Im a Socialist!!!

[tylerdub]

Originally Posted by J Burner

good, there are plenty of countries for you to take residence in and participate in socialism. Why aren't you in one of those countries right now? Oh thats right, because those countries SUCK...

so true.

 

[polkaaspott]

Originally Posted by smoke ya later

military
fire department
police
public schools
umm
auto industry..
healthcare possibly..

the nazis were a socialist party. how bad can it

libraries
public utilities like highways and stuff like that
public transportation?
the list goes on

 

[primetime]

Originally Posted by ItWasWritten

congrats bro so is everyone who voted for obama

 

[da703trailblaza]

I can't type after quoting but, in theory socialism sounds nice, it even sounds nice to me. There are too many nuances that need to be worked out forsocialism to function properly. My opposition to it is rooted in a dislike of having to depend on ANYBODY but myself, furthermore I also love having optionssomething not guaranteed in a fully socialized system. Also I could never depend on a government bureaucracy to get anything done.


Why oppose capitalism and free markets?

 

[rexanglorum]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

thytkerjobs wrote:

---

da703trailblaza wrote:

---

I swear Rex is one of the smartest/calmest posters here, he always drops solid knowledge.



"Socialism works well until you run out of other people's money..."

Truth.

Oh please.. You must've hated socialism in the first place if you think there is any wisdom behind this quote.. And nothing written in this thread would've made you give socialism half a chance.

Come to Scandinavia and see how "they're running out of other people's money" and live like bums in their welfare societies.


Thanks you to for those who are co-signing to my statement and who regard me as smart and calm. I have been called smart before, I will not turn up my nose ata compliment but I am much prouder of the fact that some of you consider me calm. I am only as smart as my own innate ability lets me be and I appear smarterthan I really am because I am well trained at writing and speaking. To be calm, is something for which I have worked through martial arts, meditation, study ofZazen and through lots of practice practice in playing sports and in this case debating policy. I am naturally pretty emotional and passionate about things butI know that for many things I need to stay even and balanced and never get excited or rattled.

In the discussions of policy and health care in general, being calm, being objective and being willing to examine a wide variety of view points is critical.


To Senor Xtapolapacetl, You are right that the standard of living in Scandinavia is quite good and it precisely because they are not socialist in the classicalsense of the term. While government takes quite bit in taxes and spends quite a bit on its citizen's welfare, there are few price controls and much of thecapital in those societies is held privately and firms operate under a profit and lose system and not through government edicts.

The quote about running out of other people's money was by Margaret Thatcher and refers to classical socialism, the practice of government owning andoperating the means of production. That system was, is and shall forever be disastrous and either bankrupts or pushes those places that try it to the brink andcompels them to change course and privatize. Britain, India, China and countries such as Sweden have averted bankruptcy and embraced privatization.

In fact, Sweden is becoming a beacon of market capitalism when compared to the US. A few months ago, as GM and Chrysler came under government control, thegovernment in Sweden when asked how it might handle Saab's financial troubles said that "the Swedish Government is not in the business of owning carcompanies." The Swedes tried large scale public ownership and moved away from it as well as price controls and extremely high taxes (their corporate taxis actually quite a bit lower than that of the US) and as a result they have more wealth, higher tax revenues, less unemployment and are much better equippedto provide for their neediest citizens than they were a generation or two ago.

Sweden has a market system and that works very well because it combines very good social benefits with a market oriented economy. Sweden is an example of why,while government can do somethings to make life better, that does not mean that everything it does makes its economy stronger and the standard of livinghigher. Rather than vindicate socialism, it recent history shows that socialism, government control of the means of production, does not work.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

There is no such thing as socialism. Socialism and capitalism are intertwined. They are one and the same for every society on earth.
No nation on earth is exclusively capitalist or socialist. In fact it's virtually impossible to be a true capitalist society or a true socialist society.

However, true capitalism is superior to socialism but no nation will ever achieve an exclusively capitalist society so long as human beings are fundamentally human (if that makes any sense

).

There will never be true socialism,or true capitalism; so what is the reasoning behind stating that capitalism is better?

Fundamentally capitalism is superior. Just because achieving exclusive (criminal free) capitalism is virtually unattainable doesn't mean that it isn'ttheoretically superior to socialism. Gangster capitalist are really socialists. They want/get something for nothing.

