Socialism has been tried numerous times in our history. In every circumstance it causes lack of work ethic and incentive, causing lack of innovation, economic growth, and quality of product. It's generally agreed upon that although Socialism attempts to make everyone economically equal, more people ultimately benefit from regulated Capitalism than Socialism. The former is important. Personally, I do not support totally pure capitalism because that can be just as harmful. Regulation is important.
Socialism's ultimate goal is to make everyone equal economically. In every case, it has never worked, simply because people can never be equal. People always take advantage of the system. For instance, the government always becomes aristocratic and elitist in a Socialism because the government is what controls the wealth. The rest of the people are at a low level while the government has all the wealth and power, because obviously someone has to be in charge somewhere along the line. Socialism allows an aristocratic class to develop which then takes advantage of its power and oppresses the people. Also, people are not content to be equal to someone else who may not work as hard as they do. Human nature itself prevents equality. The only way Socialism would ever work is if everyone thought the same way. And at that point we're talking about 1984-type tactics, conditioning people to believe the exact same thing and have not even an inkling that any alternative exists.
Regulated Capitalism in the long run benefits more people than Socialism. People can control their economic futures, choose to work hard or not work at all and face the consequences associated with that choice. It's always unfortunate that people have to be poor, and by no means do I think we should not be charitable and help them out whenever possible, as well as work to eliminate any discrimination which may be adding to the problem.
Our government and economy were developed as hybrids of all different types of government/economic systems. James Madison himself went around to all different countries observing their governments to find out what works and what doesn't work, and what potential problems our country would have to deal with. He studied all the major governments of civilizations gone by as well. He collected all this information and used it to create the government we have now. One of the most important tenants of our government is the idea that there must be distribution of power within the government. That's why we have branches and levels and checks and balances and all of that. It's the concept that there should never be too much power in one set of hands. That's what causes the violation of people's rights.
Socialism puts WAY too much power into the hands of the government, setting up the temptation for those in power to use it oppressively and wrongly, violating the rights of the individual. And history has shown us that wherever there's a temptation, people jump on it. You cannot base a government meant to secure the basic rights of individuals on the hope that no one will take advantage of that power. You have to prevent the possibility in the first place, which is what the Founding Fathers did through our Constitution and our organization of government.
I don't entirely disagree, but there are a few things I'd like to comment on.
First of all, regulated capitalism or not, it's fucked either way because it has become capitalism without morals. Capitalism should be based on morals. Right now, it has brought us greed and an addiction to things; materialism, while on the other side it screws people and nations over because it is not about the people, it's about the almighty dollar.
This addiction, greeds stands in the way of something fundamental to society, imo: 'socialism'. I don't think socialism should be forced onto anyone, I think it should be in the hearts of people and I think it is... it just gets drowned out from early on.
I'm speaking in broad terms here, but I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say this is a trend. People tell their children from early on they can be anything they want if they work hard enough. They can be number one, just work hard.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but are they teaching their children it's perfectly normal and ok to be number two or even number 65? Do they teach their children it's not about which position you'll have later on in life but whether or not you are happy and a good person?
When I was a child and I saw a homeless person on the street, I felt so bad... I still do. But people walk on, they don't even look. That made a huge impact on me and I always try to give, especially food.
Now, if people instilled more charitable behaviour in their children rather than the obsession with succes, wouldn't socialism become a natural thing.
Now children grow up with a twisted view on reality; you can be succesful if you work hard enough. True, to some extent but rather flawed. I know at least four homeless guys who probably worked harder than Obama and McCain together. Life isn't fair and that is an important lesson. If children grow up thinking this man is where he is because he chose not to work hard... they're less likely to be charitable, if they know it could have to anyone (even to YOU ), they might see the street isn't a very comfortable place to sleep, especially when it's freezing outside.
Secondly, don't tell me you think your government is clean. It's one huge gigantic cesspool. The immoral, greedy corporate world and the power hungry fucks are one. As you said, people always abuse their power. It's not different in the US.
I don't entirely disagree, but there are a few things I'd like to comment on.
First of all, regulated capitalism or not, it's fucked either way because it has become capitalism without morals. Capitalism should be based on morals. Right now, it has brought us greed and an addiction to things; materialism, while on the other side it screws people and nations over because it is not about the people, it's about the almighty dollar.
