That Midnight train to Georga

Boy i am losing count here.

How many democracies now? How many old socialist regimes crumble? better yet, how many remain. Funny when you start giving them a choice what people end up choosing. Lets go back 20 years, how many countries have and stil have elctions? look at poland and other eastern blocs just joined the EU, many have had their first elections, many are still fighting for the freedoms we now take for granted. They poison one guy, he survives and gets elected, they tell people vote and die, they vote in the millions, paling our turnout. Afghanistan? SA? Turkey? Lebanon?The entire middle East is ready to tip(almost). its the kind of success that is just hard to argue.

Yet, for some amazing reason i cant yet figure out, people who were gifted a huge bounty, a government respectful of its people because it is the people, and many other god gifted freedoms that are garanteed them, why they cling to this utter nonesense that is socialism?

is it because marx never took a shower, washed his clothes or bothered to feed his family, and that somehow is cool? I just dont get it. Who do we have left? North Korea, oops bad example sorry. Cuba? way to ruin a really cool country. China? thanks to the evils of capitalism the evils of communism are well hidden, not really.

I hope maybe someone can explain this utter obsession with failure some people seem to have. Ill be out eating some peach pie.

You only show your ignorance by making such a stupid statement. There are such things as socialist “democracies”, just as there are capitalist “democracies”. Democracy and socialism are not contradictory terms.

Now as for Capitalism vs. Socialism, I’ll debate you anyday. I’m not a fan of either Capitalism or Communism but I sure as hell can defend socialism if you’d like to discuss it.

I was going to point out the same thing, albeit without commenting on “ignorance” and “stupid statements”.

Anyway, as to Democracy and Socialism. The two are not mutually exclusive. Some would note the size of the Federal Government in the United States and argue that Socialism is a part of our Democracy. Socialism is most certainly a part of the “Nordic” (Heh) Democracies of Northern Europe, where I am told that there is less crime, the air is cleaner, and, in some cases, people earn more per capita than they do in the United States.

The two are certainly systems, but they are not non agreeable by nature. One is primarily political, the other, primarily economic.

Well naysayer, i didnt hear any good arguements for socialism or communism in my post where i asked you geniuses to show me the way.

All i heard was the evils of capitalism, some of which were sort of true.

As for the Govts of the Norse, and others like Germany and such, Once a country no longer wants to grow, they can fall to socialism, when a country decides they are ok with 19-20% unemployment, then Socialism might work,

Oh yeah, you also need a place like America to send all your poor people to goto otherwise your system fails under its own weight and revolution.

The entire eastern bloc is done. Capitalism, and democracy was what was chosen, most without a bullet being fired, by the people.

Hi Sowewent,

:laughing: This joke (or insult) has made my day!
Though it is not very philosophical in nature…

The socialism/communism of the Soviet Union (or whatever you want to call its adopted economic and political system) demonstrates that the system needed work… I am sure we can all agree to that.

The Ukraine is a pretty good example of a country that is straying away from the old system despite that its historical allegiance with Russia has been beneficial… what does this suggest? It suggests that people can see the value of capitalism (even though it is clearly not perfect).

I am pretty sure the Ukraine’s future will be membership in the EU.

Marx was the original monster from the movie Monster’s Inc. – he scared because he cared. Who before he said that we could change society to better it, so that human lives and effort dont’ go to waste? Sure he may have been a materialist; sure I don’t agree with government owning all capital goods (too clumsy a system). But did not Marx’s efforts feed the flames for more moderate mixed-economies in the West?

sure thirst, glad i could help.

How many former socialit economies have just became members of the EU?

It just boggles my mind how people still say this system will work if it can only be tried in its purest form. Its really getting tired. I think these ‘progressives’ better catch up to the rest of the world.

how you can cal yourself a progressive and continue to embrace a system that has failed over and over again is beyond me.

and My real name, give the guy all the credit you can fool yourslef into giving him.

Ill give him credit of giving repressive dictators and there regimes the ability to control a huge portion of this planet.

If you didn’t hear any good arguments then you weren’t paying attention.

For one, I can say that in a socialist system the emphasis isn’t focused on money. People are much more willingly to choose a profession that they actually enjoy, instead of money being their sole motive. This, on the whole, would make society better because more people would be content with their job. Furthermore, institutions would be better, such as schools, journalism, because people would be in their profession because they love it, not because they want money. other areas would also improve, such as music, movies, etc. for the same reason.

I will admit that many arguments do have to do with the flaws of capitalism. But they also deal with how socialism is better. That is how you make your case.