Theoretically, socialism is pretty bad because it limits human productivity and innovation. Much of human innovation came about because some had to innovate not because they wanted to. Sometimes, knowing that one has somethign tofall back on inhibits movement forward.

Every good/service in society has come about because of someone else's labor/capital. On its face socialism disturbs the natural order. Getting somethingfor nothing is the antithesis as to how the humanity (but really everything) actually functions.

A certain amount of socialism is good in order to live in a harmonious and "just" society but socialism is not somethign to be celebrated.

Also, many make the mistake of equating private charity / good deeds with socialism. They are entirely different.

 

[rexanglorum]

wawaweewa wrote:

---

Fundamentally capitalism is superior. Just because achieving exclusive (criminal free) capitalism is virtually unattainable doesn't mean that it isn't theoretically superior to socialism. Gangster capitalist are really socialists. They want/get something for nothing.

Theoretically, socialism is pretty bad because it limits human productivity and innovation. Much of human innovation came about because some had to innovate not because they wanted to. Sometimes, knowing that one has somethign to fall back on inhibits movement forward.

Every good/service in society has come about because of someone else's labor/capital. On its face socialism disturbs the natural order. Getting something for nothing is the antithesis as to how the humanity (but really everything) actually functions.

A certain amount of socialism is good in order to live in a harmonious and "just" society but socialism is not somethign to be celebrated.

Also, many make the mistake of equating private charity / good deeds with socialism. They are entirely different.

That is some real talk. I said a year ago about the bailouts. You will always have trouble when gains are private but losses are socialized.Virtually everything that has been called a failure of capitalism, especially during the last two years, has really been a series of examples illustrating thefact that socialism for the wealthy is an especially very bad and an extremely costly idea.

Also, what is bolded should be remember by those who assume that businessmen actually want laissez-faire, market capitalism. They want to maximize profitsand/or do so with as little effort as possible. The owners of capital almost always want special favors and help from government in their own industry and/orfor their own firm. They usually justify the special treatment by saying that their industry has certain special features and peculiarities that necessitatespecial favors and protections (BTW, every industry has special and unique circumstances and ask anyone in any industry and those circumstances will alwaysjustify special protection and privileges even though they usually say that they are "for free markets" or "capitalism").

They can also be counted on to dismiss the fact that reality, not abstract economic theory but reality, tells us that standards of living do not increase whenany industry is given protection and privileges, no matter how many special circumstances they have and no matter how different their industry's situationis from every other industry. The only time they are for free markets is when it involves things that they consume and things which they need for theirbusiness or goods which are complements of their own product (Smucker's Jelly has lobbied for decades to get import tariffs on peanuts reduced or abolishedso the price of peanut butter falls and people make more peanut butter and jelly sandwiches).



The fact, that owners of capital are paradoxical almost never in favor of actual free market capitalism for all, should be noted and remembered among all ofthe people who think that a policy is a good policy if it is endorsed by Warren Buffet or T Boone Pickens or Bill Gates or some other Captain of Industry. Inmany cases, great businessmen are, relative to the man in the street, no more knowledge about policy, law, economics, foreign affairs, technology or anythingoutside of their own industry and firm for whom they worked or owned or own. Furthermore, many businessmen turned policy advocates not only may not beespecially knowledgeable but they are using their platform and the assumption on the part Americans, that businessmen are interchangeable with topeconomists/policy wonks and others experts, and they using their influence to shape public opinion in favor policies that would benefit them financially orotherwise. I hope a few of you people reading this will remember that the next time you see some captain of industry making a prediction about the economy oradvocating a particular policy or set of policies.

 

[kal ripped ken]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

thytkerjobs wrote:

---

da703trailblaza wrote:

---

I swear Rex is one of the smartest/calmest posters here, he always drops solid knowledge.



"Socialism works well until you run out of other people's money..."

Truth.

Oh please.. You must've hated socialism in the first place if you think there is any wisdom behind this quote.. And nothing written in this thread would've made you give socialism half a chance.

Come to Scandinavia and see how "they're running out of other people's money" and live like bums in their welfare societies.


Thanks you to for those who are co-signing to my statement and who regard me as smart and calm. I have been called smart before, I will not turn up my nose at a compliment but I am much prouder of the fact that some of you consider me calm. I am only as smart as my own innate ability lets me be and I appear smarter than I really am because I am well trained at writing and speaking. To be calm, is something for which I have worked through martial arts, meditation, study of Zazen and through lots of practice practice in playing sports and in this case debating policy. I am naturally pretty emotional and passionate about things but I know that for many things I need to stay even and balanced and never get excited or rattled.

