Socialism is defined as a dictatorial form of government where the people own nothing and are forced to obey the corrupt leaders. Socialism only ever comes about through brainwashing done by people who are too lazy to do their own work. The goals of socialists are inevitably to destroy the prosperity of society and make everyone besides themselves as miserable as possible, thereby attaining the status of “happiest people on earth”. Socialism is bad because people are lazy, and they want your pay check. The government will garnish your wages in order to give it to a lazy crack addict. Basically in a socialist society you can expect propaganda, thievery, tyranny, and phony made up holidays where you worship Za-foo-rer!
What’s wrong with this assessment of socialism?
Are socialist governments inevitably corrupt?
Do socialists “brainwash”?
What are the goals of socialists?
Does socialism entail letting the government “own” all the wealth?
Who “owns” the government?
Do socialists believe in taking money away from one person and giving it to people who do not work?
As a socialist, I believe in fair compensation, so lazy people would only be given money if they worked, but the difference is they would be offered a fair job with a fair wage.
Are socialists lazy people?
Does socialism inevitably lead to tyrannical regimes which commit heinous acts of murder and genocide at the hands of ruthless dictators?
I’ve been told that if i like socialism so much i should just move to Cuba, but they still have a trade embargo imposed on them by the U.S, which just might be why their economy is always flat broke.
What is socialism?
Is it an attempt to create a society where the government organizes productive jobs for fair wages? or is it an attempt to control the population as slaves for a corrupt elite?
What is communism for that matter, and how does it differ from socialism? How do their goals differ?
Why would someone want to be a socialist? Are they perhaps sympathetic to people in oppressive situations? or perhaps do they want to create oppressive situations?
I used to be a big fan of line by line responses, but when it becomes so long i like to reply all at once. Not that your post is poorly communicated, on the contrary i think it is in a very appropriate and easily readable form, concerning the amount of questions i asked.
Where to begin
Firstly i would like to know what is wrong with my assessment of socialism, even if it is something little.
As a sworn in leader, usually the leader will claim to have the countries best interest at heart, and will act fairly, and will obey all laws. Any deviation from these tenants can be considered corruption. Do you think socialist governments are inevitably corrupt?
Who “owns” the government is a question we should go back to. In theory, if a socialist government can be not corrupt, who owns the government?
Why do you think a socialist would do away with the monetary system? They might replace it, but why do away with it altogether? to what end?
Suppose the ideal socialist leader, then would socialism inevitably lead to a tyrannical regime which commits heinous acts of murder and genocide?
What exactly is individual independence and freedom?
Is it the freedom to farm your own land? go where you want and do what you want to do?
Socialists are opposed to this freedom?
cooperation probably is a necessary facet of socialism, but does this mean that a socialist would want to take away individual independance (as of yet undefined), and freedom?
Why?
If socialism is a mentality, does every socialist have the same mentality? Is a socialist mentality necessarily opposed to “independence”?
In my opinion, if independence was available to most of the population, we would not need socialism. Are you independent?
One thing that i know is that cities need organization, or else they will be crazy places and wont last long. If socialism is forced cooperation then capitalism is a forced roll of the dice.
Because odds of finding freedom (which requires money) and independence (which requires you have enough capitol to survive for the rest of your life) is the American dream, it is the apple which all us monkeys compete over…
Freedom is for the alphas, for the rest, not so much freedom.
You mentioned that communism is a more temporary form of government, and is less potent than socialism, but i think you have a few misconceptions.
Classical communism is nothing short of absolute socialism, where a nation takes control of everything within its borders, in some cases, people included, and directs the economy in a socialist manner. The idea is that efficient direction can produce more wealth than competing direction, and as a result everyone would be better off (even if the mega rich lose their money, on average more people benefit).
Socialism however is actually a more temporary form of government. Basically a socialist agenda seeks to lay the foundation for economic expansion and growth which will create prosperity in the future, communism strives for this as well but socialism is actually the less extreme. Socialism usually exists within capitalist societies, which creates obvious problems of fairness in the distribution, and potential abuse because of competitive forces. Overall effectiveness suffers because without specific intent and organization any money thrown into a “socialist” practice like welfare will just be leaked and lost through thousand and one holes. Socialism is about investing and producing wealth, but in America it is clearly used as a charity voucher. 2-4% of the population 90 % of the taxes, so who really cares any way right?
Independence is one thing, but what about when there exists external threats which present an immediate threat, and not only do they need more taxes for the war effort, but they need you to enlist, sometimes through conscription, in order to help the greater good.
Yep , a capitalist army is socialism at its finest, and bunch of mental cooperators fighting for Cindy back home, who will leave him when he gets back because he was traumatized, then his bills will mount, and he will get evicted and join the millions of homeless veterans, which actually make up 70% of the homeless population.
That man fought for the right to sit on a public curb, and the right to do so varies from place to place.
Sometimes we’re all in it together, sometimes we’re all in it for ourselves, and the fat cats are still getting fatter. (sorry, bit of a rant) where were we?
What kind of person enjoys having their lives dictated to them? sort of like in a primitive monkey group where the patriarch or matriarch or alpha will force everyone else into obedience?
And then i suppose to decide leadership a socialist will challenge the alpha socialist to a grunting match, perhaps with aggressive gum flapping, or if things get rough a brutal attack resulting in the consumption of the brains of the now dead leader, to be shared by all for meat, in a fair and democratic manner?
Is socialism necessarily connected with dictation?
I’m a socialist, and i spout socialist rhetoric which usually pertains to the fact that there are people living in poverty, given few opportunities which usually involve breaking the law, which actually allows privatized prisons to get paid up to 70k a year per prisoner, or the opportunities involve working for low pay with enough to enter an old folks home if you’re lucky.
I feel they are oppressed, and deserve a fair chance. Don’t you?
I apologize for my time between responses wonderer my occupation prevents succinct counters!
I said there was little wrong with it because I could not find anything wrong with it by myself! Another may find something wrong with it.
I think all governments eventually become corrupt given enough time. Life changes and constantly improves itself.
When I think of socialist governments I think of the american phrase: by the people, for the people! I don’t know who owns it though.