I’m not talking about semi-socialist states. Hell, the US isn’t even completely a capitalist state, just as Germany is not a completely socialist state.

And you consider this a good argument? Just because a majority of the people choose something does not make it better.

What I’d like to hear from you, is what you think are specific flaws in the socialist THEORY, and also why Capitalism is better.

Well, autocrats long had much power over much of the world – but at least most of them were “God-fearing”.

without going into my whole life story, i can say, as my current business partner, made choices in our lives that didnt always mean the most money. We have both made good smart decisions on what we wanted to accomplish in life. We both knew that if we followed it, we both may have had to take some pay cuts, but in the end the payout would be much better, both in quality of life, and in earned income.

In fact alot of people i know arent all about material possesions, and who has the most income. Most of the big money people i know have big families to support.

I just dont see all the cynacism i see against capitalism on the streets. In fact i see alot of people happy to do what they do and get paid and hoest day for an honest day.

The problem with socialism, from what ive sen is that you really dont get to choose your profession. If you dont choose one that fits into some grand scheme for which you have no power over, you are forced to do something you dont particularly care for.

Of course Socialism works as long as people who are pushed out can goto a place like America, where they are allowed to truly choose their own occupation, and they can raise their kids and ensure their lives are better.

Its not that these Eastern bloc nations chose by a majority to go with capitalism. It was that their system was failing them and the population. They chose to take the power back.

this is honestly the first arguement i have heard for socialism. I comend you on not just calling me stupid and a sheep, then bashing capitalism with half-truths and innuendo.

But i think i have expressed my feelings about this. I dont think you get to choose your road in life. If your dads a baker, you will run the bake shop. If you dont like it, you move to the US and become an engineer or something. Or you become active, get on your soap box and end up in the US with political asylum, or rot in jail.

ANd you say this because socialist countries have done so much better as movies and music than the US, right? and journalism? what about the journalists that want to write about soemthing that doesnt fit into the socialist mold? yup political asylum in a place they can write about anything.

they didnt choose something they turned away from a failed state, and turned to a successful one.

well the THEORY has never been tried right? if its so great whyhasnt it? my problem with the THEORY is that is has never worked in practice, although tried many many times, mostly by thugs looking to control a population, but also by people who actually thought they were doing the best thing.

without going into my whole life story, i can say, as my current business partner, made choices in our lives that didnt always mean the most money. We have both made good smart decisions on what we wanted to accomplish in life. We both knew that if we followed it, we both may have had to take some pay cuts, but in the end the payout would be much better, both in quality of life, and in earned income.

In fact alot of people i know arent all about material possesions, and who has the most income. Most of the big money people i know have big families to support.

I just dont see all the cynacism i see against capitalism on the streets. In fact i see alot of people happy to do what they do and get paid and hoest day for an honest day.

The problem with socialism, from what ive sen is that you really dont get to choose your profession. If you dont choose one that fits into some grand scheme for which you have no power over, you are forced to do something you dont particularly care for.

Of course Socialism works as long as people who are pushed out can goto a place like America, where they are allowed to truly choose their own occupation, and they can raise their kids and ensure their lives are better.

Its not that these Eastern bloc nations chose by a majority to go with capitalism. It was that their system was failing them and the population. They chose to take the power back.

this is honestly the first arguement i have heard for socialism. I comend you on not just calling me stupid and a sheep, then bashing capitalism with half-truths and innuendo.

But i think i have expressed my feelings about this. I dont think you get to choose your road in life. If your dads a baker, you will run the bake shop. If you dont like it, you move to the US and become an engineer or something. Or you become active, get on your soap box and end up in the US with political asylum, or rot in jail.

ANd you say this because socialist countries have done so much better as movies and music than the US, right? and journalism? what about the journalists that want to write about soemthing that doesnt fit into the socialist mold? yup political asylum in a place they can write about anything.

they didnt choose something they turned away from a failed state, and turned to a successful one.

well the THEORY has never been tried right? if its so great whyhasnt it? my problem with the THEORY is that is has never worked in practice, although tried many many times, mostly by thugs looking to control a population, but also by people who actually thought they were doing the best thing. Point is in the places it has been tried, it has been rejected by a great majority, and by people willing to risk their lives to make the change. In some cases it has even gone without a shot beong fired.

Can a system be considered better for the people if the masses of people reject it for something better? Especially if that better system has proved itself to be such time and time again?

Sowewent: Would you admit that wage-slavery during the industrial revolution by laissez-faire capitalism stinks? And probably turned more people toward communism and anarchism a century ago? I think people rejected that too – untill the rich were forced, by government, to treat workers better then as losers in the social Darwinism of the West?

