People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is evil...

page: 2
83
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
Not unless stupid ineffective and evil are synonyms. Socialism is counter to human nature. I don't want to type out the "scorpion and the frog" parable it's applicable in this case.


Capitalism is human nature?
taking advantage of lower working class?

I think Socialism is more close human nature, sharing the hunt, shelters etc.

The Scorpion and Frog story does make sense, as in revert back to their naturalistic ways, but humans are a bit different then basic animals.. what if there is consequences, penalty for not doing what you suppose to do? So everyone pulls the same load, and not doing it would be crime? more you disobey the worse field you are put to work at?




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
What MUST happen is that the system of corporatocracy/oligarchy/plutocracy/meritocracy MUST be destroyed. Monopolistic businesses MUST be subject to TRUE anti-trust regulation and divestiture. Banks MUST be regionalized and returned to true monetary policy, not fractional reserve banking driven by debt and fiat currency. And finally, and most importantly, private property principles MUST be restored, respected and protected as was originally intended. Anything short of that will result in continued failure for mankind to reach their true potential.


Yes.........and nothing short of a REVOLUTION will accomplish all that you say, which is true, by the way. The revolution of which I speak cannot use at its model any previous revolt, mainly because they were all conjured by the very same forces that are attempting to create a revolution in America today, of which BHO is the primary protagonist, as a pure bred Marxist Communist.

NO - the revolt needs to come from the militia in the precise manner that the Constitution allows and of which the Fathers of the nation spoke - including Lincoln.
edit on 8-3-2013 by POXUSA because: txt



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Socialism is great, if that's what you want.

I don't want that, however. Socialism is living the "average".

I want above average. I don't want to settle. I want to have more and am willing to work harder to have more.

I would also appreciate a country that allowed people to self-determine what they wanted.

If a person wants a 2 bedroom trailer then they should be able to earn that.

If I want a 2 bedroom trailer on 500 acres with a stream and trout-stocked lake, then I should be able to earn that as well.



Freedom to self-determine.

It's a beautiful thing.
edit on 8-3-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


its not evil.

It is retarded.

it supports do nothings and makes productive people lose faith and the will to produce for do nothings.

It requires that someone pick up the slack, and while it seems fine when we exploit the third world to make our lives that much more comfortable and the level of waste we enjoy possible and that sure beats borrowing on future money that our kids and grand kids will have to pay back someday to do the same, it is shocking to us when we have to pay our own way.....


How about we notice that it was when we all had colonies that they made a wasteful and opulent life style possible back in our home countries. Now that we dont have colonies we need to keep certain areas in "third world" status to manufacture and produce for us at slave wages to make all the wealth possible back home. not providing for yourself is a LUXURY. Not a right.

I am living in a form of socialism now, and it sucks monkey balls. I am tired of paying up the ass for services I will never use. I am tired of paying up the ass for people to sit home playing X-box or so they can be out and about at bars and cafes until the weekend when they party like it wasnt irresponsible to entertain yourself with tax money....

Screw that.

Like I said, it is retarded.

edit on 8-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
In support of your position, why don't you show how, where and why socialism HAS worked. Maybe that will change peoples minds.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The socialists say that the capitalists are evil.
The capitalists say that the socialists are evil.
Both are correct and incorrect at the same time.
Many times what is considered to be 'Good' or 'Evil' are subjective.
Nothing in politics is pure good or pure bad. They all have a mix of both in them.

Socialists say that taking money from those who earn it, and giving to those who don't, is a 'good' thing to do and it's helpful for those who don't have much. Capitalists say that taking money from those who earn it, and giving to those who don't, is an 'evil' thing to do, that it's theft from those who earn it and it just encourages those who don't earn it not to get a job.