Allow me to answer your three questions together here. I believe a socialist society would do away with money and capital because those modes of wealth only exist to separate societies into divisible classes. When I think of socialism I do not think of divisions. I think of a whole social unit instead without any distinctions between people. Everybody is equal!
I reiterate what I said earlier - all governments become tyrannical given enough time. Life evolves!
I believe these concepts depend on the contexts in which you use them. A person is independent and free, from what, I do not know.
I do not understand your question. What is the freedom to farm your own land?
I think that is what people usually think of when it comes to freedom!
Again I think it depends on the context. Socialists will impose on individual freedom where it conflicts with the society.
I could not say without knowing the context.
I need to know the context in order to speak about individuality, independence, society, and freedom because these terms are senseless without context.
I think they have the same mentality in terms of the common social normalcy.
I believe the socialist mentality promotes “independence” when it favorably serves the particular society.
I am generally independent but I am not specifically independent. I know how to get food so yes I am independent. I go to the supermarket because it is an easy way to obtain food so no I am also dependent. Again it depends on the context.
Does finding freedom require money? If yes then I did not know that before now!
Does having independence require capital? If yes then I also did not know that before now!
Is that how the American dream is defined? I was never sure about its definition before whenever I heard the expression.
I do not believe socialism is about investing and producing wealth because “wealth” is an abstract concept. Different societies produce different things.
I suppose we are wherever you want us to be!
Babies enjoy it I think.
I did not necessarily mean that by whatever implications I might have made erringly.
It does seem like all societies share common characteristics in terms of hierarchies. I could not say about that in great detail though. I am ignorant.
I do not see how it is.
I feel that a victim mentality is to blame and everybody gets a fair chance in life to do whatever they want.
giving grace here, but would you say a capitalist government like in America is more easily corrupted than say an ideal socialist government?
You could say that competition will ensure that any corruption will raise alarms, but you could also say that competition will provide a greater incentive to be corrupt; professional thieves.
the people are ideally like shareholders in the state, where everyone has an equal share. In a democratic society people vote on how they want things run. There are many variations of this description but that’s the gist of it. In such a society the government cannot be said to “own” anything, rather the government is a steward at best, who takes orders from a democratic public.
socialism isn’t about just making blind decisions in the name of equality. To try and remove distinctions doesn’t do anything about equality, and equality is only desired when there are barriers between classes.
what you say seems to be contradictory. You say everything withers eventually, and at the same time say life evolves. It’s a nice emotionally reassuring metaphor but i don’t know how that applies to the situation.
If the withering of life is a government becoming corrupt, is evolution a progression into corruption, or is it a non corrupt replacement that will arise in its place?
This “all governments” tangent isn’t really applicable to our discussion, so clarify but don;t feel the need to stress this point
in a socialist society what freedoms do you think are infringed on?
the right to be independant by working and surviving off your own land…
you said socialism removes independence, so i was just guessing at what you mean
So there is limited freedom because you cannot go anywhere you want and you cannot do whatever you want to do. there are laws preventing certain actions, private property and borders, and the cost of transportation.
so will a capitalist society.
con artists conflict with society, thus we make laws against them. murderers, thieves, monopolies are all “freedoms” removed by capitalist governments.
what is the common social normalcy?
what do you mean? when it is used as an instrument to serve a corrupt elite?
can you survive on zero monetary income or property? even if you are poaching on government land?
well freedom is limited by money, and then again by the laws of physics.
well you cannot be independent if you aren’t free, and you cannot be free unless you are somewhere you are allowed to be, so basically you have to either have capitol, or access to capitol, and then again the nature of your independence depends on what you have access to
I think that brushing what i have said off as nothing more than a victim mentality is incredibly short sighted.
Here’s a psychological tid bit i picked up somewhere. Think of one of your biggest failures, or most recent.
think about why you failed…
Chances are you have reasons, external reasons. Perhaps it was a stressful time in your life, or you were tired that day, or you were lied to, or you were shocked, or the circumstances were just not favorable…
When we judge our own actions in terms of a failure, we always blame it on anything but ourselves; we have reasons. But when we judge the failures of another person, we tend to blame the person for their failure, and not the circumstances they are in.
What if you were born in a ghetto with your single mother. What if you went to an extremely sub par school and never really learned to read, let’s say you couldn’t get a job due to the color of your skin, where you live, or just plain lack of opportunity in your area, yet you cannot move because your mom cannot get a good enough job either, perhaps due to a drug history. Then let’s say you get into drugs yourself because you’re surrounded by dealers and addicts every day of your life. You either deal or become an addict, and then one day the police catch you, hate you, and send you to state prison. So now you’re sitting in prison, illiterate, and have absolutely nothing to look forward to when you get out of jail except bigger and better crimes.
Do you call such a life “a fair chance to do whatever they want”?. are you kidding?
Does a privileged private school rich kid who is given investments and never has to even attempt hard work in their lives have the same chances as the kid from the ghetto?
This is a pleasant surprise to find such an engaging person to converse with here!
I believe all governments are equally corruptible so it is not a matter of degree. It is a matter of who finds the weaknesses.
The young replace the old and the cycle of life continues! The same can be said for governments.
I am not sure what kind of corruption will take the place of an old government except for the corruption of a new government. And by all governments I meant whatever it means to be defined as a government in the first place.
In a socialist society only collective freedoms can be infringed upon because there are no individuals inside a socialist society.
Your question is this then? - “Is it the right to be independent by working and surviving and farming off your own land?” If that is your question then my answer is that it can be a case of freedom and independence. It depends on the context of course.
Common social normalcy is what common people inside of a particular society determine to be considered normal. Wearing clothes is a good example.
I mean that a socialist will use the word independence only when it is favorable to the society he or she is attached to.
I could not say about that. I imagine any words could serve to be used by a corrupt elite.
There was a time where humans lived before monetary income or property so I think it is still feasible in some sense of meaning.
Again I believe that depends on the context.
I did not know that before you told me just now. This means that only before money was invented by humans that we were once free.
Again I did not know that before you told me right here. This means that only before the laws of physics were invented by humans that we were free. Maybe I do not understand you well enough. Does this mean the more humans invent things the less freedom we have?
My american friends tell me the american dream is the pursuit of happiness and well being. I believe some people find this kind of happiness and eat the carrot.
