Socialism
0
Zeronum2 wrote...
So is Capitalism the only thing that functions out of paper? Most societies that involve ideals of socialism tend to lag behind countries who function through capitalism.Capitalism isn't a perfect system either. It requires that people be moral otherwise you get blatant profit seeking at the expense of workers, customers,etc. People in a capitalist society also need to be intelligent.
The main pros of the system is that it drives everybody to be better than everyone else. Companies like Microsoft will try to attract the most customers so they can put money into engineering new products. While their competition will try to do they same. So how do they attract new customers? Better service, better products, lower costs,etc
Another example is the "console wars" each company is trying to get more customers by offering more games, better services (online stores, DLC,etc).
The best thing about capitalism is that it plays off our greed and/or materialism to improve the overall quality of life. You still need to have a moral compass and know how to use it.
0
The only thing I want to add is that I live in Belgium, which compared to the US is pretty much a socialist country, and that I have never had any kind of problem with it. That is all.
0
braintist wrote...
Socialist - Communist with no balls to admit so.
0
LowercaseT wrote...
braintist wrote...
Socialist - Communist with no balls to admit so.It does count towards the he and FPoD can't have a cup of coffee and a nice chat count. I won't say anything else on the subject as my original draft went off on a tangent somewhere. Pretty sure that train of thought is somewhere near Sudan at the moment.
0
Goon Squad wrote : Well I'm sure most people would agree with you, if they lived in some banana republic. However if it comes to large nations socialism never ends well... If you're wonder how I know this then look at... Russia, China, and 1930-45 Germany and you might get an idea as to why America and Britain hate socialism so much. (Mind you the reason I say 1930-45 Germany is because Nazi is an acronym to "National Socialist" hmm...)
If WWII Russians and Nazis were both socialists than howcome they hated each other? Remember Germany invaded Russia. But I guess any competent form of government can be ruined by incompetent leaders.
If WWII Russians and Nazis were both socialists than howcome they hated each other? Remember Germany invaded Russia. But I guess any competent form of government can be ruined by incompetent leaders.
0
It is because both the Nazis and the USSR were not socialist, with the latter in name ONLY. A true socialist state wouldnt have a government as we know it (a top-down system where people are only held accountable for their actions every 3/4/5/etc years during elections).
Socialism and communism is different from anarchism in that there is a structure, but that structure is controlled by the people as a whole, so not to lead to a small amount of people holding cash and power. The reason why so many people in power fear and despise socialism (the marxist variety) is because they will lose that individual power. People argue that socialism creates dictators and the like. It doesnt as that is just state-controlled capitalism or red-fascism. Under capitalism, there are countless cases where the rich and powerful can buy their way out of court cases, bribe or coerce people in to not exposing secrets and generally control the media to influence public perception.
Capitalism also leads to dictatorships. Many corporations have huge amounts of power, can easily influence government decisions, and control our live. They influence what we see, hear and read. There is legislation that grants companies the privileges but none of the responsibilities of an individual. Governments will generally favour corporations above individual citizens because the corporations give favours and fund campaigns for these men. 'Democratic' governments themselves are giving more power to the state, such as the PATRIOT Act and other legislation that the people, who it affects, have no say in. I use the quotation marks to show how the people can only ask for limited change every four years or so. the only other way to ask for change is through petitions, notices, websites or protests. The majority are ignored, and protesting will usually end up in the protesters being attacked by the police, an institution abused by governments.
And don't forget the variety of dictators brought into power by capitalist nations e.g. the Shah of Iran, General Pinochet.
Socialism and communism is different from anarchism in that there is a structure, but that structure is controlled by the people as a whole, so not to lead to a small amount of people holding cash and power. The reason why so many people in power fear and despise socialism (the marxist variety) is because they will lose that individual power. People argue that socialism creates dictators and the like. It doesnt as that is just state-controlled capitalism or red-fascism. Under capitalism, there are countless cases where the rich and powerful can buy their way out of court cases, bribe or coerce people in to not exposing secrets and generally control the media to influence public perception.