This addiction, greeds stands in the way of something fundamental to society, imo: 'socialism'. I don't think socialism should be forced onto anyone, I think it should be in the hearts of people and I think it is... it just gets drowned out from early on.
I'm speaking in broad terms here, but I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say this is a trend. People tell their children from early on they can be anything they want if they work hard enough. They can be number one, just work hard.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but are they teaching their children it's perfectly normal and ok to be number two or even number 65? Do they teach their children it's not about which position you'll have later on in life but whether or not you are happy and a good person?
When I was a child and I saw a homeless person on the street, I felt so bad... I still do. But people walk on, they don't even look. That made a huge impact on me and I always try to give, especially food.
Now, if people instilled more charitable behaviour in their children rather than the obsession with succes, wouldn't socialism become a natural thing.
Now children grow up with a twisted view on reality; you can be succesful if you work hard enough. True, to some extent but rather flawed. I know at least four homeless guys who probably worked harder than Obama and McCain together. Life isn't fair and that is an important lesson. If children grow up thinking this man is where he is because he chose not to work hard... they're less likely to be charitable, if they know it could have to anyone (even to YOU ), they might see the street isn't a very comfortable place to sleep, especially when it's freezing outside.
Secondly, don't tell me you think your government is clean. It's one huge gigantic cesspool. The immoral, greedy corporate world and the power hungry fucks are one. As you said, people always abuse their power. It's not different in the US.
I have to go now.
It's not the system that brings on greed and materialism. It's people that are that way. In socialism, there would still be greed and materialism, but it suppresses the ability of those people who may actually be inclined to help out others because they have limited means.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the issue here is that we have been spreading the wealth for a very long time. for example, locally, if your house is assessed at a higher value than your neighbors, you pay more in taxes to receive the same services they do. you do not get your garbage picked up any better, you do not get to drive on special roads, the fire department does not rush to your house any faster, and the police will answer your calls just like they do your neighbors.
I don't want to be hostile. I don't want to be dismal. But I don't want to rot in an apathetic existance either.
the issue here is that we have been spreading the wealth for a very long time. for example, locally, if your house is assessed at a higher value than your neighbors, you pay more in taxes to receive the same services they do. you do not get your garbage picked up any better, you do not get to drive on special roads, the fire department does not rush to your house any faster, and the police will answer your calls just like they do your neighbors.
the issue here is that we have been spreading the wealth for a very long time. for example, locally, if your house is assessed at a higher value than your neighbors, you pay more in taxes to receive the same services they do. you do not get your garbage picked up any better, you do not get to drive on special roads, the fire department does not rush to your house any faster, and the police will answer your calls just like they do your neighbors.
If you hired private a police and fire department to protect you stuff you would have to pay more if with more things to protect. Does an insurance company charge the same to insure a tall white mansion and little shack?
In this thread, socialism is being treated as if it's a single way of organizing an economy. Socialism is an extremely broad term with a huge diversity of meanings. Every current government has elements of socialism, if they didn't everything would be privatized. Even in the US, one of the world's more heavy capitalist nations, we have a mixed economy that is part capitalist and part socialist. As far as more purely socialist theories go, they run the gamut from various brands of authoritarian marxism which feature very centralized governments and economies like in the USSR or China, to various social anarchist models which feature horizontal organizing do away authoritative power structures entirely, like could be found in Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution or now by the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico.
I was just about to post something along those lines, reds.
polaris, the best countries to live in aren't socialist, but rather capitalist with a strong welfare state. Norway and Sweden, which usually rank high, both have very open economies. So the successes are regulated capitalism with strong social programs. A more accurate term would be social democracy.
And there are a gazillion different interpretations of socialism. But including, say, Obama, as a socialist, is an insult both to him and to socialists. He would be a centre-left liberal capitalist. And Europe is largely not socialist, but have strong elements of the above mentioned social democracy. Usually embodied by Labour parties.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
People have to realize that socialism and communism are two completely different forms of government. Under a socialist system you can still have a democracy. Look at some of the European countries and Canada, to a certain extent. Also this new fear of socialism is complete and utter bullshit. The GOP is using this bail out and Obama's liberal stance as a way to great a new boogie man, SOCIALISM. Meanwhile it was a Republican president and Congress that expanded the size and scope of the federal government more than any other administration since FDR.