In that situation I would say the socialistic society is producing things and investing its money. Many nations do this in fact!
I apologize but I do not remember saying socialism is not about investing or producing. Sometimes I get confused and forgetful in my old age. Did I say that somewhere?
They surely do!
I apologize again but is this a question you are asking or are you telling me a statement?
I believe socialism is about being social and investing and producing are after that fact, and yes “wealth” is an abstract word to me. I am sorry if that confuses you.
No I am sorry. Will you please point me to the way?
I cannot say if socialists like or prefer to be dictated. All I know is that babies enjoy it. Who are socialists dictated by wonderer? I do not know who could be dictating them because I do not know who is control of the socialist government other than the collective society.
I call a life “a fair chance to do whatever they want” when that person in question takes it upon him or herself to do whatever it is they want in life.
I do love to kid around but I am just being civil and conversing seriously with you here.
I believe that depends on what you mean by chances.
socialism and communism are both collectivist economic/political systems; that is, they elevate the group as a whole, the ‘collective’ to the highest value, over and at the expense of the individual’s value and rights.
the typical understanding is that socialism is an economic system of State control over economic interactions/exchanges and market systems, whereas communism is a “more evolved” or expanded version of socialism, which is not just economic control but controls over political/social/individual actions as well. both systems establish State control and ownership of land/wealth/capital as higher and better than individual or private control or ownership, but only communism MANDATES these things.
i also found a pretty decent quote as to this distinction:
“Socialism and communism are both economic systems (the production, distribution, and use of wealth) that require that goods be owned in common, instead of privately. The difference between the two systems is in the fact that socialism covers a wide range of political systems, including communism, whereas communism is a strict interpretation of socialism. While socialism advocates communal ownership of industry, it does so in two ways: either in the form of state ownership or else in the form of ownership by the workers themselves. Communism, on the other hand, allows for only one form of the communal endeavor: state ownership through a small group of political elite. Communism also goes one step further than socialism in that the Communist state not only controls the economy, but all areas of society” -enotes.com history section
there seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between socialism and communism. i think its best to remember here that both are systems of State economic control and planning authority, whereas communism also extends this control into other non-economic areas of life. because of the nature of state authority and the necessity for enormous bureaucratic systems of control and administration, both systems tend toward overall statist expressions.
certainly for many reasons, all of which are bad. some people like to feel that socialism is “fair” or “equal”; some people feel so entrenched with pity for the poor or disenfranchized in society that they see socialism as the only way to make it “right” for these elements; some people embrace socialism as a reaction against capitalism; some people are conditioned via education and media to believe that socialism is “liberating” and “revolutionary/progressive”, when in fact socialism, being a higher form of statism represents LESS freedom and liberation for the people; some people are just confused and have not thought about the issues well enough to understand what socialism really is…
all the reasons for wanting to be a socialist are bad, because they represent flawed thinking. either a person is weak and wants something for nothing (redistribution), or they desire a “mommy and daddy” government to take care of them (they are childish and immature), or they are just ignorant of the true totalitarian and oppressive nature of all statist regimes.
inherently, the true nature of socialism as the replacement of individual property rights with state property rights is the crutial distinction which leads all socialist and communist societies to more and more oppression and tyranny of their peoples. there have NEVER been ANY exceptions to this rule throughout history-- it is in the nature of these systems of state control and power to naturally harm and oppress their peoples.
the irony, of course, is that most young people who are liberal and want a progressive world of freedom from government oppression and power end up fighting for socialist ideals, never realizing that the only system which is actually liberating is the only system that PROTECTS them from government and gives them the freedom to do and own whatever they want-- the opposite of social/state economic controls-- the specific FORBIDING of social/state economic controls-- capitalism.
well sure there are individuals. that’s like saying there are no soccer players on a soccer team.
The idea that socialism is opposed to choice, uniqueness, individualism, or freedom is just a vague worry with no solid basis in logic. Socialism doesn’t necessarily infringe on anything.
what abut nudist colonies? their idea of noramal is completely different and frankly very arbitrary.
what social normalicies are implied within socialism
are you saying that socialist are narrow minded people with “attatchments” to their versions of society?
Could i not generalize and make the same statement about capitalism?
Socialists aren’t strict “favorable to society” moralists. The right to smoke marijuana would not be economically beneficial to society, considering the amount of laziness it would induce, but a socialist society isn’t necessarily opposed to smoking marijuana. It isn’t necessarily opposed to living on your own off the land, nor necessarily opposed to doing what you want with your own property.
the land is no longer fertile enough to support the entire population. Even if you were alone surviving in a north American climate would be difficult, you would need to make seasonal preparations.
think of money as being equivalent to property, influence, and power. you need power to do what you want, and if you define freedom as the ability to do what you want then your freedom is limited by your power
it means that our freedom is limited by our position in life. (i.e the time we have to live, the resources we have available, and the options open to us)
All americans eat the carrot, otherwise they would starve. What happens is a new bigger better carrot is put on the string. American citizens think that buying an endless stream of products will make them happy but they are addicted consumers. The pursuit of happiness exists, but many American citizens have a snowballs chance in hell to actually “catch” happiness.
The American dream usually involves being rich…
right… the core designs of most socialist agendas are to create a foundation for future economic growth (investing).
you said it because society doesn;t necessarily produce “wealth” which is still a very odd and impertinent objection.
what confuses me is "i do not believe socialism is about producing and investing because “wealth” is an abstract concept.
as i understand it your objection to my assertion that socialism concerns itself with investing and producing wealth was that there could be a socialist society which does not produce “wealth” (as i used the term). you said societies produce different things.
The fact remains that no matter what gets produces, a socialist society would still invest in this production, and since wealth is such an abstract term, we can consider any kind of commodity or product that gets produced a form of wealth, which renders your objection null and void.
well when the population of america votes in a president, you could say that to the people who did not vote for the president elect are being “dictated to” by the majority. I’m not sure if it was you but if you want to compare democracy to mob rule or dictation then you live in a complete dictatorship…
Democracy controls an ideal socialist democracy… the people dictate to the people… through voting…
so to be free all you have to do is “takes it upon him or herself to do whatever it is they want in life.?”