Both are right. Both are wrong.


capitalism also involves taking money from those that earn it and giving it to people that don't
do you think that the 4 walton kids of sam walton "earned" their 21 billion+ fortunes by working for it? or are the actual workers in the stores getting robbed by being paid barely liveable wages....who's taking what from whom?
southeast asian countries have almost pure capitalistic systems, as does alot of african nations. they pay their workers next to nothing, just enough so those same workers can live to come back and work another day. those people are what i call capitalistic slaves. and most of the wealthy elite in this world would like to reach that point, thus they use the term "global competiveness" as if each world society is exactly the same and should be treated as such. working each day just so one has enough food for sustanence, and a shelter to live in, is the very definition of "SLAVE"



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Let's take a look at the death tolls of Socialist countries

USSR (Lenin, Stalin): 61.9 million
China (Mao): 35.2 million
Germany (Hitler): 20,9 million
Mao Soviets in China: 3.4 million
Cambodia: 2 million
Vietnam 1.6 million
Yugoslavia: 1 million

Suspected:
North Korea: 1.6 million

Added up:

~129 million dead in the 20th century.


That's a real kick-arse ideology, socialism!

Socialist Myth
This link is a pretty good read.
edit on 3/8/2013 by mugger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




I want above average....


Is it because of that our whole system is unbalanced and messed up? people WANTING more than they need?

Normal sedan is not enough for me, i want a luxury car! while laughing at the handicap person. Im a hypocrite for stating this, but hey if system says its okay to abuse the less fortunate and take advantage f the lower working class, then i will.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
Let's take a look at the death tolls of Socialist countries

USSR (Lenin, Stalin): 61.9 million
China (Mao): 35.2 million
Germany (Hitler): 20,9 million
Mao Soviets in China: 3.4 million
Cambodia: 2 million
Vietnam 1.6 million
Yugoslavia: 1 million

Suspected:
North Korea: 1.6 million

Added up:

~129 million dead in the 20th century.


That's a real kick-arse ideology, socialism!

Socialist Myth
This link is a pretty good read.
edit on 3/8/2013 by mugger because: (no reason given)


Yes, all those death is because the country was/is a Socialist.


Propaganda is powerful thing.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 





Is it because of that our whole system is unbalanced and messed up? people WANTING more than they need?

There is the 'messed up' part of socialism.

Some bureaucrat decides what everyone needs.

Bye, bye freedom.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by beezzer
 




I want above average....


Is it because of that our whole system is unbalanced and messed up? people WANTING more than they need?

Normal sedan is not enough for me, i want a luxury car! while laughing at the handicap person. Im a hypocrite for stating this, but hey if system says its okay to abuse the less fortunate and take advantage f the lower working class, then i will.


I'm not taking anything away from anyone if I want more. Who in the hell is anyone to determine what I should or should not have?

SELF-determination.

SELF.

The individual should determine what the individual wants.


+10 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I think the OP's comments are spot on. All the necessities of life should be delivered through non-profit means.

Socialism for our needs, capitalism for our wants.


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Obviously, there are some misconceptions about what exactly socialism is....based on the responses thus far.

Socialism does not automatically equal Marxism, Communism or any type of government in which the individual takes a back seat to the collective good.

When socialism is applied to fascism or dictatorial rule, bad things happen. Same thing can be said for capitalism.

We already live in a socialist society, in America, and that is the way the founding fathers designed it!

Examples:

Military
Roads
Public works projects (like the hoover dam)
etc....

These are socialist programs! They're not designed to take away wealth from people and equal out income disparity. They are designed to provide necessary goods and services that enhance the overall public good.

So those of you that say "Not in my America"......give it up. Socialism is already here, you benefit from it daily and socialism does not mean that your wealth will be taken away!
edit on 8-3-2013 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Explanation: I am a BITTER COMMUNIST ok!

Socialism KILLS Self sufficiency!

It IS a victim mentality!

Self sufficiency IS the ability to choose to ignore [or not] the crimes of ones neighbours!

It IS Freedom ... because it removes the need/requirement to care about anybody else!

Self sufficiency KILLS all economies!

Economies, like Socialism, IS a victim mentality also ... because they rely on 'others' to work!


Personal Disclosure: I'd prefer to be an ANARCHIST OK!


But I can see the writting on the wall ... hence why I am BITTER OK!