In the discussions of policy and health care in general, being calm, being objective and being willing to examine a wide variety of view points is critical.


To Senor Xtapolapacetl, You are right that the standard of living in Scandinavia is quite good and it precisely because they are not socialist in the classical sense of the term. While government takes quite bit in taxes and spends quite a bit on its citizen's welfare, there are few price controls and much of the capital in those societies is held privately and firms operate under a profit and lose system and not through government edicts.

The quote about running out of other people's money was by Margaret Thatcher and refers to classical socialism, the practice of government owning and operating the means of production. That system was, is and shall forever be disastrous and either bankrupts or pushes those places that try it to the brink and compels them to change course and privatize. Britain, India, China and countries such as Sweden have averted bankruptcy and embraced privatization.

In fact, Sweden is becoming a beacon of market capitalism when compared to the US. A few months ago, as GM and Chrysler came under government control, the government in Sweden when asked how it might handle Saab's financial troubles said that "the Swedish Government is not in the business of owning car companies." The Swedes tried large scale public ownership and moved away from it as well as price controls and extremely high taxes (their corporate tax is actually quite a bit lower than that of the US) and as a result they have more wealth, higher tax revenues, less unemployment and are much better equipped to provide for their neediest citizens than they were a generation or two ago.

Sweden has a market system and that works very well because it combines very good social benefits with a market oriented economy. Sweden is an example of why, while government can do somethings to make life better, that does not mean that everything it does makes its economy stronger and the standard of living higher. Rather than vindicate socialism, it recent history shows that socialism, government control of the means of production, does not work.





LIES

jk.....good post

 

[da703trailblaza]

Rex, you're welcome. I tend to have knee-jerk reactions online, I need to chill with that

I respect you highly. I thought about giving Thatcher creditfor the quote, but was afraid 90% of the people in this thread wouldn't know who she is. By chance are you familiar with Ronald Heiner? I'm taking amicro course with him this semester. Also if you still haven't picked it up Russ Robert's The Price of Everything was a very pleasant read.

Also you're absolutely right about the likes of Pickens and Buffett. I was laughing my #$* off when Obama had Buffett testify as to why the stimulus wasneeded

when did he become an economic expert? It was obvious he was doing it only for his interest, how else would he recoup his investment in GE andGoldman?

 

[Master Zik]

As hard as they try Republicans can't demonize Socialism or the word Socialist like they did with Commie

Sad most ppl don't know what it really entails....

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

thytkerjobs wrote:

---

da703trailblaza wrote:

---

I swear Rex is one of the smartest/calmest posters here, he always drops solid knowledge.



"Socialism works well until you run out of other people's money..."

Truth.

Oh please.. You must've hated socialism in the first place if you think there is any wisdom behind this quote.. And nothing written in this thread would've made you give socialism half a chance.

Come to Scandinavia and see how "they're running out of other people's money" and live like bums in their welfare societies.


Thanks you to for those who are co-signing to my statement and who regard me as smart and calm. I have been called smart before, I will not turn up my nose at a compliment but I am much prouder of the fact that some of you consider me calm. I am only as smart as my own innate ability lets me be and I appear smarter than I really am because I am well trained at writing and speaking. To be calm, is something for which I have worked through martial arts, meditation, study of Zazen and through lots of practice practice in playing sports and in this case debating policy. I am naturally pretty emotional and passionate about things but I know that for many things I need to stay even and balanced and never get excited or rattled.

In the discussions of policy and health care in general, being calm, being objective and being willing to examine a wide variety of view points is critical.


To Senor Xtapolapacetl, You are right that the standard of living in Scandinavia is quite good and it precisely because they are not socialist in the classical sense of the term. While government takes quite bit in taxes and spends quite a bit on its citizen's welfare, there are few price controls and much of the capital in those societies is held privately and firms operate under a profit and lose system and not through government edicts.

The quote about running out of other people's money was by Margaret Thatcher and refers to classical socialism, the practice of government owning and operating the means of production. That system was, is and shall forever be disastrous and either bankrupts or pushes those places that try it to the brink and compels them to change course and privatize. Britain, India, China and countries such as Sweden have averted bankruptcy and embraced privatization.