What if you cannot because your in debt? What if you cannot get whatever it is tehy want in life because of economic barriers?
[/quote]
chances at “taking it upon themselves to get what they want out of life” or to “catch happiness”.
control over individual action? to some extent i can see what you mean, but this is not a necessity. What prohibition laws exist vary from society to society.
i always considered communism to be a fully socialist state, but i suppose you cannot argue with strict interpretations.
Still good to not that control in “all areas of society” is very much a blanket statement, and surely there are variations in communism.
by statist do you mean something like “the greater good”?
II always thought of communism not as extending into social control unrelated to the economy, but rather to be full control of social activities related to the economy.
You’ll forgive me i hope for chuckling a bit.
As a socialist i think that society could do with an equalization of freedom. Something i have long observed in capitalism is that the liberty of one person often comes directly at the expense of another.
You alluded to “what socialism really is”, and i might redirect you to my original post, the first part, which was made in utter sarcasm.
Wanting “fairness” or “equality” sounds like a good desire, but why do socialists want these things? personally i want them to increase happiness. I think that the burdens vs benefits of our society are unevenly distributed, mostly due to corruption but impart due to the structure of society.
“making things right” for the oppressed poor is a reason to act, and a goal, but not the end goal. “making things better for everyone” is the attraction.
You probably think I’m just caught up in popular belief, maybe deluded by the left wing liberal and feminist media, but i don’t think so.
Most people are raging against liberals and socialists right now because they look at Obama and call him a home wrecking socialist, saying that his spending is typical communist agenda, which is going to ruin things.
Let me tell you that the mainstream media on both sides has it’s head to far up its own ass to know the different between an economist and Joe the plumber or Joe six-pack. If you think Obama is a socialist for cutting taxes then you are off your rocker. Bushes bailout was socialism, but not in a good way. Instead of investing the money, we basically bought a bunch of debt and bad assets.
Socialism is nowhere near the u.s… Welfare is not socialism as it currently exists within capitalism. The last decent socialists i know of that existed in the U.S were the black panthers.
Well after industry infiltrates a capitalist government and forms a tyrannical world leader using its army like toy soldiers to support its economic dominance while milking the living shit out of the middle and lower classes.
Watch the class divide grow, eventually you’ll have that same sense of entitlement that many socialists have
considering that the u.s has been fighting socialists for the better part of a century, and the amount of propaganda produced, and the color history of the u.s destroying governments and economies with embargoes and espionage, i don;t expect there is any beacon of hope for socialists. Still though there’s a first time for everything,
What would the founding fathers do?
We cannot rely on decadent laws. We are a warrior state and we depend on the army to survive.
Freedom is a nice thing to have until the government snatches it out from under your nose and blames communists or terrorists. Because this freedom and greed leads people to exercise their will to act in various corrupt ways. Which is why the nature of free markets are inevitable inefficient, and why government jobs are so lucrative, and why people profiteer.
I would be a conservative except there is nothing left worth conserving. blow the dust of the constitution perhaps, but we’re already too far gone… Revolution is quickly becoming more and more realistic.
Soccer players are not individuals when they are tied down by their soccer team. They are identified as soccer players because they are part of the team. If they were individuals then they would no longer be part of the team. They might be fired and become a baseball player for example.
Nudist colonies consider nudity normal.
Yes I do believe I am saying that. Narrow minded people have attachments.
You can generalize and make statements about anything!
You mean to say the land on Earth is not supporting its entire population right now?
I apologize but I am incapable of thinking how or why money is equivalent to property, influence and power. I am blind about this connection.
Mr wonderer would you mind to please answer my question? So far your answer is the more humans invent things the less freedom we have.
Being rich is not the american dream that I have been taught to know by my american freinds. Are you an american citizen Mr wonderer?
Forgive me to ask but what are most socialist agendas can you provide me several examples since you know them all?
I said that societies do not necessarily produce wealth but that is not to say that societies do not invest or produce. I believe you are misinterpreting me.
I believe I said society is not about producing and investing things. I believe I also said wealth is an abstract concept. These two sentences do not necessarily apply to each other and can be read and interpreted individually. You do not agree that “wealth” is an abstract concept so that is where I see you and I are confused.
I did not object to your assertion that socialism concerns itself with investing and producing wealth. I recall saying wealth was and is not a necessary part of a society.
That is not true as I can recall saying different societies produce different things. I will reread my earlier statements to see if they are logically consistent.
I did not know that all societies necessarily produced wealth until you just asserted this argument to me. If a society of farmers produces diseased food that kills off the society completely due to starvation then did the society of farmers produce wealth? Allow me to rephrase my question a second time. Is diseased food considered a wealth of food?
Yes that is true as I far as I can determine.
It may be best for you to get yourself out of debt then.
It may be best for you to step over those economic barriers or knock them down or go around them or under them. If you cannot do so then I imagine it is nobody’s fault but your own.
If that is the case then everybody has equal opportunity to be free at any time.
We wouldn’t call it stuck if people could get out of poverty where they are “stuck”.
We wouldn’t call it a barrier if you could step over it…
This could be nobody’s fault but peoples own, or it could not be the fault of the people whatsoever. In any case, answers like “maybe they should get out of poverty” are foolish and obtuse.
Barriers are only made to be broken Mr wonderer. “The Chinese word for crisis is a compound of ‘danger’ and ‘opportunity’.” It is a fine shame not everybody sees obstacles this way. Are socialists the types of people that will place the blame on another rather than him or herself?
The thing is, a crisis is where you are in danger of loosing something, even if it is an opportunity.
In a situation of economic slavery (living and working in constant debt), there is nothing to be gained or lost. It is not a crisis for people trapped in unfortunate circumstances, it is a reality.
Breaking down possibilities for advancement by saying “danger and opportunity” is great if you are trying to forget about circumstance. The opportunity is making money as a stripper or drug dealer and the danger is prison and death. So simple…
The opportunity is getting an education and using it to get out of a ghetto, but the danger is resorting to crime or drugs on the way. there is also a danger of only having access to a poor school, where a good education is highly unlikely.
But i guess if they’re really special they will make it out o.k.
