Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but totalitarianism is by all means an evil as it consistently destroys all that we consider good. That is why I am no revolutionary.

I argue that all of society WILL be punished. If you look at my argument I say that your idea is to murder freedom and to cause all men to consent to having their lives usurped from them. I say that injustice will haunt your system in a degree that is intolerable. If you look at the failures of past socialist systems, then you see what I think of. I think of Stalin, I think of Mao, I think of the bodies piled because of them. Really though, I think that your incentive system is a horrible way to get things done though, and would rather die or murder than to live in such a system, I also think it would be horribly inefficient as you would more likely end up with favoritism and failure, as existed under the USSR.


Except that how do we recognize the levels of labor or the good laborers? If a man that underproduces guilty of the sin and must he now be pushed away? Do productive workers have incentive to do what they can? As well, aren't there even some aspects of this belief in the current system except that we have less incentive to be corrupt and better incentives to reach one's potential?

Except the issue is one of control. The entire socialist idea is entirely one of control, the stability given by it is only that of low quality goods, but given its miscalculations in historical measures it has not shown itself to be a system of producing consistent good. Productivity has been achieved by the market economy, prosperity as well. Markets have brought us more great things than socialism ever has, which has a marred history of death and destruction, and I fear is doomed to continue that same path given its innate problems of finding the common good of dealing with the multitude of human desires in a manner other than imposing the will of a dictator upon them.

Argh, why did I get involved in this At least I remember why I closed my old forum now.
I could explain at length why I think you're wrong about socialism, and about the how our current system is just as flawed... but it's not worth it. From the detail in your argument, it's obvious that you believe strongly in what you say. So, I'll just say "CAPITALIST DOG" once for old times sake then move on

Oh, and here I thought the phrase was "Capitalist Pig." A dog isn't as nasty sounding as a pig...

Apparently, it's either/both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_pig-dog

Maybe what YOU consider good. I'd be fine, as long as I'm the dictator (or in control of it).

999999/1000000 you won't be the dictator(ok, I overestimated in your favor but your chances are zilch). Therefore it is bad. Therefore you would not be likely to want it, and I most certainly wouldn't.

I dunno why you got involved in it. To remember the good ol' days?

Right, yeah, neither of us is likely to budge. Few people ever budge in these kinds of debates as you usually get the strongest believers out there, and they often have their own ideological tendencies, and may also be very educated on their side. It would just go back and forth with us referencing various ideas of different scholars and various economic concepts. Ultimately futile as most of these debates are. Dog? Fine "PINKO COMMIE" (I dunno, I had to think of something)

Good articles on the true nature of Communism note, this article may not be appropriate for all ages(especially not 1 years of age). Read at your discretion.

Touché

Toupee

Why is it that Socialism needs to force people around anyway? Isn't that a flaw? Why the quotation marks?

On the hand we have the free-market system, in which people decide on their own what to buy, sell, where to work, ect... This system has repeated resulted in economic growth when it is introduced. On the other hand we have socialism, which is more centralized (and can be highly centralized). This system, when introduce, produces less economic growth, and even economic stagnation or decline. Why is socialism the superior system?

Oh! But it makes people more equal! Right. First off this is misleading. There are always people that are far more rich then the "worker's" in socialist societies (whether they are totalitarian or not). In fact, it tends to be more difficult to become rich in socialist societies then in capitalist ones so that upper class tend to become more isolated as a class. In free-market societies, studies have repeatedly shown that only a small percentage of the population stays within one class for their entire life. On the contrary, they are mobile and tend to move upward as they acquire wealth through there life.

People in socialist societies tend to be more poor, and less well off then free-market ones. It is not free-market societies that had had most severe famines of the twentieth centuries (they occurred in the Soviet Union, China, India, and Ethiopia, all socialist countries).

It is interesting that you say that it is not lazy people can be given an ultimatum in regards to what they can do. Do you think those people, once given that ultimatum, will truly be committed to what they are doing as if they had a choice in the matter? Do you think they would work as hard? Not surprisingly, this has been put to the test before, and the answer is no.

Also, your solution has been done before but by Communist regimes like the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, ect...With the exception of North Korea (for the most part), each of these countries were forced to abandon there dreams for complete socialism (or communism) using tactics like these (and harsher ones) when they led to disaster. Why repeat the mistakes of the past?

Socialism is, like Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia, is a great mirage. Leaders may, in the belief that in the exploration they will achieve great wonders. They will demand, coerce, and just convince through the force of words from their tongues that this great egalitarian dream will in the end be the benefit of mankind but in the end, they will leave their followers dead in the desert from lack of water.

Haha, that's funny seeing as the USA has the highest poverty rate out of all industrialized nations (we're also the most free-market!). The Socialist countries in Europe have the lowest poverty. Hmmmm.....

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

*

In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.
*

The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
*

Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.
*

Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.
*

The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2
*

Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.
*

Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.
*

Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.
*

Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
*

Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.
*

As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.
*

Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.
*

The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.
*

Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.
*

Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

There are just about no socialist countries in Europe just as Canada isn't a socialist country. They all use some variant of a market economy with differing levels of interventionism, with some countries intervening the economy in very very negative ways such as found in the French labor market. Not only that but doublefeed truly does have a point, poverty in the US isn't absolute poverty as found in the third world so much as it is relative poverty and this is because of the capitalist system. We are by all measures richer than our ancestors. No socialist system has really done as well as capitalism, all we ever find is differing levels of state intervention, but the driving engine of every good economy is the capitalist system. There is a reason why the socialist economies of the past are abandoning their systems for capitalism, and it isn't a hatred of poor people either.

Yeah, Sweden is labour, not socialist in the proper sense. The overwhelming majority of their workforce is unionized, and the scheme really seems to work pretty stanking well. By the way, the welfare state there is something the Lutherans insisted upon. Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

Right, well, I would rather call it welfare-state capitalism than labour. The reason being that labour is a political organization or a type of economic input, and capitalism and socialism are economic systems.