economic form is in place.

True communism in theory doesn't work because, in my belief, it denies competition and incentive to work hard. However, it doesn't mean it can't work on smaller scales. People don't always need a monetary incentive to work collectively and diligently to achieve a desired goal. This is evident in the Soviet Union's ability to harness the intelligence of their people to create science and weapons on par or superior to the U.S.

True laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work either. It is a wonderful concept in that competition drives businesses to compete with each other so that the strong and efficient survive while the weak eventually die out--creating the best product for the consumer at the most reasonable price. It's kinda like evolution. It is a great theory but inevitably it will corrupt society. Why? Simple human greed. Laissez-faire capitalism allows for only minimal governmental regulation. Without hard earned labor laws, consumer protection, anti-trust, safety laws etc. businesses have no disincentive to do whatever it takes to make a buck. That means businesses will cut any corner as long as they can get away with it. This includes doctoring the accounting records (Enron), dumping chemicals in rivers (Dow), hiding health effects (Philip-Morris), etc. etc. It even goes so far as companies colluding together and forming an informal monopoly to artificially set prices. There are other forms of illegal monopolies that indeed prevent competition and prevent any competition from entering the market. This becomes a detriment to consumers, workers, and society as a whole.

Socialism is a blend of the 2. It has some state-run industry and some free-market industry. That's it. Where government comes in is here: whatever the business, it should be highly regulated to protect the workers and the consumers. Should taxes be used to benefit the whole of society? That's a decision society needs to make (in a democracy anyway). But whatever the tax rate, it should never be so high as to give people a disincentive to working hard.

However much free-market advocates tout the advantages of true capitalism, it simply does not exist in the U.S. The U.S. like its European counterparts has been a socialist country for some time now. But there is always this push by the ignorant and the businesses for more of a true free-market economy. As I stated above I believe this will never work. In Europe, there is an earnest effort to keep certain industries state-run. There is a reason for this. Some industries simply are more efficient when run by the government. Healthcare is a good example. The U.S. is one of only 2 industrialized countries (S. Africa) without universal healthcare. As a result we have the highest number of uninsured and most expensive premiums. Yes, European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. are taxed at slightly higher rates, but they also have less basic worries and none of this has been detrimental to their competitive advantage or economic prosperity.

As for the U.S., socialism occurs in the form of governmental regulation--labor laws, safety laws, consumer protection, etc. If these things did not exist, then indeed the U.S. would be a true capitalist economy. Socialism also occurs with how tax money is used. True the U.S. has some entitlement programs but instead of all tax money going to these programs--a good deal is used to subsidize American businesses. Some subsidization is needed, such as for the airlines industry after 9/11, however--many people believe the big airlines have become too inefficient and lazy anyway. All in all, most subsidization is not necessary--afterall, if what we want in the U.S. is true capitalism--why should the taxpayers bail out anyone?

[Hobbit]

I think socialism is despised because it is inaccurately portrayed as being akin to communism. We have to remember that socialism, communism, and capitalism are just inert economic forms. It is the government that defines if the system will work or not. Corruption and one-party systems will usually destroy whatever economic form is in place.

True communism in theory doesn't work because, in my belief, it denies competition and incentive to work hard. However, it doesn't mean it can't work on smaller scales. People don't always need a monetary incentive to work collectively and diligently to achieve a desired goal. This is evident in the Soviet Union's ability to harness the intelligence of their people to create science and weapons on par or superior to the U.S.

True laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work either. It is a wonderful concept in that competition drives businesses to compete with each other so that the strong and efficient survive while the weak eventually die out--creating the best product for the consumer at the most reasonable price. It's kinda like evolution. It is a great theory but inevitably it will corrupt society. Why? Simple human greed. Laissez-faire capitalism allows for only minimal governmental regulation. Without hard earned labor laws, consumer protection, anti-trust, safety laws etc. businesses have no disincentive to do whatever it takes to make a buck. That means businesses will cut any corner as long as they can get away with it. This includes doctoring the accounting records (Enron), dumping chemicals in rivers (Dow), hiding health effects (Philip-Morris), etc. etc. It even goes so far as companies colluding together and forming an informal monopoly to artificially set prices. There are other forms of illegal monopolies that indeed prevent competition and prevent any competition from entering the market. This becomes a detriment to consumers, workers, and society as a whole.