It will be like the gauntlet, real natural selection like… Only the strong will survive…
Meanwhile stay the hell away from our kids, praise the lord
wonderer, you do have a good understanding of what socialism is, and how communism is a more “advanced” or complete version of socialism (state control extented to non-economic sectors).
you asked what “statist” means, if it means equal or fair: it does not mean these things. any government which has large State power is statist. it includes all monarchies, theocratic dictatorships, totalitarian fascists, military nationalist regimes, soviet russia, communist china, communist cuba, etc. ‘statist’ just means a large and overtly powerful or unchecked government structure.
it seems to me that when you argue for socialism, you tend to frame your arguments for socialism as anti-capitalism. this is ok, however you do seem to usually be attacking America, rather than capitalism. its important to remember that America is NOT capitalist anymore. its true that America is perhaps the most capitalist of all nations, but this doesnt make it capitalist per se. America is riddled with socialist policies and practices, too numerous to ever count or know, and when you attack America or American structures or systems, you are not really attacking capitalism, you are attacking a capitalist-socialist hybrid, which is heavier on the socialism end.
the American situation is very complex and intricate, and in order to understand it one needs to compare its present mode to its history, as well as compare current structures to both ‘pure’ capitalism and ‘pure’ socialism (both in theory). this, however, isnt the focus of this discussion.
when i bring up American examples as favorable demonstrations of capitalist principles, i am zooming in on what is left of legitimate capitalist ideas in the county. i am also referring to historical precedent and past examples in America’s history. we can either compare capitalist-tendencies of modern America to socialist-tendencies of modern America, or we can compare either of these to American history, or we can compare ‘pure’ theoretical socialism with ‘pure’ theoretical capitalism… but to confuse these things with each other tends to cloud the issues.
that aside… in light of the fact that America is a mixed hybrid between opposing systems, i can understand your refusal to accept America as a “good” economic system. i agree. however, that aside, and focusing only on theoretical economics, why do you prefer socialism? im not looking for your reasons why its better than capitalism, or why capitalism is bad-- im just looking for what aspects of socialism you think are good or correct, as well as what your standards of judgment are for determining this good or correctness which allows socialism to be a desirable economic system.
you rejected my examples of why people become socialist, which is ok; so then id just like to know why you do embrace this system, on its own and because of its own merits, and not with relation or comparison to other economic systems.
i’m glad i asked for clarification. what i actually considered it to mean is something like a person who believes in “the state” as a collective, or desires prosperity for “the state” (“state”-ist). Going by your definition drastically changes how i interpret your posts.
the state of affairs in America has got to be the most interesting series of events in the entire second millennium. I could write volumes about what i think of the u.s, and volumes more of people who disagree. I can definitely agree that America is no longer capitalist, but on the same token i believe that it is not socialist in the same respect.
America theoretically began capitalist, and did so well that pittance was enough to quell the ache of the populations moral funny bone. (slavery was instrumental in this success mind you, morals were a lot different back then)
As Americas morality evolved, and the government started to fine tune (creating regulations, acts, charities, subsidies, and dealt with issues of privatized contracts, military requirements, city planning, and federal planning), something inherently socialist (collective or state ownership) crept into the economy of America and caused things to go askew.
Strictly speaking, the fact that a military exists is an argument in and of itself supporting collective efforts, taxes, and what is essentially socialism. This being strictly regulated can prevent a military from failing. By failing (socialistically) an army doesn’t need to physically lose a battle, all it needs to do is stray from its intent, which is to protect against threats, not to make money or to invade for profit, or even to police the world.
A scenario arises when an enemy poses a great threat, one which the government cannot afford to conquer. What would be your solution to such an enemy? Would you encourage freely donated resources for the war effort?
Would you propagandize the public to convince them to donate and enlist and support?
Would you invade a weaker country and take its resources to enforce your own in order to maintain economic dominance against numerous threats who are opposed to this hypothetical America?
I might be digressing a bit too much, but it points out the relevance of my claims concerning America. As far as I’m concerned the vast number of examples of failed dictatorial communist countries make it not only valid to attack America in such ways, but stupid not to.
America began fooling with itself too much. The populations were more or less radical (slavery murder and civil war), the politicians were too conniving (the fact Lincoln was not a great abolitionist, but in fact incredibly racist, who often enjoyed racial slurs for entertainment.) (sorry more digression).
In fact the more i think about it the more it seems that era must have been chaotic, disorganized, and generally corrupt as hell.
Christopher Columbus took slaves for ****'s sake, and it earned him a spot in the spell check dictionary (not that i spelt it wrong)(shit more digression)
Anyway, it is neither capitalism nor socialism which can be blamed. When the U.S established itself it had a lot of blood on its hands, who needs a thriving market when you have slaves (well i suppose you’ll need a thriving slave market). Considering the time it took to abolish slavery, and then the racism which still rears its ugly face in society, i still see economic imbalances.
In essence the whites create a union and discriminate against blacks, thereby improving their own leverage when it comes to all matters of economic transactions (i.e who gets loans, who can buy what, who can go where, who is respected, who is degraded, ETC)
There is profit in having control of or manipulating a market. This is where socialism comes in, which began at the hands of a rather questionable era of American history. One to be proud of, yes, but one definitely to be marked as one of times where the victor wrote the history books.
Now my knowledge of the history of the u.s is a bit sketchy, but i can tell you that if socialism in Canada and America amounts to absolutely shit, why bother trying at all.
I would be interested to know how you perceive socialism in America, more specifically where you see its roots stemming from. FDR perhaps? I’m told the new deal was socialist, but people seem to only hazily explain how it panned out.
In honesty, I’m ready to believe that Bush worships Satan, or some great owl in California or something. I already do believe that the u.s attacked its own citizens in 9-11, and that false flag hoaxes are not uncommon.
When you think about it the only good thing about the u.s is that they are the major cashier of the world, taking the major slice of everything. They don;t really produce anything, how do they maintain this position of dominance? Guns. I’m not talkin southern hicks with guns (no offense to any red necks), I’m talking socialism gone wrong. The actions and motivations of the U.S Gov. can be described in one word: profit. And i’m not talkin jesus (couldn’t resists that one)
Basically, i deny that welfare checks with fail to provide enough to thrive to actual working and deserving single mothers with children, veterans of war, and the like is socialism whatsoever. In my opinion it is a crumb thrown into a hole meant to keep you alive, and in the hole, because they can take you out of the hole and sell you to a private hole digger. I’m talking about prison of course.