A central component of socialism is distributing wealth and power amongst people and eliminating that group of people who unfairly have most of the wealth. The method used is a government controlled economy. There is considerable variation into how this is practiced but this is, in fact, the central component.
Applying this to a Obama controlled white house, it is understandable why some people have drawn a parallel. He WILL redistribute the wealth and it is no coincidence that it will be injected into the lower class as well, which has a very large black population, but that's another story. I'm not racist but a proponent of what is fair based on hard work.
... I don't think socialism should be forced onto anyone, I think it should be in the hearts of people and I think it is... it just gets drowned out from early on.
I'm speaking in broad terms here, but I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say this is a trend. People tell their children from early on they can be anything they want if they work hard enough. They can be number one, just work hard.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but are they teaching their children it's perfectly normal and ok to be number two or even number 65? Do they teach their children it's not about which position you'll have later on in life but whether or not you are happy and a good person?
I completely agree.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, then you should probably support the redistribution of some wealth.
Yes, good point, my last remark is much more complex; many people who work hard still make little money, so it is true that American society rewards people based on other factors as well. We probably have to ask, then, to what extent is the government responsible for supporting people with low paying jobs. It's a difficult question, but there has to be some system that provides rewards. I'm sure Obama isn't going to turn this system upside down, but he is in fact shifting the balance. How much is acceptable? We will see.
When I lived in what was then communist Czechoslovakia you had neurosurgeons living next door (in an apartment building) to grocery store clerks, which I think is unfair. I'm speaking strictly from a monetary perspective of course; I'm not talking about the value of a person, just from a professional point of view.
Pretty much
But the best part of it is that 99 percent of those up in arms about this socialist policies are not in that minority.
I guess they want to believe that they will one day be part of the 1%.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
We probably have to ask, then, to what extent is the government responsible for supporting people with low paying jobs. It's a difficult question...
What I see is that this is a flawed question that slants what we 'see', and therefore any inquiry starting from this postion will reap a flawed outcome based on an illusory perspective.
A government doesn't/can't support anyone. Also, there is a difference between redistribution of wealth and with supporting someone - it's in the way one looks at the situation.
Keep in mind that I'm not at all for implementing a socialist system. I'm all about looking honestly at situations, without distorting bias, in order to accurately assess things so as to find ways healthy ways to create peace and to reflect equality and fairness within existing natural law.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Obama believes in a progressive income tax; I don't really see him endeavouring to bring the nation back to the 'welfare state.' But do his choices have socialistic aspects? Yes, of course they do, because he is left of the dial, and socialism is the extreme left. So although it may be technically true to say of him that his policies are socialistic in some sense, it's as unfair to say that is it is to call John McCain a fascist; it's taking the relative leftist or rightist notions of their proposals and describing them with the most extreme labels possible. It gets the conversation nowhere.
Applying this to a Obama controlled white house, it is understandable why some people have drawn a parallel. He WILL redistribute the wealth and it is no coincidence that it will be injected into the lower class as well, which has a very large black population, but that's another story. I'm not racist but a proponent of what is fair based on hard work.
Applying that means essentially that taxation = socialism and hence every nation in the world at any and all times have been socialist. That devoids the concept of socialism of any meaning whatsoever. Unless McCain proposes to abolish all taxes, he's a socialist too, and so on. There is a very large difference between left-leaning liberals and soviet-style socialists. The "worst" socialists among the democrats are at best social democratic light by any international comparison.
Point is, if Obama is a socialist, then almost everyone are socialist. Including every republican president in recent times.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"spread the wealth" I cant wait to give some of my money away.If you dont think that the masiah is not going to raise taxes on the middle class your'e ignorant.
"spread the wealth" I cant wait to give some of my money away.If you dont think that the masiah is not going to raise taxes on the middle class your'e ignorant.
according to Obama he wont' raise taxes on the middle class. better than republican policies of relying on inflation to keep wages stagnant, moving wealth to the TOP.
Comments
I don't entirely disagree, but there are a few things I'd like to comment on.
First of all, regulated capitalism or not, it's fucked either way because it has become capitalism without morals. Capitalism should be based on morals. Right now, it has brought us greed and an addiction to things; materialism, while on the other side it screws people and nations over because it is not about the people, it's about the almighty dollar.
This addiction, greeds stands in the way of something fundamental to society, imo: 'socialism'. I don't think socialism should be forced onto anyone, I think it should be in the hearts of people and I think it is... it just gets drowned out from early on.
I'm speaking in broad terms here, but I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say this is a trend. People tell their children from early on they can be anything they want if they work hard enough. They can be number one, just work hard.
I'm not saying this is wrong, but are they teaching their children it's perfectly normal and ok to be number two or even number 65? Do they teach their children it's not about which position you'll have later on in life but whether or not you are happy and a good person?
When I was a child and I saw a homeless person on the street, I felt so bad... I still do. But people walk on, they don't even look. That made a huge impact on me and I always try to give, especially food.
Now, if people instilled more charitable behaviour in their children rather than the obsession with succes, wouldn't socialism become a natural thing.
Now children grow up with a twisted view on reality; you can be succesful if you work hard enough. True, to some extent but rather flawed. I know at least four homeless guys who probably worked harder than Obama and McCain together. Life isn't fair and that is an important lesson. If children grow up thinking this man is where he is because he chose not to work hard... they're less likely to be charitable, if they know it could have to anyone (even to YOU
Secondly, don't tell me you think your government is clean. It's one huge gigantic cesspool. The immoral, greedy corporate world and the power hungry fucks are one. As you said, people always abuse their power. It's not different in the US.
I have to go now.
naděje umírá poslední
It's not the system that brings on greed and materialism. It's people that are that way. In socialism, there would still be greed and materialism, but it suppresses the ability of those people who may actually be inclined to help out others because they have limited means.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
theoretically
If you hired private a police and fire department to protect you stuff you would have to pay more if with more things to protect. Does an insurance company charge the same to insure a tall white mansion and little shack?
I uploaded this for another thread, but didn't get around to it.
You might like it.
Why JFK Was Murdered
If I opened it now would you not understand?
polaris, the best countries to live in aren't socialist, but rather capitalist with a strong welfare state. Norway and Sweden, which usually rank high, both have very open economies. So the successes are regulated capitalism with strong social programs. A more accurate term would be social democracy.
And there are a gazillion different interpretations of socialism. But including, say, Obama, as a socialist, is an insult both to him and to socialists. He would be a centre-left liberal capitalist. And Europe is largely not socialist, but have strong elements of the above mentioned social democracy. Usually embodied by Labour parties.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
A central component of socialism is distributing wealth and power amongst people and eliminating that group of people who unfairly have most of the wealth. The method used is a government controlled economy. There is considerable variation into how this is practiced but this is, in fact, the central component.
Applying this to a Obama controlled white house, it is understandable why some people have drawn a parallel. He WILL redistribute the wealth and it is no coincidence that it will be injected into the lower class as well, which has a very large black population, but that's another story. I'm not racist but a proponent of what is fair based on hard work.
98-Camden
03-Camden
06-Prague, Berlin, Vienna, Zagreb
07-Katowice
08-NYC I/II, Hartford, Mansfield I/II
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, then you should probably support the redistribution of some wealth.
naděje umírá poslední
Yes, good point, my last remark is much more complex; many people who work hard still make little money, so it is true that American society rewards people based on other factors as well. We probably have to ask, then, to what extent is the government responsible for supporting people with low paying jobs. It's a difficult question, but there has to be some system that provides rewards. I'm sure Obama isn't going to turn this system upside down, but he is in fact shifting the balance. How much is acceptable? We will see.
When I lived in what was then communist Czechoslovakia you had neurosurgeons living next door (in an apartment building) to grocery store clerks, which I think is unfair. I'm speaking strictly from a monetary perspective of course; I'm not talking about the value of a person, just from a professional point of view.
98-Camden
03-Camden
06-Prague, Berlin, Vienna, Zagreb
07-Katowice
08-NYC I/II, Hartford, Mansfield I/II
I guess they want to believe that they will one day be part of the 1%.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
A government doesn't/can't support anyone. Also, there is a difference between redistribution of wealth and with supporting someone - it's in the way one looks at the situation.
Keep in mind that I'm not at all for implementing a socialist system. I'm all about looking honestly at situations, without distorting bias, in order to accurately assess things so as to find ways healthy ways to create peace and to reflect equality and fairness within existing natural law.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Point is, if Obama is a socialist, then almost everyone are socialist. Including every republican president in recent times.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965