Capitalism also leads to dictatorships. Many corporations have huge amounts of power, can easily influence government decisions, and control our live. They influence what we see, hear and read. There is legislation that grants companies the privileges but none of the responsibilities of an individual. Governments will generally favour corporations above individual citizens because the corporations give favours and fund campaigns for these men. 'Democratic' governments themselves are giving more power to the state, such as the PATRIOT Act and other legislation that the people, who it affects, have no say in. I use the quotation marks to show how the people can only ask for limited change every four years or so. the only other way to ask for change is through petitions, notices, websites or protests. The majority are ignored, and protesting will usually end up in the protesters being attacked by the police, an institution abused by governments.
And don't forget the variety of dictators brought into power by capitalist nations e.g. the Shah of Iran, General Pinochet.
0
Thing is a huge country like China can't use the democracy system. The only system that works for a huge country (population wise) effectively is Socialism or Communism. Democracy also doesn't work well with old Chinese traditions either.
Communism has shown to fail, Socialism is the next best thing after Communism that isn't a failure.
Communism has shown to fail, Socialism is the next best thing after Communism that isn't a failure.
0
GameON wrote...
Thing is a huge country like China can't use the democracy system. The only system that works for a huge country (population wise) effectively is Socialism or Communism. Democracy also doesn't work well with old Chinese traditions either.Communism has shown to fail, Socialism is the next best thing after Communism that isn't a total failure.
Fix'd
In the progression from Capitalism to Communism. Socialism is the inbetween step to communism. Socialism is at best, a half failure. Socialism promotes collectivism which leads to the destruction of the individual and the rights held by those individuals. Collectivism also stifles diversity by insisting that we all associate by a common identity (Race, Nation,Creed) From there, the economic models continue to show that socialism is a terrible method for increasing prosperity among the middle class.
Also China is a socialist AND communist state. Along with Laos, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. These countries as communist by constitution but, socialist by practice. The end goal for these countries is to achieve a working communism in the future but, anybody who picks up a history book can understand how well that's worked out.
0
Since when does socialism leads to the destruction of individual rights? Rather, or at least that is my impression, it adds duties to society to the list of rights one receives in return for those duties.
(Once again bringing up my socialist father, who though obviously not an objective source, told me yesterday that most communism states use communism as a mask/excuse for a way of governing that is inherently more like fascism.)
The final fact is, almost all economic systems (capitalism included) rely too much on the good of human beings not to abuse that system. Of all the systems, admittedly capitalism works best in avoiding this fault by revolving around money a lot, but the intended benefit for the masses does not always work out (on the contrary).
(Once again bringing up my socialist father, who though obviously not an objective source, told me yesterday that most communism states use communism as a mask/excuse for a way of governing that is inherently more like fascism.)
The final fact is, almost all economic systems (capitalism included) rely too much on the good of human beings not to abuse that system. Of all the systems, admittedly capitalism works best in avoiding this fault by revolving around money a lot, but the intended benefit for the masses does not always work out (on the contrary).
0
China and etc, may call them selves communist, but calling a dog a bird won't make it fly. Collectivism doesn't stifle diversity, and things such as races and nations were created during the ancient period, when class divisions became inherent and the norm. These were used on the lower classes to keep them loyal to the ruling classes. And it has been shown that capitalists will frequently help rivals, if it keeps the working class down, such as in the Paris Commune, where the French government got help from the invading German army to crush the revolution.
Rights under socialism and communism would increase. Under capitalism, even basic rights, such as food, water and shelter (basic human needs for survival) have to be paid for.
Capitalism encourages people to abuse the system, through how individuals are given too much power with little accountability. The public get no say in who runs businesses and banks, the same ones that control their super, savings, etc.
Communism isn't about the middle class (used here in the Marxist definition of small business owners, etc). Communism is about the working class, as it is these people who as a class will fight against the ruling class. The middle class are capitalists themselves and still prosper from divisions in society.
Rights under socialism and communism would increase. Under capitalism, even basic rights, such as food, water and shelter (basic human needs for survival) have to be paid for.
Capitalism encourages people to abuse the system, through how individuals are given too much power with little accountability. The public get no say in who runs businesses and banks, the same ones that control their super, savings, etc.
Communism isn't about the middle class (used here in the Marxist definition of small business owners, etc). Communism is about the working class, as it is these people who as a class will fight against the ruling class. The middle class are capitalists themselves and still prosper from divisions in society.
0
Then I challenge you two to find an economic system that has rapidly and successfully catapulted the standard of living up the ladder. I'll save you some futile effort. There isn't any.
Capitalism is neither good nor bad it just is. The main arguments for a system is how liberated a person is economically and personally. How entitled is a man to the fruits of his own labor? Does he get to keep it all or only a little bit after everybody else takes a slice? How does the system treat it's poor? Can the poor get the basics (food, water, shelter)? Among several others.
Socialism uses the "group" as a way to oppress the minority no matter what it is or why they are the minority in the situation. To a Libertarian like me, the individual is the ultimate minority you can not achieve a group smaller than 1 without not existing. We also believe that somebody being forced to do something they don't want to is wrong.
Socialism promotes that if an individual is not in line with the "greater good" he must sacrifice something. An example would be money, socialist politicians love to drag out the "eat the rich" card every time they want to make a political point or win some votes. The "rich" will be forced to pay more in taxes for the "greater good" of funding welfare programs. Another example of the minority being forced to sacrifice for the "greater good" would be china seizing property such as a families home for development. These are the most common examples of socialism stifling individual liberty and this comes without even having to open up google to find some examples.
@ericp: Individual rights are different from rights in general. I was speaking on the rights of a single individual. Which in socialist or communist countries happens quiet a lot.
Capitalism is neither good nor bad it just is. The main arguments for a system is how liberated a person is economically and personally. How entitled is a man to the fruits of his own labor? Does he get to keep it all or only a little bit after everybody else takes a slice? How does the system treat it's poor? Can the poor get the basics (food, water, shelter)? Among several others.
Socialism uses the "group" as a way to oppress the minority no matter what it is or why they are the minority in the situation. To a Libertarian like me, the individual is the ultimate minority you can not achieve a group smaller than 1 without not existing. We also believe that somebody being forced to do something they don't want to is wrong.
Socialism promotes that if an individual is not in line with the "greater good" he must sacrifice something. An example would be money, socialist politicians love to drag out the "eat the rich" card every time they want to make a political point or win some votes. The "rich" will be forced to pay more in taxes for the "greater good" of funding welfare programs. Another example of the minority being forced to sacrifice for the "greater good" would be china seizing property such as a families home for development. These are the most common examples of socialism stifling individual liberty and this comes without even having to open up google to find some examples.
@ericp: Individual rights are different from rights in general. I was speaking on the rights of a single individual. Which in socialist or communist countries happens quiet a lot.
0
So your implicating that Socialism is a good when in fact it is not. The fact that a capitalistic country is greedy is what promotes social advancement. Just take a second and think if I was to have the same thing as everyone else then what would encourage me to do better in my life. The answer is nothing why would someone go to college and earn an education when they would on fact be making the same amount of money as everyone else in society. And the answer is they wouldn't so in a sense socialism is a way to stump human evolution on the fields of intelligence and learning. Now im babbling so ill cut it off here. The only thing socialism does correctly is create a nation of slaves that will do anything for the government because that's what they depend on. They no longer depend on their knowledge and intelligence gained from school. They only know what they are taught and that is that the government is sovereign over the people and only they will provide for the people. Its not the people that share its the government that takes and then distributes the wealth.
0
Hentai-Legacy wrote...
So your implicating that Socialism is a good when in fact it is not. The fact that a capitalistic country is greedy is what promotes social advancement. Just take a second and think if I was to have the same thing as everyone else then what would encourage me to do better in my life. The answer is nothing why would someone go to college and earn an education when they would on fact be making the same amount of money as everyone else in society. And the answer is they wouldn't so in a sense socialism is a way to stump human evolution on the fields of intelligence and learning. Now im babbling so ill cut it off here. The only thing socialism does correctly is create a nation of slaves that will do anything for the government because that's what they depend on. They no longer depend on their knowledge and intelligence gained from school. They only know what they are taught and that is that the government is sovereign over the people and only they will provide for the people. Its not the people that share its the government that takes and then distributes the wealth.I know of plenty of people living in a capitalistic society that don't use what they learned in school either. I'm not so sure about the nation of slaves accusation though. How can capitalism be so conductive to growth and innovation when it can be so easily hijacked by the greed of a select few. A socialistic society tends to level the playing field so anybody has a shot at what they want to achieve. If living in such a place where everybody can count on getting what they need in exchange for slightly higher taxes, it sounds good to me.
0
Mrprinnybomb wrote...
How can capitalism be so conductive to growth and innovation when it can be so easily hijacked by the greed of a select few. A socialistic society tends to level the playing field so anybody has a shot at what they want to achieve. If living in such a place where everybody can count on getting what they need in exchange for slightly higher taxes, it sounds good to me.A socialistic country centers all power in the hands of a select few. The government ends up with all the power instead of the people. I believe we all know how that works out.
Forcing "equality" only increases unemployment. Why? because socialism takes away from the people who make jobs (A.k.a. the rich). As for the tax comment. The people who pay the taxes are the rich. Speaking from the American side in taxes. The middle and lower class bitch, whine and moan about taxes and yet they pay next to nothing. The bottom 50% of the tax bracket pays nothing or next to nothing in taxes.
Link.
0
Mrprinnybomb wrote...
I know of plenty of people living in a capitalistic society that don't use what they learned in school either. I'm not so sure about the nation of slaves accusation though. How can capitalism be so conductive to growth and innovation when it can be so easily hijacked by the greed of a select few. A socialistic society tends to level the playing field so anybody has a shot at what they want to achieve. If living in such a place where everybody can count on getting what they need in exchange for slightly higher taxes, it sounds good to me.The nation of slave remark was simply a look at the USSR during the war. See Stalin along with socialism and fear used his people as slaves. I'm saying in that past vision if socialism I don't want it to be like that in our country. I will agree with you when you a capitalistic society is easily hijacked by the greed of a select few. And this is precisely where the need for growth and innovation is. Only through our eduction can we change things in this country. I know people that do nothing with their eduction as well, and when I see them I argue with them. Let me tell its not the best thing to do. Anyhow the government is run by the consent of the governed in this country. So all we can do as citizens is strive to create a more intelligent populous. Hence to fuel for growth and innovation is the corruption of government itself. Also with a leveled playing field their no hardship or despair to fuel your need to achieve what you want. You don't really have to work as hard.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Spoiler:
I understand how you would think socialism takes power away from the people, not saying you are wrong, but how much power do the people have now? Rally against the government you get attacked by the police. Send your representatives and senators e-mails voicing your concern and they are promptly ignored. Maybe the real problem stems from the overall image capitalism has. You know, greedy leeches draining the life out of the working class.
Hentai-Legacy wrote...
Spoiler:
The main issue I see with this is that people don't seem to be rewarded enough for the work they already do. It always seems like the middle-lower class are always the ones left hung out to dry. The link fiery penguin provides does show who pays how much in taxes, but people are pissed someone who makes however many millions can afford to pay ten percent of what they make because they don't even notice it, while ten percent out of a minimum wage paycheck is a major blow to that person. If it were easier for the middle-lower class to progress in the country this would not even be a problem.
0
Mrprinnybomb wrote...
The main issue I see with this is that people don't seem to be rewarded enough for the work they already do. It always seems like the middle-lower class are always the ones left hung out to dry. The link fiery penguin provides does show who pays how much in taxes, but people are pissed someone who makes however many millions can afford to pay ten percent of what they make because they don't even notice it, while ten percent out of a minimum wage paycheck is a major blow to that person. If it were easier for the middle-lower class to progress in the country this would not even be a problem.I think your failing to see what im saying my family is middle-lower class and I don't have a lot of luxuries. Also im not saying it wouldn't be easier in a socialist society to make achievements. Now all im saying is that if I were in a socialist society I probably wouldn't go to college because I can make just as much as the manual laborer. Now this is greed and I will say that. But also the rewards of advancing in socialism are even less then that of citizens of America. Although a leveled playing field sounds nice, the truth is that the level is lower then that of the middle-lower class. The advancement of the social class in question is not as easy I for one know this, because I can't afford to go to college. I for one will have to use financial aid to go to college. Now yea my family gets the shit end of the stick. But by me breaking that chain of people who did not attend college in my own family I have now taken the initiative to better my own future.
0
Hentai-Legacy wrote...
Mrprinnybomb wrote...
The main issue I see with this is that people don't seem to be rewarded enough for the work they already do. It always seems like the middle-lower class are always the ones left hung out to dry. The link fiery penguin provides does show who pays how much in taxes, but people are pissed someone who makes however many millions can afford to pay ten percent of what they make because they don't even notice it, while ten percent out of a minimum wage paycheck is a major blow to that person. If it were easier for the middle-lower class to progress in the country this would not even be a problem.I think your failing to see what im saying my family is middle-lower class and I don't have a lot of luxuries. Also im not saying it wouldn't be easier in a socialist society to make achievements. Now all im saying is that if I were in a socialist society I probably wouldn't go to college because I can make just as much as the manual laborer. Now this is greed and I will say that. But also the rewards of advancing in socialism are even less then that of citizens of America. Although a leveled playing field sounds nice, the truth is that the level is lower then that of the middle-lower class. The advancement of the social class in question is not as easy I for one know this, because I can't afford to go to college. I for one will have to use financial aid to go to college. Now yea my family gets the shit end of the stick. But by me breaking that chain of people who did not attend college in my own family I have now taken the initiative to better my own future.
Not to say manual labor is a bad thing, in fact if we could restore our manufacturing base we might see an improvement in the economy. Well anyway I sincerely wish you the best of luck with college. I'm starting in Ohio State in the spring and I am also using financial aid. Again,good luck.
0
Mrprinnybomb wrote...
I understand how you would think socialism takes power away from the people, not saying you are wrong, but how much power do the people have now? Rally against the government you get attacked by the police. Send your representatives and senators e-mails voicing your concern and they are promptly ignored. Maybe the real problem stems from the overall image capitalism has. You know, greedy leeches draining the life out of the working class.This is a question of big vs small government. A smaller government that is heavily restricted in it's power is the best option for the personal and economic liberty of it's people.
As fro the taxes link, I think you misread it.
The top 1% paid 40.42% of all taxes to the federal government. While the top 10% shift that number to 70.22% of all taxes paid to the government. The top 50% of all income earners 97.11% of all taxes to the federal government. We're talking trillions of dollars here.
Now, most people conjure images of some fat cat wall street tycoon who runs some multinational big corporation but, the truth is these people are only the top 1% of income earners. The rest of those vile, filthy, stinking rich are people who own a small business and file a certain form on their taxes (i forget the form number). They report the companies total earnings as their personal income which a small successful business can earn well into the 500k or higher. The estimated annual income for an old boss of mine is 5-10 million according to manta.com or if you wish to use Dun and Bradstreet inc numbers his company earns 2 million annually. One of the two companies I contract out too make 11 million in annual sales and yet, I can stop in at the office and ask to see Jared. He's certainly not what you'd expect for someone who technically earns 11 million a year (before he pays his employees and other expenses). He drives a normal car and wears jeans just like the rest of us.