Ami Horowitz: What’s wrong with socialism?

a reply to: daskakik

Not really, I mean ... really. The title alone is hard to bear. 3 things:
who the eff is Ami, why should anyone on Ceres care and, more importantly, what's wrong with Ami? Sanders and Venezuela, as in "coke and Coke"? Geez... screw that documentarian, I'll go to the library instead.

Thing is I did read past the title and now I just want that half of a minute back. Now please do me a favor, cut murph some slack or you're not my protestant girlfriend anymore! lol.

Also,

I don't think Venezuela's problem has much if anything to do with socialism. As others have pointed out. ..the root problem is corruption or at the least misappropriation.

I don't understand why the government in every country doesn't focus on food production...by implementing and supporting programs to develop perma-culture within society.

For instance any and all available and tillable land should be utilized for growing food. Fruit trees could be planted in many spaces throughout cities and towns. The trees and gardens planted on public lands could be for the poor and destitute.

Just think how much food could be grown in Central Park....anyone that has read a book on the square foot gardening technique realizes it doesn't take a very big area to grow a lot of food. If we used the vast resources available to us in the right way...there could be abundance for everyone. At least in the area of food.

Just think of what could be done if we put our minds to solving this problem. With all of the available resources and machines in this world. ..we could grow enough food to feed the world a hundred times over.

I mean really think about it for even a few minutes and you can see the potential. How much compost and other gardening supplies sit idly on shelves hoping to be sold some day. ..while people go hungry. If we provided the machines and materials and some training. I think the poor and homeless would be glad to be the work force to tend the trees and gardens.

We could literally have this planet so that food abounded in every populated area. We have resources galore and there is absolutely no reason other than a misappropriation of them caused by greed or ignorance.

Look at the cities in this country that have vacant buildings and lots that could be utilized for food growth or for establishing food processing and preservation facilities.

There are abundant machines, people and resources sitting idly by that could transform these lots and derelict buildings into productive land within a matter of days. There are abundant vegetable and plant seeds that go unutilized every year. And only God knows how much organic fertilizer we have in this country.

Vegetables grains and fruits should about in every country on this planet. All we have to do is put our minds and hands to it.

Sorry for going off topic....but it was just coming to my mind...so I kept going.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Economic models of hunter gatherer tribes, how could you possibly attempt to model marco scale modern societies of tens of millions or more around such models?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
In the following video Ami Horowitz asks Americans who lean to the left "what is wrong about socialism"? I am certain you all know the answer to that. But then Horowitz went on to ask Venezuelans "what's wrong with socialism"?

I would recomend that readers view the video aobut the economic hit men. It seems that third world counitres not the only victims. Many 2nd and now it seems some 1st world countires are now being targeted.

Watching the 'economic hit men videos is very enlightening because it reveals another facet of how the word really works.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Socialism has nothing to do with poor financial decisions

Socialism is the very definition of a poor financial decision.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Social programs and providing for the general welfare of citizens is not socialism. Socialism is an economic system in which the state owns a monopoly on the means of production. Socialist countries are not ruled by the peasants, they are ruled by a technocratic aristocracy; planned economies, stifling of innovation, starvation/elimination of those who do not agree or contribute to the system.

Seeing how you lumped communism/socialism together shows your lack of understanding. Socialism is the theoretical transitional system towards communism, which communism is a 'stateless state' where there is no class, therefore no definition of peasantry or nobility; everybody just does their job without being told, all their needs are provided for, and unicorns crap candy coated rainbows out their @ss.

Actually Hitler's Germany was the type of Socialism you are speaking about. That would be Fascist Socialism. Similar to a Dictatorship or Monarchy.

In America we have Democratic Socialism where the government and all its assets are owned by the people. In a Democratic society the government actually owns nothing. Resources are gathered according to the will of the common good and not an elite class.

Unfortunately the wealthy elitists have dictated policy in the US for most of the last 100+ years which became blatantly obvious about 50 years ago.

The current version of Socialism in the US looks a lot more like Fascist Socialism than the Democratic Socialism handed down to us by our founding fathers.

Our leaders our supposed to be representatives of the voting class. But in the two party system, with the cost of running campaigns, the wealthy elitists have been able to dictate who we vote for and ensure that both parties represent them.