In fact, Sweden is becoming a beacon of market capitalism when compared to the US. A few months ago, as GM and Chrysler came under government control, the government in Sweden when asked how it might handle Saab's financial troubles said that "the Swedish Government is not in the business of owning car companies." The Swedes tried large scale public ownership and moved away from it as well as price controls and extremely high taxes (their corporate tax is actually quite a bit lower than that of the US) and as a result they have more wealth, higher tax revenues, less unemployment and are much better equipped to provide for their neediest citizens than they were a generation or two ago.

Sweden has a market system and that works very well because it combines very good social benefits with a market oriented economy. Sweden is an example of why, while government can do somethings to make life better, that does not mean that everything it does makes its economy stronger and the standard of living higher. Rather than vindicate socialism, it recent history shows that socialism, government control of the means of production, does not work.






You're just emphasizing the capitalist aspects of Sweden's system for your own benefit. You and your fellow right-wingers always scream"SOCIALISM!!" whenever someone mentions universal health care or tax increases, but whenever someone mentions how well these two things work inScandinavia, you start pointing out capitalist aspects of these societies. Why not stick to the subject? If you're gonna call Obama a socialist for wantingto introduce universal health care and increase taxes, then when someone mentions how well these things work in Scandinavia, stick to the subject and discussthese things.

You say how it's "socialist" to bail out GM and Chrysler. Personally, I don't give a damn about GM and Chrysler and what happens with them,but these two wouldn't have come under government control in the first place if they hadn't been rotting away under the cancer that was American formfor capitalism under the W. years, though I'm sure you'll disagree with that and write a long essay about again. What really annoys me is how you rightwingers, DESPITE HAVING FRIGGIN GEORGE W. IN POWER FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS, try to spin it and say that all these problems with the economy today are somehow notbecause America was capitalist, but because it wasn't capitalist enough.

 

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

 

[kash55]

Socialism is a pretty fine system. Most of the Capitalist countries could use some of the ideas that Socialism brings to the table.

 

[craftsy21]

edit: screw yuku... just typed up a 500 word response that isn't showing up right... i'm tired, forget it.

 

[verynecessary]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

wawaweewa wrote:

---

Also, what is bolded should be remember by those who assume that businessmen actually want laissez-faire, market capitalism. They want to maximize profits and/or do so with as little effort as possible. The owners of capital almost always want special favors and help from government in their own industry and/or for their own firm. They usually justify the special treatment by saying that their industry has certain special features and peculiarities that necessitate special favors and protections (BTW, every industry has special and unique circumstances and ask anyone in any industry and those circumstances will always justify special protection and privileges even though they usually say that they are "for free markets" or "capitalism").

They can also be counted on to dismiss the fact that reality, not abstract economic theory but reality, tells us that standards of living do not increase when any industry is given protection and privileges, no matter how many special circumstances they have and no matter how different their industry's situation is from every other industry. The only time they are for free markets is when it involves things that they consume and things which they need for their business or goods which are complements of their own product (Smucker's Jelly has lobbied for decades to get import tariffs on peanuts reduced or abolished so the price of peanut butter falls and people make more peanut butter and jelly sandwiches).

nicely pointed out rex. the stranglehold that corporations have on the economy and policy in general is very alarming, yet very few peoplerealize how much influence they have. and for what? to make a buck at society's expense.

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

All this talk of socialism vs capitalism is really ironic to me, since it's basically just turning into a left vs right debate... which again is ironic, since all these things are two sides of the same exact coin.

Until we are able to drop all these labels that only exist for the sake of labeling at this point, we are never going to get anywhere productive in reforming our broken *#! government and economy.

What are the problems in this country, free of any partisan labelling?

Well - you can trace most of them back to the fact that there is too much big government in the lives of citizens - i think most people on both sides of the aisle would agree on this basic fact. They might disagree on which ways the government should stay out of our lives, but the basic idea about the government being far too involved seems a commonly accepted issue.

On top of this - you can look at an economy that attempts to use semi-free market policies to regulate what is becoming a bunch of monopolistic/oligopolistic industries. In turn, these corporations basically run the economy themselves - they determine prices outside of supposed free market, for starters.. They also control a large percentage of the hiring in this country, giving them a large amount of control over the labor force. Most importantly though - is they are so large at this point, they now basically regulate themselves. A policy doesn't suit them? They have the power to get it changed or ignored as necessary.