Socialism is a blend of the 2. It has some state-run industry and some free-market industry. That's it. Where government comes in is here: whatever the business, it should be highly regulated to protect the workers and the consumers. Should taxes be used to benefit the whole of society? That's a decision society needs to make (in a democracy anyway). But whatever the tax rate, it should never be so high as to give people a disincentive to working hard.

However much free-market advocates tout the advantages of true capitalism, it simply does not exist in the U.S. The U.S. like its European counterparts has been a socialist country for some time now. But there is always this push by the ignorant and the businesses for more of a true free-market economy. As I stated above I believe this will never work. In Europe, there is an earnest effort to keep certain industries state-run. There is a reason for this. Some industries simply are more efficient when run by the government. Healthcare is a good example. The U.S. is one of only 2 industrialized countries (S. Africa) without universal healthcare. As a result we have the highest number of uninsured and most expensive premiums. Yes, European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc. are taxed at slightly higher rates, but they also have less basic worries and none of this has been detrimental to their competitive advantage or economic prosperity.

As for the U.S., socialism occurs in the form of governmental regulation--labor laws, safety laws, consumer protection, etc. If these things did not exist, then indeed the U.S. would be a true capitalist economy. Socialism also occurs with how tax money is used. True the U.S. has some entitlement programs but instead of all tax money going to these programs--a good deal is used to subsidize American businesses. Some subsidization is needed, such as for the airlines industry after 9/11, however--many people believe the big airlines have become too inefficient and lazy anyway. All in all, most subsidization is not necessary--afterall, if what we want in the U.S. is true capitalism--why should the taxpayers bail out anyone?

Socialism is not a blend of communism and capitalism. That's one of the wrongest things I have ever heard. Look at the Webster's definition in my post.

However, I agree that the U.S. is sliding towards socialism. Progressive income tax and entitlements to underachievers are both socialistic principles.

[zefrendylia]

Socialism is not a blend of communism and capitalism. That's one of the wrongest things I have ever heard. Look at the Webster's definition in my post.

However, I agree that the U.S. is sliding towards socialism. Progressive income tax and entitlements to underachievers are both socialistic principles.

"Wrongest?"

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

When you look up a word in the dictionary, the definitions listed do not have to be related. Take a look at the 3rd one that you supplied. Socialism is a stage in transition between capitalism and communism. This can very well be a blend. It is also characterized by "unequal distribution of goods and pay." This is a capitalistic trait. Communism would be an equal distribution of goods and pay.

[Hobbit]

"Wrongest?"

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

When you look up a word in the dictionary, the definitions listed do not have to be related. Take a look at the 3rd one that you supplied. Socialism is a stage in transition between capitalism and communism. This can very well be a blend. It is also characterized by "unequal distribution of goods and pay." This is a capitalistic trait. Communism would be an equal distribution of goods and pay.

It's still not what you described. You're just trying to be smug by disagreeing with everybody and posing your pet whackjob theory to look 'edgy.' It's not edgy, it's stupid. Socialism is not a 'blend' of anything.

I also think that if you look at the thread, it's pretty clear we're not talking about the Marxist transitional phase, and even if we were, this phase is supposed to be a transition INTO Communism, which is a form of socialism, and is, at its very core, evil and oppressive.

[typomaniac]

From Webster's:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Communism is a form of socialism. If something is communist, then it is also socialist.

It says "various theories." You're trying to lump all of them into one absolutist extreme to advance your agenda.
Don't bring a dictionary to a debate about economics. It makes you look like you brought a sword to a gunfight.

[Hobbit]

It says "various theories." You're trying to lump all of them into one absolutist extreme to advance your agenda.
Don't bring a dictionary to a debate about economics. It makes you look like you brought a sword to a gunfight.