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Really propaganda...I guess Hitler never killed anyone



Soviet Union: between 20 and 50 million were put to death at the hands of this evil empire. (some estimates exceed upward of 50 million. As people were sent to camps, the Soviets often deleted all records of that persons existence making exact totals hard to find) Intentional starvings and man made famines were a major killer in the USSR. Worse were the gulag concentration camps (the Soviet equal to Hitler's concentration camps). At one point in 1940 Stalin held over 10 million people in the gulag camps.


From my link in previous post.
And that is just the USSR. The only thing disputable are the numbers killed. Probably much higher the estimates in my previous post.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Capitalism is human nature?
taking advantage of lower working class?


Not capitalism specifically no, but competition most certainly. Most assuredly, a system in which people only got from the community pot in proportion to their contribution. Certainly, no one was putting zero and drawing a "fair share".


Originally posted by luciddream
I think Socialism is more close human nature, sharing the hunt, shelters etc.


I think perhaps you have a romantic view of primitive society.

While there was a certain amount of sharing the rewards of the hunt and such there was probably a lot more of the "Me Big Zug Zug" "Me take mine first" then if perhaps there are any leftovers the rest of the pecking order would get theirs – in order of their perceived value to the society.

No one in a primitive hunter gatherer society got a free ride.

The handicapped, sick old and weak were cared for to a certain extent (borderline starvation) in times of prosperity. That is after all one of the things that separates us from other animals. I opine that separation lasts only as long as there is plenty to go around….

Even in times of prosperity the weak, old and sick were only kept around at the fringes of society at the whim of the fit and strong.

If they provided some service – making baskets or some other mundane time consuming tasks they might be allowed to live longer.

However, I bet a dollar to a doughnut they would never support the lazy like we do now. Anyone not pulling their weight (I bet even some who were) would be cast aside pretty ruthlessly and swiftly; even if there were no pressures or shortages I would wager the apathetic and lazy were shunned and cast out. They were most assuredly the first to go.

Most people identify the archetypical “club footed shaman” or the archetypical "elders" and feel they were carried along out of some sense duty or obligation. However, they forget they still served a function in society.

The shaman filled the need for a higher power and elders cared for the children while everyone else hunted and gathered. The elderly were the walking textbooks of lessons learned in a time before writing and while they watched after the children they imparted that knowledge.

I would almost guarantee that a privative society isn’t going to have the means, patience or the ability to support a whole group of useless eaters out of “compassion” like we do in our society.

Bottom line is in a primitive society one either gathered and hunted what they needed or had some skill to trade for it. No one got a free ride like they do today.










edit on 8/3/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Capitalism is human nature?
taking advantage of lower working class?
I think Socialism is more close human nature, sharing the hunt, shelters etc.

Evolutionary psychology is 'survival of the fittest'. So if you want to use cavemen to
explain things then picture this ... cavemen didn't help the disabled to survive. They
let them die so they wouldn't drag down the clan. Those who were non-workers
were useless eaters ...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Is it because of that our whole system is unbalanced and messed up? people WANTING more than they need?


It's no ones business to determine if someone else has 'too much' or not. If a person can earn the wealth to buy what he wants .. then he should be able to buy what he wants. Those who would take away a persons right to earn that kind of wealth are just jealous that they dont' have the talent or the ability or the opportunity or whatever to be able to do the same.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
In the final analysis it comes down to humanity and leadership. Any system would probably work if the leadership was benevolent,and that is the crux of the issue.An artist in communism is a surrogate for the state,to put out art the state wishes.This is not in keeping with the imagination and freedom of speech we enjoy.
Socialism demands uniformity and punishes anomalies. That isn't going to happen either. There are a great deal of mistakes being made in our republic because our leadership lacked the character and strength to be independent from money.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





We already live in a socialist society, in America, and that is the way the founding fathers designed it!


And look at some of those socialist aspects. Why does the tax payer get fleeced to over pay for many of these projects? Prevailing wages and Union workers only.

My school taxes are through the roof supporting a lot of non sense and out of hand pension plans for teachers and dragging down many cities with exorbitant pension plans.





top topics
 
83
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join