There's simply no good way to keep checks on such corporations - not to mention you run into the same idea of having to protect them as a society.. the idea of being too big to fail.

The big thing that worries me about where this has us headed is related to something i saw today... let me post and then edit this to add it.

good points. in pushing away from each other, the far left and far right are closer to each other by far than anyone in the middle. corporationshave been getting far too many favors. how in the world are we supposed to keep these giants accountable? sue? usually there isn't much besides a classaction settlement that gets something out in the open, but even them, it's an uphill battle when you fight against their million dollar legal teams. andthat doesn't even scratch the surface of the buffoonery that happens when these same lawyers are appointed to high ranking positions in the government. plus, with the the public as uninformed as ever and the corporate oligarch owned mass media providing ample bias, there's only so much that can be done by"voting with our dollars."

rex, any ideas on how to reign in the corporations in a capitalist system? i think i've already lost hope for capitalism, but i don't think a heavydose of socialism is the answer either.

 

[verynecessary]

my bad double post

 

[rexanglorum]

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

You're just emphasizing the capitalist aspects of Sweden's system for your own benefit. You and your fellow right-wingers always scream "SOCIALISM!!" whenever someone mentions universal health care or tax increases, but whenever someone mentions how well these two things work in Scandinavia, you start pointing out capitalist aspects of these societies. Why not stick to the subject? If you're gonna call Obama a socialist for wanting to introduce universal health care and increase taxes, then when someone mentions how well these things work in Scandinavia, stick to the subject and discuss these things.

You say how it's "socialist" to bail out GM and Chrysler. Personally, I don't give a damn about GM and Chrysler and what happens with them, but these two wouldn't have come under government control in the first place if they hadn't been rotting away under the cancer that was American form for capitalism under the W. years, though I'm sure you'll disagree with that and write a long essay about again. What really annoys me is how you right wingers, DESPITE HAVING FRIGGIN GEORGE W. IN POWER FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS, try to spin it and say that all these problems with the economy today are somehow not because America was capitalist, but because it wasn't capitalist enough.

I my view it is sad that you see a disagreement about policy as some sort of attack on your person and/or your credibility. Second, I am not a "rightwinger." I am a libertarian leaning social liberal, that is hardly the caricature of the hateful, bigoted militia man that you seem you have for me.Third, I only mentioned the specifics of Scandanavia because you brought it up along with that perpetual non sequitur, the claim that because"Socialism" works in Scandanavia and therefore what ever new government intervention into the US economy happens will be an improvement.

The claim about Scandinavia is not true, especially in the context of that quote. Margaret Thatcher's claim about Socialism eventually bankrupting acountry was true and it was in the context of government owning and operating most of the means of production in a country. Lady Thatcher did not say "theproblem with extended maternity leave is that it bankupts the country," she did not say "providing healthcare for the poor causes you to run out ofmoney." She was talking about government ownership and going by that definition of Socialism, the Swedes, Norwegiens and Danes do not have such aneconomic system in their respective countries. There are not "capitalist aspects" to Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, they are Capitalistcountries complete with private ownership, firms that operate based on a profit motive, respect for rule of law and respect for property rights.

On your other point, you are wrong on the facts. Government control and subsidies and other programs laid the groundwork for this current recession. Fannie andFreddie, The Federal Reserve, the tax code, The CRA and the precedent set by the 1997 bailout of the Long Term Capital Management group created conditions inthe housing market and in financial markets and within banks that eventually led to a situation where markets correct, demand cannot keep up with insanely fastincreases in prices, supply is now bloated reative to demand and caused afall in home price. SO much malinvestment had occured due to artifically high realestate prices that that decline in home prices was able to cause a huge drop in assets prices and serious damage to the real economy.

Part of that domino effect was Chrysler a firm that only exists because of a Government bailout thirty years ago and the claim that it was "too big tofail." In addition to Chrylser, there was GM, which was weakened due to many factors, one of which were CAFE fuel economy regulations, which forced themto turn out many vehicles that were unprofitable but were needed to propiciate law makers. Beyond that, the primary caue of GM and Chysler's downfall wasbad management, you get bad management in any economy, capitalism, socialism, communist, feudal. The failure of poorly managed firms is how bad and wastefulmanagers are kept in check.

With that in mind, you made the mistake of counting the fall of a firm as a failure of the market system, that is a feature of the market system. Two of thethree US automakers made expensive products that did not meet the demand of more and more consumers and were it not for the socialist bailouts (bailouts arethe epitome of socialism), two massive inefficiencies would have been finally been purged. Instead, they became, along with several huge banks, expensive andunproductive zomby firms that cost tax payers dearly.

Finally, You make the absurd claim that Georger W. Bush was was some sort of freemarket libertarian. It reminds me of when Mr. Burns sees Homer Simpsons in apink shirt and concluded that he is "some sort of "free thinking anarchists." One of Bush's first acts as president was to place a hugetariff on imported steel into the US; he never tried to end government price fixing for agricultural products; he did not cut, in any substantial way, anycorporate subsidies; he created a very large add on to Medicare in 2003; he continued to subsidzie unaffordable mortages; he gave no bid contracts to firmsoperating in Iraq; he tried to push through a multi billion dollars "stimulus" spending bill in 2002; he had another stimulus proposal that passed in2008 and in that same year he ended it by signing the TARP bill, which even before mutating into a masisve government slush fund, was bad enough as a"temporary rescue" measure. It is very hard to find any legislation that President Bush signed that moved the US economy toward a more marketoriented state of being. The only libertarian act of his presidency were two tax cuts in his first term. The only way he advanced free market capitalism was bygiving a speeches about the importance of free markets as he proceeded to limit free enterprize at every turn.


You can disagree with my world view (although if ou have actually read any posts that I have made in the last few years I am pretty left leaning when it comesto things like government performing transfers of wealth from the more wealthy to the poor and working classes. Items like a negative income tax, a slidingscale based method of giving money to the working poor, with those with the lowest wages receiving the most; expanded unemployment insurance; subsidies forworkers whose skills have or are becoming obsolete; a goverment funded public option for those too sick or two poor to get insurance in any other way. In otherwords a social market system, similar in many ways to countries in Scandinavia).

That is fine, we all have disgreements about policy but your insinuation that people, who disgaree with you must inevitably have some defect is very childish.You act as though people who having different opinions are, at best, uninformed and more likley those who disagree with you are racist, blinded by strictrelgious faith, brain washed by talk radio, paranoid or various other traits that are assigned to "right wingers." Either grow up or do whatPresident Obama advises and get educated and learn that maybe, sometimes, people of competent and sound minds can be right and occasionally, just occasionallyyou could be wrong and not as much in control of the facts as your opponent is.


You are right about one thing though, my reply was pretty long but when someone is trying to undermine my credibility, when someone is trying to lie about whatwhat I believe and who I am, when someone is insinuating insulting falsehoods and when someone is wrong on the facts of something important, I will respond andif it takes a few extra minutes to turn out few extra paragraphs, so be it.

 

[sam206]

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik
Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2

 

[infamousod]

Originally Posted by sam206

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik
Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2




silly commies

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

niketalk has some pretty useless responses these days.

RIP

 

[cue45]

Rex is definitely dropping knowledge ... listen up.

I will only offer a quote by Ludwig Von Mises, who wrote a lot on this topic:

"Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build;it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means ofproduction has created."

Also, please don't confuse capitalism with corporatism, or economic fascism, which is in essence what we have today in the US.

 

[superantigen]

Ideally...this should be the "natural" progression of societies-->

Capitalism ---> Socialism ---> Communism

Read up on it. Those examples of "socialism" and "communism" that we have etched in history, are NOT what socialism and communism areabout. Those historical examples we have, merely highlight corrupt individuals running despotic systems masquerading under the guise of "socialism"and "communism".

Even before this supposed "socialist" was elected into office, do believe that there WERE INNUMERABLE PROBLEMS already in America--proof thatcapitalism is far from supreme and absolute. Capitalism will always be a hazardous and ruinous system in any SOCIETY--sooner or later.

I can say this because I know this--and I know this because everything that is happening right now, as it relates to "capitalism" and"socialism" and "communism", is merely an extrapolation of complexes and dynamics that have occurred, and continue to occur in thebiological world. Don't be fooled into thinking that this type of "knowledge" is esoteric only to the economic and political discoursecommunities.

The fundamental element, the necessary spark, the driving force, in every single one of these systems is MAN. Furthermore, said man will always operate underrules originally prescribed by nature. In other words, Capitalism is system and works best for the individual man. That's the problem though-- A society isNOT about the individual--it's about the group. Ever heard of the maxim, "there's strength in numbers...".

So here you have a system that is geared toward the benefit of the individual (Capitalism) being implemented as the system of governance for the group. Whatyou would naturally expect, of course, as a consequence of human selfishness, is the "strongest" within this group, unfairly benefiting andmarginalizing "profits" for themselves, at the expense of the "weak" (labor force).

Now as previously stated, this is natural in the biological world with the exception of one fact--In the biological world, the strongest are really thestrongest and the weakest are really the weakest. It's just the luck of the draw that you're either blessed with good genes and subsequently grouped inwith the strong, who will get to live on, or you are relegated with the bad genes and unfortunately grouped in with the weak, who will serve as resources forthe strong. As messed up as it sounds, that is as nature intended for her offspring so it something you just accept.

But this is not what's is happening in human societies though. Within our societies, ones "strength" is gauged by how much money you possess andcorrespondingly, ones "weakness" is gauged by how much money you don't have. Now, money, interestingly enough, can be acquired via legal andillegal methods, and through the exploitation of the "weak"; but above all else, the one thing that can be said about money, absolutely, is the factthat it has no qualms about whether its bearer is ingenious and intelligent, or as dumb as a rock; and it certainly doesn't take into consideration whetherthe aforementioned bearer is as hard working as they come, or as indolent as can be. So in the end, what you have, for the most part, in a society where"money talks" over brains and definitely brawn, are the financially privileged and secure, playing gate keeper to both economic and socialpower--regardless of their abilities, or moreso, lack thereof--(the other side of the argument proponents of capitalism never seem to get--the fact that themajority of your CEOs and high ranking politicians are inadequate for their positions and only got where they are, simply because they had money and saidmoney, establishes "connections" out of thing air).

If you're a member of the "ruling class" (which in America, was and continues to be tied to skin color--yeahhhhh I took it there), with somemoney--not "rich" kind of money but "wealthy" kind of money, "strength" kind of money, then Capitalism is a system that works FORYOU. As a matter of fact, the two aforementioned requirements need to be "requisites". As long as you have the "marker" that categorizesyou in with the ruling class, you're good to go, or at the very least, have a leg up on that "weaker other guy". Maybe this is why the majorityof high ranking politicians (regardless of party) and CEOs happen to be members of a certain demographic. If you're a member of a working class--worse yet,a minority group which has historically been victimized (and I use that very broadly) so that you have never had a fair shot at acquiring"money"--because in a Capitalistic society, money talks, as previously mentioned--because the economic and political "game" has been riggedAGAINST you, then Capitalism is certainly not the system you need to under considering under it, you're the "sheep" that the wolves prey on...

A society is supposed to allocate an equal share of resource and opportunities to its inherent members. Capitalism is NOT designed for that purpose. Thebenefits of living in a society are achieved when there is a shift towards socialism and the ideal, communism...

...

 

[superantigen]

Had to run to catch the train so I couldn't say all that I wanted to say. Currently posting from my phone...anyway a thought occurs.

I can't help but find it amusing that people are so distrustful of the government and those politicians who run said government, and rightfully so, when itcomes to testing "socialist" economic policies--which would attempt to even out the playing field-- because they are of the believe that theseindividuals are corrupt--and yet, these corrupt individuals are the very same bunch of individuals who are in alliance with, and were put to power, byCorporate America and big business, at the expense of the "weak", in our capitalistic society...

 

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by infamousod

Originally Posted by sam206

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Socialism isn't bad. But Stalin and all those other murderers who killed many people in the name of socialism definitely gave it a bad name.

stalin was a hero.

without him, youd be living in Germany right now

co-sign with sputnik
Your dumb if it was not for stalingrad the germans would of won ww2

silly commies
yes stalin did a lot of horrible things, but for every great cause, there are always sacrifices.
Democracy is great and sort of works wells in the states, but i think that russia is most successful under a dictatorship.
The people are more productive.

Also, you are ignorant if you believe that Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the USSR.
The USSR lost 20,000,000 men while fighting the war on the home front.

 

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by Sundizzle

niketalk has some pretty useless responses these days.

RIP

how ironic