I can't believe it. You've topped yourself. That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've heard all month. I only bring in a dictionary because nobody can agree on what the definition of socialism is. Those who want to push it claim we're socialist already, while many other people are exactly equating it with communism.

Socialism, whether you want to admit it or not, is an economic system whereby means of production are centrally or communally owned, and distribution of goods is centrally or communally controlled. That's it. Claiming that it is anything else is like trying to say a house is a mushroom or that the stuff that grows in your front lawn is sand. Words have meanings, and you can't just change those meaning as you feel. The way this debate has gone would be like me starting a thread that says flowers suck, arguing with people and calling them names, only to later tell them that my definition of flowers are those little bugs that come around every summer and suck your blood, leaving an itchy bump. If you have to say that something's 'true for you,' it's almost certainly false.

As for this discussion, I'm out. My dad always told me that you can't argue with somebody you have to educate first, and I can see that this bunch needs a LOT of educating, starting with a basic course on vocabulary, moving on to macro-economics 101, and then maybe into a basic course on debate, or at least one that lists the differences between fact and fantasy.

[zefrendylia]

It's still not what you described. You're just trying to be smug by disagreeing with everybody and posing your pet whackjob theory to look 'edgy.' It's not edgy, it's stupid. Socialism is not a 'blend' of anything.

I also think that if you look at the thread, it's pretty clear we're not talking about the Marxist transitional phase, and even if we were, this phase is supposed to be a transition INTO Communism, which is a form of socialism, and is, at its very core, evil and oppressive.

I didn't even look at half the threads. I was responding to the original post. But anyway, I thought this was a place where people could rationally and maturely discuss ideas. I don't think "pet whackjob," "edgy," and "stupid" are mature arguments or rational. Good job of debating the substance of my ideas.

If smug is calling you out on your own dictionary quote then I guess I'm "smug." BTW, your definition says nothing about "transition to" its a "transition between." :read: If you don't like your own definition that you supplied when it doesn't fit your argument, next time don't supply it.

[Hobbit]

I didn't even look at half the threads. I was responding to the original post. But anyway, I thought this was a place where people could rationally and maturely discuss ideas. I don't think "pet whackjob," "edgy," and "stupid" are mature arguments or rational. Good job of debating the substance of my ideas.

If smug is calling you out on your own dictionary quote then I guess I'm "smug." BTW, your definition says nothing about "transition to" its a "transition between." :read: If you don't like your own definition that you supplied when it doesn't fit your argument, next time don't supply it.

I like to discuss topics intelligently, as well, but you can't do that when people redefine the basic terms of the argument so they can say edgy things like, "Oh, you people fear socialism, but did you know America is already socialist?"

As for the bolded portion, we weren't communist before, and if you think we're in a 'transition between,' it can only go in one direction.

[loosecannon]

I like to discuss topics intelligently, as well, but you can't do that when people redefine the basic terms of the argument so they can say edgy things like, "Oh, you people fear socialism, but did you know America is already socialist?"

As for the bolded portion, we weren't communist before, and if you think we're in a 'transition between,' it can only go in one direction.

There ARE many definitions of socialism for good and bad reasons.

First off "socialism" is a word that can be accurately applied to a wide variety of government and economic types. Many of those are not very similar at all.

Second the 100 year campaign to destroy labor unions by associateing them with commyism have poluted the definitions and the attitudes for a false political purpose.

Hibbit I know you think that you know everything. But you actually do not. In fact in thios particular case you are actually posting nonsense based on a shallow understanding of the topic. So shallow as to be almost useless.

Consult Marx's definitions of socilaism, or wiki for more background.

Social security is MOST DEFINITELY a socialist program, as are unemployment insurance, employee health plans and retirement accounts and MANY other social programs within our gummit/econ.

The US is a moderately socialist nation. If you dispute that i will be glad to find links later today. Look it up yourself.