The question is whether the economy can provide prosperity to everyone while also giving workers in foreign countries just wages.

?

You can choose your profession in a socialist system. If you couldn’t I wouldn’t be for socialism.

Not true, since you are allowed to choose your own occupation in a socialist system.

Take the power back? In a capitalist system the ones who hold the power are businesses, not the workers. This is simple economics.

Socialism is not Stalinist Russia. You can choose your profession in socialism. And my arugment still stands. I am not saying that ALL actions in a capitalist system are done for money but money is DEFINITELY the sole focues of capitalism and this makes the society shallow and materialistic.

You seem to be thinking that Socialism is what Stalin practiced. That is far from the case. I’m talking about a democratic socialist state. Not an authoritarian one. There is freedom of speech, freedom to protest, etc. I am not advocating a authoritarian socialist regime.

Think about the music industry for a second. Think about your “top-selling albums” Now tell me do you think these artist are creative? Inspiring? No, they are not and the music they make is pathetic. Now think of music that as made not for profit but for the love of music. I hope you see what I mean.

Once again you seem to think that there can’t be freedom of the press in a socialist society. No offense, but I think you need to read up on socialist theory, sowewent. You seem to be mistaking socialism for Stalinist Communism.

You just proved my point about looking at socialist theory and not so-called “socialist” regimes. You said “mostly by thugs looking to control a population” and that is exactly it.

In closing, for now, I think you need to read up on what socialism really is. Stalin did not practice socialism and Hitler wasn’t even a socialist. Hitler lied in order to trick the population. Hitler was a fascist and fascism is a capitalist form of government, not a socialist one.

Socialism does not have to be oppressive, and the regimes that were, weren’t actually socialist. They were either communist, or fascist.

Here is a decent definition of the socialism I am arguing for:

so·cial·ism

  1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Funny, we still don’t have one (a democracy) here. oops.

Wait, I thought this was a thread about democracy. How about removing the electoral college or moving towards an athenian democracy? I mean, if you -really- are pro democracy; our current system (in the United States) is a corrupt form, yes?

I can’t see any similarities between these Countries other then being muslim, however Turkey has been a Secular country for the past 82 years, so you make the calculation and last election was not the first free and fair election, so don’t make assumptions by the majority of the religion. Turkish understanding is much different then the Arab understanding so we definetly have a legitimate government since the 50’s…

You know what Naysayer I’ll take your challenge. Socialism by definition is the distribution of a nations capital through democratic means. In this case we will look at welfare; first the money is collected by taxes then redistributed in the form of welfare. Alright lets say Joe,someone on welfare, recieves per year the same as Bill, someone who works at a low paying job. This takes away any incentive to work because why would Joe want to work if he can recieve the same amount of money and not have to work. This also hurts Bill who has to pay taxes that will support people like Joe. So if you remove the socialist program, welfare, Joe would have no choice to work and by earning the same amount of money as before and he will provide some form of service. Don’t get me wrong there are some services the goverment provides that are good but alot are not.

Pure socialism, as most of the anti-socialist voices in this thread have portrayed it, is clearly a straw man. There are few or no pure socialist states in the world today (I stand to be corrected on this point). If you look at governments considered to exemplify the socialist ideal- Sweden and Norway for example- you see a hybrid system; a democratic capitalist system with a strong social security network.

Unemployment rates were mentioned earlier- Norway enjoyed an unemployment rate of 4% in the last quarter, Sweden 5.6%. According to the American Bureau of Labour Statistics, the level of unemployment in the US during 2004 was 5.5%. Clearly this is a non-issue in well-administrated practical socialism.

Contemporary politics has long passed the point of espousing one system or another; the most extreme mainstream politicians of our day are still meliorists. We lean toward socialist or capitalist ideals, but there are precious few today who would advocate either path to the exclusion of the other.

Actually that is not how I, or most people, define socialism. Socialism by definition is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Your defintion applies more to socialist-like programs and not socialism itself.

Yes, I definitely think you are confusing programs in a capitalist system that are considered “socialist” with socialism itself. When I say socialist theory, I am talking about a purely socialist state. One “in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively.”

The way welfare works in a capitialist country is not the same as it would function in a purely socialist state. A true socialist state does not exist anywhere in the world, so I can’t really provide an example. In an ideal socialist state, people wouldn’t be able to receive money and sit on their rear end. They would be provided with a job and if they neglect to do said job, they wouldn’t receive payment. Therefore, the benefit to work would be there.