A profiteering government uses the pretense of socialism and protection of freedom, which just might be why the idea of it working then seems so fucked.
oops…
Poverty seems to be very easy to find one’s self in, potentially with no available route to independence, freedom, and happiness. Which i think we both agree is what society ought to strive for. We seek to make our lives easier by living communally, trading, and cooperating. cooperation’s of knowledge are our strongest tool no doubt, so what ought we to put that intelligence to use on?
I say happiness… I believe that the happiness or suffering of one man should not be put above or below the suffering of one, or ten other men (women included).
From the perspective of someone born into a stiff market or society where they are forced into scrounging due to a lack of unclaimed land and resources, morally they do not have to follow the rules of society to survive. Obeying your parents is a different issue for me, but another story.
If one society exists and says that you cannot hunt or farm on X land because so and so rich guy owns it and if i try people will arrest me and if i resist they could wind up killing me, then the obvious response is “what if if kill them first”?
And of course, the righteous farming would take place, having been decided in fate, by almighty God.
The end.
nope, i also like socialism because i think the efficiency of a single economic entity would simply be more stable than a competitive one. It might not have the same innovations or trickling down of wealth, but still the efficiency of cooperation can rival the success of a free market.
sorry for the typos, I’m obviously high but i will finish off with this moment of clarity.
As you do not condemn capitalism because of the shortcomings of the u.s, i do not condemn socialism because of the outcome of previous regimes, or the mutilated socialist practices used in the u.s to drive it further into oppression and dependence.
i’m glad i asked for clarification. what i actually considered it to mean is something like a person who believes in “the state” as a collective, or desires prosperity for “the state” (“state”-ist). Going by your definition drastically changes how i interpret your posts.
the state of affairs in America has got to be the most interesting series of events in the entire second millennium. I could write volumes about what i think of the u.s, and volumes more of people who disagree. I can definitely agree that America is no longer capitalist, but on the same token i believe that it is not socialist in the same respect.
America theoretically began capitalist, and did so well that pittance was enough to quell the ache of the populations moral funny bone. (slavery was instrumental in this success mind you, morals were a lot different back then)
As Americas morality evolved, and the government started to fine tune (creating regulations, acts, charities, subsidies, and dealt with issues of privatized contracts, military requirements, city planning, and federal planning), something inherently socialist (collective or state ownership) crept into the economy of America and caused things to go askew.
Strictly speaking, the fact that a military exists is an argument in and of itself supporting collective efforts, taxes, and what is essentially socialism. This being strictly regulated can prevent a military from failing. By failing (socialistically) an army doesn’t need to physically lose a battle, all it needs to do is stray from its intent, which is to protect against threats, not to make money or to invade for profit, or even to police the world.
A scenario arises when an enemy poses a great threat, one which the government cannot afford to conquer. What would be your solution to such an enemy? Would you encourage freely donated resources for the war effort?
Would you propagandize the public to convince them to donate and enlist and support?
Would you invade a weaker country and take its resources to enforce your own in order to maintain economic dominance against numerous threats who are opposed to this hypothetical America?
I might be digressing a bit too much, but it points out the relevance of my claims concerning America. As far as I’m concerned the vast number of examples of failed dictatorial communist countries make it not only valid to attack America in such ways, but stupid not to.
America began fooling with itself too much. The populations were more or less radical (slavery murder and civil war), the politicians were too conniving (the fact Lincoln was not a great abolitionist, but in fact incredibly racist, who often enjoyed racial slurs for entertainment.) (sorry more digression).
In fact the more i think about it the more it seems that era must have been chaotic, disorganized, and generally corrupt as hell.
Christopher Columbus took slaves for ****'s sake, and it earned him a spot in the spell check dictionary (not that i spelt it wrong)(shit more digression)
Anyway, it is neither capitalism nor socialism which can be blamed. When the U.S established itself it had a lot of blood on its hands, who needs a thriving market when you have slaves (well i suppose you’ll need a thriving slave market). Considering the time it took to abolish slavery, and then the racism which still rears its ugly face in society.
In essence the whites create a union and discriminate against blacks, thereby improving their own leverage when it comes to all matters of economic transactions (i.e who gets loans, who can buy what, who can go where, who is respected, who is degraded, ETC)
There is profit in having control of or manipulating a market. This is where socialism comes in, which began at the hands of a rather questionable era of American history. One to be proud of, yes, but one definitely to be marked as one of times where the victor wrote the history books.
Now my knowledge of the history of the u.s is a bit sketchy, but i can tell you that if socialism in Canada and America amounts to absolutely shit, why bother trying at all.
I would be interested to know how you perceive socialism in America, more specifically where you see its roots stemming from. FDR perhaps? I’m told the new deal was socialist, but people seem to only hazily explain how it panned out.
In honesty, I’m ready to believe that Bush worships Satan, or some great owl in California or something. I already do believe that the u.s attacked its own citizens in 9-11, and that false flag hoaxes are not uncommon.
When you think about it the only good thing about the u.s is that they are the major cashier of the world, taking the major slice of everything. They don;t really produce anything, how do they maintain this position of dominance? Guns. I’m not talkin southern hicks with guns (no offense to any red necks), I’m talking socialism gone wrong. The actions and motivations of the U.S Gov. can be described in one word: profit. And i’m not talkin jesus (couldn’t resists that one)
Basically, i deny that welfare checks with fail to provide enough to thrive to actual working and deserving single mothers with children, veterans of war, and the like is socialism whatsoever. In my opinion it is a crumb thrown into a hole meant to keep you alive, and in the hole, because they can take you out of the hole and sell you to a private hole digger. I’m talking about prison of course.
A profiteering government uses the pretense of socialism and protection of freedom, which just might be why the idea of it working then seems so fucked.
oops…
Poverty seems to be very easy to find one’s self in, potentially with no available route to independence, freedom, and happiness. Which i think we both agree is what society ought to strive for. We seek to make our lives easier by living communally, trading, and cooperating. cooperation’s of knowledge are our strongest tool no doubt, so what ought we to put that intelligence to use on?
I say happiness… I believe that the happiness or suffering of one man should not be put above or below the suffering of one, or ten other men (women included).
From the perspective of someone born into a stiff market or society where they are forced into scrounging due to a lack of unclaimed land and resources, morally they do not have to follow the rules of society to survive. Obeying your parents is a different issue for me, but another story.
If one society exists and says that you cannot hunt or farm on X land because so and so rich guy owns it and if i try people will arrest me and if i resist they could wind up killing me, then the obvious response is “what if if kill them first”?
And of course, the righteous farming would take place, having been decided in fate, by almighty God.
The end.
nope, i also like socialism because i think the efficiency of a single economic entity would simply be more stable than a competitive one. It might not have the same innovations or trickling down of wealth, but still the efficiency of cooperation can rival the success of a free market.
sorry for the typos, I’m obviously high but i will finish off with this moment of clarity.
As you do not condemn capitalism because of the shortcomings of the u.s, i do not condemn socialism because of the outcome of previous regimes, or the mutilated socialist practices used in the u.s to drive it further into oppression and dependence.
i’m glad i asked for clarification. what i actually considered it to mean is something like a person who believes in “the state” as a collective, or desires prosperity for “the state” (“state”-ist). Going by your definition drastically changes how i interpret your posts.
the state of affairs in America has got to be the most interesting series of events in the entire second millennium. I could write volumes about what i think of the u.s, and volumes more of people who disagree. I can definitely agree that America is no longer capitalist, but on the same token i believe that it is not socialist in the same respect.
America theoretically began capitalist, and did so well that pittance was enough to quell the ache of the populations moral funny bone. (slavery was instrumental in this success mind you, morals were a lot different back then)
As Americas morality evolved, and the government started to fine tune (creating regulations, acts, charities, subsidies, and dealt with issues of privatized contracts, military requirements, city planning, and federal planning), something inherently socialist (collective or state ownership) crept into the economy of America and caused things to go askew.
Strictly speaking, the fact that a military exists is an argument in and of itself supporting collective efforts, taxes, and what is essentially socialism. This being strictly regulated can prevent a military from failing. By failing (socialistically) an army doesn’t need to physically lose a battle, all it needs to do is stray from its intent, which is to protect against threats, not to make money or to invade for profit, or even to police the world.
A scenario arises when an enemy poses a great threat, one which the government cannot afford to conquer. What would be your solution to such an enemy? Would you encourage freely donated resources for the war effort?
Would you propagandize the public to convince them to donate and enlist and support?
Would you invade a weaker country and take its resources to enforce your own in order to maintain economic dominance against numerous threats who are opposed to this hypothetical America?
I might be digressing a bit too much, but it points out the relevance of my claims concerning America. As far as I’m concerned the vast number of examples of failed dictatorial communist countries make it not only valid to attack America in such ways, but stupid not to.
America began fooling with itself too much. The populations were more or less radical (slavery murder and civil war), the politicians were too conniving (the fact Lincoln was not a great abolitionist, but in fact incredibly racist, who often enjoyed racial slurs for entertainment.) (sorry more digression).
In fact the more i think about it the more it seems that era must have been chaotic, disorganized, and generally corrupt as hell.
Christopher Columbus took slaves for ****'s sake, and it earned him a spot in the spell check dictionary (not that i spelt it wrong)(shit more digression)
Anyway, it is neither capitalism nor socialism which can be blamed. When the U.S established itself it had a lot of blood on its hands, who needs a thriving market when you have slaves (well i suppose you’ll need a thriving slave market). Considering the time it took to abolish slavery, and then the racism which still rears its ugly face in society.
In essence the whites create a union and discriminate against blacks, thereby improving their own leverage when it comes to all matters of economic transactions (i.e who gets loans, who can buy what, who can go where, who is respected, who is degraded, ETC)
There is profit in having control of or manipulating a market. This is where socialism comes in, which began at the hands of a rather questionable era of American history. One to be proud of, yes, but one definitely to be marked as one of times where the victor wrote the history books.
Now my knowledge of the history of the u.s is a bit sketchy, but i can tell you that if socialism in Canada and America amounts to absolutely shit, why bother trying at all.
I would be interested to know how you perceive socialism in America, more specifically where you see its roots stemming from. FDR perhaps? I’m told the new deal was socialist, but people seem to only hazily explain how it panned out.
In honesty, I’m ready to believe that Bush worships Satan, or some great owl in California or something. I already do believe that the u.s attacked its own citizens in 9-11, and that false flag hoaxes are not uncommon.
When you think about it the only good thing about the u.s is that they are the major cashier of the world, taking the major slice of everything. They don;t really produce anything, how do they maintain this position of dominance? Guns. I’m not talkin southern hicks with guns (no offense to any red necks), I’m talking socialism gone wrong. The actions and motivations of the U.S Gov. can be described in one word: profit. And i’m not talkin jesus (couldn’t resists that one)
Basically, i deny that welfare checks with fail to provide enough to thrive to actual working and deserving single mothers with children, veterans of war, and the like is socialism whatsoever. In my opinion it is a crumb thrown into a hole meant to keep you alive, and in the hole, because they can take you out of the hole and sell you to a private hole digger. I’m talking about prison of course.
A profiteering government uses the pretense of socialism and protection of freedom, which just might be why the idea of it working then seems so fucked.
oops…
Poverty seems to be very easy to find one’s self in, potentially with no available route to independence, freedom, and happiness. Which i think we both agree is what society ought to strive for. We seek to make our lives easier by living communally, trading, and cooperating. cooperation’s of knowledge are our strongest tool no doubt, so what ought we to put that intelligence to use on?
I say happiness… I believe that the happiness or suffering of one man should not be put above or below the suffering of one, or ten other men (women included).
From the perspective of someone born into a stiff market or society where they are forced into scrounging due to a lack of unclaimed land and resources, morally they do not have to follow the rules of society to survive. Obeying your parents is a different issue for me, but another story.
If one society exists and says that you cannot hunt or farm on X land because so and so rich guy owns it and if i try people will arrest me and if i resist they could wind up killing me, then the obvious response is “what if if kill them first”?
And of course, the righteous farming would take place, having been decided in fate, by almighty God.
The end.
nope, i also like socialism because i think the efficiency of a single economic entity would simply be more stable than a competitive one. It might not have the same innovations or trickling down of wealth, but still the efficiency of cooperation can rival the success of a free market.
sorry for the typos, I’m obviously high but i will finish off with this moment of clarity.
As you do not condemn capitalism because of the shortcomings of the u.s, i do not condemn socialism because of the outcome of previous regimes, or the mutilated socialist practices used in the u.s to drive it further into oppression and dependence.
I think the history of the US and capitalist countries is being skewed somewhat. As far as I know, no developed country has adopted free market capitalism to develop itself. Except those which are forced to do so by the World Bank etc… In which case they do not develop but get sold stuff from the richer countries, with which they cannot compete.
In the early days US “capitalism” consisted of these three core policies:
Support industry: The advocacy of protectionism, and opposition to free trade - particularly for the protection of “infant industries” and those facing import competition from abroad. Examples: Tariff of 1816 and Morrill Tariff
Create physical infrastructure: Government finance of internal improvements to speed commerce and develop industry. This involved the regulation of privately held infrastructure, to ensure that it meets the nation’s needs. Examples: Cumberland Road and Union Pacific Railroad
Create financial infrastructure: A government sponsored National Bank to issue currency and encourage commerce. This involved the use of sovereign powers for the regulation of credit to encourage the development of the economy, and to deter speculation. Examples: First Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and National Banking Act[12]
Also bear in mind Corporations were completely different then, usually set-up for a specific purpose and then abandoned. The ideas of shareholders having limited liability and the workers none is a new concept.
nice long reply, i only have time currently to give a superficial response. as for “statist” im sure it could be taken to mean collectivist, although non-collectivist societies (such as say a monarchy) could be “statist” in the sense that they represent oppressive and absolute state power over economic and non-economic matters… so its sort of an amorphous definition i suppose. however youre right, i take it to refer to the level of state of government power only, and not necessarily related to economic structure of the society (its political/military, not economic), at least in my usage.
also, its important to remember that right-wing and left-wing states can be equally “statist” under this definition. also, while there can be statism in any economic system, there tends to be more of a statist element in socialistic or collective societies, since this economic configuration of central planning requires a large and complex governmental bureaucracy, along with a large amount of government legistative and coercive power over economic matters. in addition, the nature of power, particularly government power (as it tends to be unchecked to the extent that it is pervasive or complex in nature) tends to lead to more power over time-- this means that while a socialist state might in theory only exercize government force over economic matters, it will tend to, over time, extend this power into non-economic matters that are directly or indirectly related to economics (such as vehicle liscensing/safety rules, environmental rules, dietary and food processing rules, etc)… most non-economic functions still have an economic influence, ableit indirectly. this partially explains why socialist states have a tendency to naturally transform towards communism.
i take it that your reasoning is that socialism represents the best economic organization in terms of making people happy, and keeping them out of poverty; i disagree with your standards, but i can accept them for the purposes of discussion, although i would argue that socialism is not a good way to achieve them.
someone born into poverty within a capitalist society (which is what you seem to be indicating above) would have opportunities to work wherever they wish, provided someone wants to hire them. if they have no skills, then can still get an education, which (even theoretically in pure capitalism) would be guaranteed up to some minimum level. but even if they had to “scrounge due to a lack of unclaimed land and resources” they still have to obey the rules of society-- they may choose to not follow social “morals” such as private property laws, but that wont stop society from arresting them for violating those laws.
the focus of socialist economics and arguments ALWAYS seems to be on poor people. i have not quite decided why this is, although i have some theories which make sense. however, i would argue that even in a pure capitalism, there would be opportunities for anyone to work and make a living. first of all, even pure capitalism will make an effort to educate anyone up to a certain minimum level, which would allow someone to learn the language, basics of the laws, and therefore find work at a low-wage job. there will always be an abundance of low-wage and low-skill jobs, because much of work is still manual labor and customer service, both of which require little formal training or skills. second, even in pure capitalism, a certain “safety net” can exist to allow people to get this proper level of minimum training (this is NOT welfare however, just as i stated, a education system run by local and state government, funded as little as possible by tax dollars and kept to a minimum scope).
the idea behind capitalism isnt that there are NO state or federal programs-- its that these programs are a BARE MINIMUM, and are restricted to the lowest possible levels and the essentials of society. basically, tax money should only be taken in order to secure and enforce the rights of the people, which would therefore be used to provide for police, an army, and courts to settle disputes. other spending would be restricted to local and possibly state levels, and this would only be at mandate of the taxpayers living in these areas.
capitalism is about individual choice… so localizing such things as government spending is smart, because it best conforms to the needs/wants of the individuals there. if someone doesnt want to pay an extra 1% tax to fund a free school for the disenfranchised in his area, then he can move to another area which has no programs such as these. however, over time cities and counties will tend to desire these basic programs, as will their people, since they will be more cost-effective than running large prison systems to house these disenfranchised elements.
capitalism doesnt reject government spending/programs per se, it rejects overnecessary and overarching programs, particularly at the federal level, since it removes these programs as far as possible from individual input, and these programs are impossible to escape from; a person not wanting to pay an extra 1% tax for, say a basic unemployment program, has nowhere to go to escape this spending if its done on the federal level. when these programs are reserved for local and state governments, they become more efficient, and people can choose where they want to live in or not in these systems, which means that over time this type of spending will correspond to what the people want.
of course, in a pure capitalism there would always be actions which would be expressly forbidden to government, particularly federal government: for example, a capitalist system would never allow government to bailout a private company, nor would it allow federal government to pass nation-wide laws guaranteeing a minimum wage, unemployment benefits, etc. in a socialism, however, there are no such restrictions on government economic interventions; i suppose that could be seen as the basic difference in practice between socialism and capitalism-- capitalism excludes some economic actions from government while allowing locals to determine certain other economic interventions as they see fit, while socialism has no such restrictions or limitations. at this point, then, it would need to be determined what these restrictions are within capitalism, and how they are determined. the level or amount of these prohibitions would likely determine how “pure” the capitalist system is, at least in theory.
oops…