[typomaniac]

As for this discussion, I'm out.If I were like OCA, I'd say you were owwwwwwwned...... :lol:

[loosecannon]

If I were like OCA, I'd say you were owwwwwwwned...... :lol:

Hobbit isn't OCA, or anything like OCA tho. Neither are you Typo.

Hobbit appears fairly sincere, just too young to have a developed intellectual compass.

The purpose of the thread was to draw out the prejudices, fears, definitions, illusions, myths, and core values that form the opinions of the board members about a trigger subject.

Obviously Hobbit has book sense but needs to be educated about what socialism is before he has a basis for an opionion about it. And he would be served to spend several years or decades re examining his POV against the backdrop of his own life and what he knows of the larger world to develop and ripen that POV.

The points he raised are valid even if they represent falacies. I believe that he sincerely believes them.

What is discouraging tho is the unwillingness to discuss and challenge his own beliefs.

That speaks of something, maybe ego, maybe insecurity in his POV. Who knows.

[diuretic]

Yes is does, on both counts. The very concept of socialism is that everything is collectively owned. Individuals have no possessions and no rights, only the collective.

That's not socialism. I wouldn't want to be part of a system like that,.

[diuretic]

Thanks Zefrendylia - aside from the informative post you 've also clued me up as to why people are scared of socialism - they think it means totalitarianism, no wonder they're disgusted and frightened when someone says they're a socialist. Who's responsible for that piece of continuing propaganda?

[Yurt]

I won't even bother to waste more than a little time pointing out your lies and fallacies. I have learned to do so, is fruitless and takes away from the debate. Though I love a throw down, but with you, it is always an intellectual ho down.

You ran chicken over my very simple questions. Typo was able to offer a response quite easily. Though he did not intend to "answer" me, he offered something to the debate you never could. Because you can't.





Hobbit appears fairly sincere, just too young to have a developed intellectual compass.

Always ad homin debator boy....


The purpose of the thread was to draw out the prejudices, fears, definitions, illusions, myths, and core values that form the opinions of the board members about a trigger subject.

Then you lied:



There are no wrong answers



Obviously Hobbit has book sense but needs to be educated about what socialism is before he has a basis for an opionion about it. And he would be served to spend several years or decades re examining his POV against the backdrop of his own life and what he knows of the larger world to develop and ripen that POV.

The points he raised are valid even if they represent falacies. I believe that he sincerely believes them.

What is discouraging tho is the unwillingness to discuss and challenge his own beliefs.
That speaks of something, maybe ego, maybe insecurity in his POV. Who knows.


Again, all ad hominem attacks, nothing of substance. Not one single actual refutation of his points, just that he is "not there yet." What this "there" is purely a figment of your small imagination. He was right to leave this thread.

Next time, bring something more than logical fallacies to a thread you create.

[loosecannon]

I won't even bother to waste more than a little time pointing out your lies and fallacies. I have learned to do so, is fruitless and takes away from the debate. Though I love a throw down, but with you, it is always an intellectual ho down.

You ran chicken over my very simple questions. Typo was able to offer a response quite easily. Though he did not intend to "answer" me, he offered something to the debate you never could. Because you can't.






Always ad homin debator boy....



Then you lied:








Again, all ad hominem attacks, nothing of substance. Not one single actual refutation of his points, just that he is "not there yet." What this "there" is purely a figment of your small imagination. He was right to leave this thread.

Next time, bring something more than logical fallacies to a thread you create.

Take your meds Yurt.

There are no wrong answers. There are misconceptions, myths, falacies, fears, stereotypes and a LOT of misinfo and disinfo.

I accept the value of Hobbit's POV, albeit not very educated by life or a real examination of the topic.

You should prob breath deep into a paper bag.

[Yurt]

Take your meds Yurt.

There are no wrong answers. There are misconceptions, myths, falacies, fears, stereotypes and a LOT of misinfo and disinfo.

I accept the value of Hobbit's POV, albeit not very educated by life or a real examination of the topic.

You should prob breath deep into a paper bag.

You proved my point....

Bye

[loosecannon]

You proved my point....

Bye


Thanks Yurt. :clap: :clap: :clap: