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

I've seen a couple people emntion it, but I have ot say capitalism is NOT a winner/loser kind of thing. It's NOT a zero-sum game. If a person earns $100 NOTHING stops others from ALSO earning $100. In a zero-sum game, a person that earns $100 PERMANENTLY removes that $100 from a finite circulation. But in the capitalism we ENJOY this is not the case. All a person has to do is add something of value to the system and it will get eaten up and they will earn their $100 and this does not stop anybody else from also doing that. NOW, if someone exploits someone else by stealing their $100 then, admittedly, this would be similar to a zero-sum game. However, capitalism, by its definition and in practice, is not about stealing from others but adding value to the economy. Do not mistake stealing from others as being the hallmark of capitalism. Stealing from others is indicative of criminals. So before condemning capitalism as zero-sum, please keep all this in mind.

So many false accusations and straw men used in this thread.

In my last post here, I wrote that you cannot have BOTH freedom and equality. This apparently has slipped past. It's unfortunate because this is something that's important to understand.

People are not equal. We do not have equal talents or equal skills. We do not all put in equal effort in our activities. We do not have the same opinions. And so on. There will always be the man that cannot play the piano even if it would save all of mankind. On the other side of the coin there'll be the man that can play the piano and captivate a world audience for centuries.

Because of these differences between people we cannot treat them as though they're equal. The virtuoso SHOULD earn a higher reward than the man that cannot play it for his own life. If you try to redistribute the virtuoso's earnings so that he makes almost as much as the man that cannot play at all then you've robbed him of his freedom to excel above another. You've sabotaged the very desire a person has to climb the ladder to success. You've removed the rewards of success. Unless you can make them believe the lie and enforce equality, you will fail and your society will collapse.

The question of HOW MUCH people should earn IS important, however. Do we give the virtuoso 10x or 100x or 1000x more than the person that cannot play at all? How much? How much will give the virtuso the impetus to climb the ladder and enjoy the fruits of his labors? This is an open question. This is why capitalism needs democracy to work. It cannot function on its own.

reply to post by luciddream


Th e more I learn aboot ( ) Canada the more I wish to move there.
Need a Butler? dishwasher? general dogs body?

When Reagan deregged the 80's i wasn't sure if it was a good thing. I still think that state funded projects are fine - this way each state would have differences and one could make choices concerning their own unique characteristics.
That having been stated- privatization has only served those that have the bucks to buy - so again it falls back to the globalists/elitists that by and large would not throw a crumb to the dogs unless it some how benefits them.
All the dreg accomplished was to put the low hanging fruit into the hands of the elitsts.
IMO there needs to be a careful balance of private and public.

Since you referenced the public schools - in the USA - once great now...ugh.
Considering putting my grands in private schools.

Concerning SS(oasd) - FDR did not put enough wrappers around this item - should have been left alone and apart from gubberment agencies to export as much as they seemingly are able to get away with. I for one would be more than happy to wash my hands of them - so long as they buy me out - i would settle for a mere .75 mil.
This would allow me to stop stressing out every time they yell about entitlements and how much that is costing them in taxes. OASD is not an entitlement when i have paid in 6.5% every year for the last 45year, i could hardly afford to save 6% of my own. OASD does not allow your heirs anything.

Further my sis belongs to the gubberments para and will be double dipping - so to speak - meaning she is entitled to ss (half or so of hubbies) and her share of para (around 2400 per month and she only worked 17 years).

At this point - drones are ok to use as eliminating tactics - judge, jury and executioner - ala kings of old.

'That government is best witch governs least of all.'

reply to post by Cabin


ETA (in case nobody wants to read all that crap I wrote): Interpellation is the reason we support a system that is constantly proven to benefit only a small percentage of people. It is the reason that poster after poster comes on here and tries to make excuses for the 1%. It is the unconscious obedience to the hegemony of the dominant culture that is reinforced through the Ideological State Apparatus.



It is called interpellation, which is the unconscious following of the hegemony of the dominant culture (which is capitalism). The reason people are so willing to become cogs in the machine is because of the Ideological State Apparatus (church, family, school, etc). We are interpellated from birth by the hailing (or interpellating) of these apparatuses--we are all subjects.

Example:

A child is talked about and often even named before birth. In a patriarchal society, a child is expected to receive the father's last name. Throughout life, this person will recognize that s/he has a name without even thinking about it. That recognition turns him/her into a subject. In effect, we are all hailed (interpellated) into the system before birth by family as subjects.

The Ideological State Apparatus is highly effecient, but there is also the Repressive State Apparatus (police, military, etc) for a more heavy handed approach.

You cannot escape interpellation. Some people try to make the case that subculture is a way of stepping outside the dominant culture and escaping interpellation, but even subcultures are absorbed back into the machine.

Example:

Punk subculture (this is the favorite example of certain scholars). Punk subculture rose up and was a threat to the established culture (maybe late 70s or so). What did the dominant culture do? Took the edge off by accepting it--everybody started being punk--and punk became a hot commodity (commodification--marxist term). There were articles such as "Punks have mothers too." All of this sort of normalized and commodified punk.

That is sort of a contemporary marxism in the vein of Louis Althusser. The classic marxism of Marx himself leans more on the idea of alienation of labor and commodification.

reply to post by Kram09

What regime was that? It certainly wasn't the Nazis and don't try to make out that it was.

Right you are. And this bolsters the OP's position. They called themselves the National Socialist Party. See? Socialists, bad.
Yet few understand that they called themselves socialist early on to confuse the people who were at that time in serious consideration of other socialist fevers sweeping Europe. And little if no attention today is given to the point that the worlds capitalists and industrialists originally supported and funded Hitlers little group in order to build up a local bulwark against these non capitalist tendencies.

Many of you have misinterpreted my original post. Although that was mainly my fault as I failed to come across with my whole point.

I liked the post:
"Sadly, socialism has been misrepresented so much that it receives an automatic negative response by the average person.
Socialism, just like capitalism, is not bad in and of itself. How some Men have used socialism for their own benefit is where it all went wrong."

Several of you have brought out the history. Historically there has never been any socialistic country. They have been socialistic on paper, but nothing more. Anything left-wing is considered more socialistic, although communism is far from socialism, its slavery and dictatorship.

I personally believe nowadays (starting after the II WW) the countries who are nearest to the system (but still far) which serves the people are Scandinavian countries not any communist country like China. There were genocides and mass murders in communism countries, although the crime rates in Scandinavia are among the lowest...

As I told the best solution would be some kind of mix between the two mainstream politics, although there are also other less known solutions. As someone pointed out before - a system where basic needs are covered by countries, but capitalist needs by people themselves.

It is not the fault of a person that he/she has not been born into a rich family. Does it mean they deserve less from life, poorer education, poorer healthcare? Although in the end in many countries it comes to that.

Many have brought out the factor about harder working people have to earn more than less working people. I have never said they do not have to. Although no one can work over 100 or even 20 times harder than the other person in the same company, yet that is their salary difference, often even more, and it is simply wrong. Is a single mother with 2 kids working at two jobs to come by working less or not as hard as any high-position corporate guy? Yet she hardly gets by at the same time, when the guy buys his mansions and Ferraris.

And the thing is, whenever someone points it out, they are labelled as communists. That was the whole point of this thread.

I am not originally from this country where I currently recidence, getting my second major in a university here. The big corporations are making their subsidiaries round here, simply to pay people less for their work and take all the profits without taxes (absurd laws) outside...

Here is one the highest priced water in Europe, yet the people overally are among of the poorest. All due to the government letting the water companies to be run by some French businessmen. Would you say that it is the right thing to do to, maximising profits on the basic needs of people?

Again when someone points it out, which many do, they are labelled as communists...

I have never suggested true communism, the whole point of the thread was to show how the first response to left-wing views is always negative, even if the idea is the right thing to do.

PS. As there have been several posts on hard work and success then I personally believe in the idea of shared
ownership. There are several big successful companies in Europe that do it . It is a company, where all the workers, including the CEO, have exactly the same amount of shares. The reason of it, is that if company does well, everybody wins. There exists a salary difference between workers, but that is capped, usually at 6. (highest one in the corporate ladder never earns more than 6 times more than the lowest one). The idea itself is good, but whenever I have come up with it in a conversation, it is instantly dismissed as communistic BS. Although the companies doing this style often are much more profitable and productive than usual companies, although everybody wins, not only the highest ladders and owners, who rake in the profits at highest corporations. I can say from personal experience, such company style works well

No form of Government is evil, it is just an a system of rules and laws. The people running said government are what determines it ability to succeed. And since the human species has repeatedly shown it is flawed and prone to mistakes and corruption it can be said that no system of government is good and that all are ultimately end up being bad or failing the people it represents.

And our ideological war has been against Communism not Socialism.

www.diffen.com...

Wow, what is it going to take to educate people on what socialism/communism/anarchism is and isn't? Many of the same people in this thread have been in several other threads about Socialism and just repeat the same old memes, that socialism is taking from some to give to others, that Socialism never worked out well for the people because look at the USSR and China.

The USSR never, NEVER got rid of capitalism so how could it be socialism? Same with China, what economic system does China have? Capitalism. Even given the the correct answers people come back time and again with the same blah blah blah, I work and want to keep my money bitch fest.

Critical thinking should apply here. Socialism and Capitalism are opposites so how can they coexist? They can't without manipulating, subverting or co-opting the definition of either or both, those economic systems.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, period.
Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production, period.

Anything that falls outside of either, is neither of those things. Only the name has been borrowed, stolen or affixed as I mentioned above, in order to sway people to support it or despise it. Examples are State Capitalism which we see the USSR was, China is, Cuba is, but it's not really capitalism. Democratic Socialism which tries (sometimes succeeding, sometimes not) to give workers equal footing as private owners, we see in most of the west coming and going in waves, is not really socialism.

In my opinion, socialism is the best system... and more what the free markets were intended to be. You work and if you work well and are skilled you do well, you earn well. Lack of privatization of the means of production leaves it open to self determination as to how well you 'profit'. Your labor and skill are your bargaining chip for compensation.

Capitalism is massively flawed, unless you are an owner of a big business and the chances of becoming an owner without finding a niche in the market, decrease every passing day of your working life. Owners of big business merge and merge and merge until there is one single parent company of a particular market, maybe if we're lucky two or three and in that situation everyone but the owners lose. We lose the ability to demand a fair salary, we lose the ability to take our business or labor elsewhere and maybe most importantly we lose the ears of our elected officials.

Such a system eventually eats itself, in order to continue to grow it must undercut everyone it possibly can, creating a massive gap in the non owners being able to live, thus creating a massive need to increase the social safety nets.

Look at Walmart. They refuse to pay decent wages, but they are utterly reliant on consumers being able to spend money as if they earned decent wages. They grew so big that they are the largest employer in the United States so they dominate the labor market, they are essentially feudal lords allowing the serfs to farm in their fields all day so that they may take home one head of celery stalks in the evening.

reply to post by yadda333

Example. The revolutionary music of the late fifties and early sixties. Rock and roll in it's early form seriously sent shivers down the spines of the establishment. The established, fought back. Don't want your teen age daughters hanging pictures of Chuck Berry in their bedrooms, find a nice white guy to sling it instead(Elvis).
Don't want your teenagers listening to the devil message of the Beatles, invent the teenybopper Monkees.
And that revolutionary music of the fifties. It now plays on the muzac systems of our gambling casinos to entice the aging boomer generation into feeling comfortable so they will spend(throw away) their money because they are among friends.

I just had to add on to your very good post.

TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT:

what do you make of the video in this thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

heres the you tube vid on its own




www.youtube.com...


the video is about income disparity in the USA, and i think that it pertains to the capitalist/socialist argument. In a nutshell, any educated american would take old fashioned constitutional freedom ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. but if thats off the table, and the american dream is dead because a couple of fat cats "WON" the monopoly game that is our culture, well then forcing those people to provide the masses healthcare sounds great to me. lets throw in food, housing and a basic education while we're at it.

here's where im coming from. Lets contrast the old fashioned family farm with employee capitalism.

WOW they have nothing in common at all. As we defend CAPITALISM lets be careful to be aware of what we are praising.

Are we praising the rights of the common man to produce his own products on his land and bring them to market to feed his family?

Or are we praising the fact that the independant capitalist has been reduced to the status of EMPLOYEE.

The vast majority of AMERICAN CAPITALISTS are really CAPITAL. ie someone elses market tool.


one more thing... to those that feel that socialism rewards those who do no work... Isnt that the goal of capitalism? to allow ones capital to work in place of oneself?

In the old model, Farmer joe, the owner operator of Joes Farm did A LOT of work. now that farmer Joes grandkids are employees of MegaCorp, they still reflect the old mans values and they put in a lot of good work for MegaCorp. But back on the farm, the entire family benefitted from the products of their collective labor, while at MegaCorp, the CEO earns in an hour what Joes grandkids earn in a month.

they cant go back to the family farm, because the bank got it years ago... the same bank that is part owner of MegaCorp.

well we should praise MegaCorp right? they played Monopoly and won. So the citizens can be evicted, and they can be denied food and medicine, OVER IMAGINARY CREDITS...

its a game, they should have played harder thats all.

OUR CULTURE IS GREATER THAN A MONOPOLY GAME..
or it damn well oughtta be anyhow

I got to the third paragraph where you agree ALL countries that have tried it have failed......


That is the point. ALL HAVE FAILED.

Something that is supposed to be good, does not repeatedly fail through corruption and exasperation of the people. Oh, and yes,North Korea isn't evil either, they just want to nuke the world because of sanctions meaning they are not able to be self supporting. Very 'non evil!

Now sit down and have a long, long, think on that one.

reply to post by Druscilla


Ah yes, now I understand what you mean.

reply to post by Cabin




You should edit your Thread Title...

Most countries live pleasantly and well with many socialist elements.


It should be

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


Most people roll their eyes when Americans start their usual uneducated spiel about Socialism.
Most people and most nations are far more compassionate and willing to help and chip in for others and take care of one another.

I think your title should reflect the nature of reality.


And just to add I'm talking about what most people think socialism is.... not actually what Socialism is.
It's come to mean something else completely.

In my understanding, OP, America has incorporated, with a great deal of arguing and political chest-thumping, both free-market capitalism and some basic 'safety net' socialism. Of course you will have people on one side saying the social programs of America should be dismantled for various reasons - from inefficiency to infractions against personal freedom, and you will have people on the other side of the issue wanting more social safety nets funded and in place, as they see them as the only bulwark against the extreme gap between wealth and poverty currently manifesting in our country.

Poverty is a primary source of human suffering, but when people hold up opposite solutions (free market boot-straps pulling vs. social safety nets) there are bound to be great conflicts. So, the guardians against socialism are forever embroiled in conflict with those who see social programs as essential to the country's ultimate survival. This political arm-wrestling has resulted in our current political climate, where the opposition to "the other's" point of view is so entrenched and extreme, that people might as well be discussing entirely different worlds.

Now, if you take out the hate from both sides of this argument, there are good points to be had, at least from where I sit (which is certainly not from some rarified place 'on high' - I do not claim to be any kind of expert) - a lot of monetary waste happens in social programs due to the nature of burgeoning programs and bureaucracy, with too many architects wanting their own thumbprint on it, making too many rules layered upon too many rules creating an inefficient, labyrinthine structure - this lack of efficiency and attention to the bottom line can feel extremely frustrating to people (on both sides of the issue, btw, but especially to fiscal conservatives).

On the other hand, the obvious human suffering that is tied to complex socio-economic problems brought on, in part, by the ever-widening gap between the wealthiest and the impoverished, which threatens the American dream for the average citizen (the dream of being able to leave their children something better than what they grew up with), leads people to conclude that capitalism without social programs is a step backwards into the dark ages of Robber Barons and the abuses of corrupt Industrialists. In this view, unfettered capitalism = unfettered corruption.

So it is no wonder the wrestling match continues, and people, from their limited points of view (as is my own) strive to make sense of what is, and create what they think should be. Each brands the other as "Evil" and each is vested in making the other wrong.

Thank you, OP, for the topic!

peace,
AB

Should I mention the multiple millions killed by Stalin.The millions that died of starvation in NK, the pverty of most other socialist countries.... and there are countless stories that go on and on and on....

reply to post by Directive5120


He is very funny! I'll agree that the rich are getting richer and will continue to do so until someone presses the "Reset" button. The problem is I don't trust TPTB...........at all!! If we were to allow them to even the playing field through redistribution, we would end up with the same lop sided system in which the crooks have all the money. If we were to even the playing field by leveling the tax system via a flat tax with no deductions, we would have a better chance and economic equality of oportunity.

OP, I have not read through all the messages, just your opening post.

Socialism, in theory, is not evil. The problem is that in application, it just doesn't work.

Communism, in theory, is not evil...but it leaves the door wide open for evil to rise up and take control.

You are incorrect that socialism has failed everywhere. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are all socialist countries and they actually have a higher per capita percentage of millionaires and billionaires than the USA does. But they are very small populations. The larger the population, the less likely socialism is to work.

In the case of a population the size of the USA, you are not creating prosperity, you are "sharing" misfortune.

China and India have vast populations and the huge percentages of their people are poor as church mice...sure, prosperity and wealth is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

Our current system in the USA is not perfect and has been hijacked...but it is still closer to "good" than socialism and communism will ever be. If we had "true" free markets" and "true" capitalism"...we would all only rise or fall by our own efforts...sadly...this is not exactly what we in the USA have today...close...but no cigar.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Should I mention the multiple millions killed by Stalin.The millions that died of starvation in NK, the pverty of most other socialist countries.... and there are countless stories that go on and on and on....

Pacifier, please read both of my posts... You just read the headline and start judging. As I told in both posts. There has never been socialism in its sense. Soviets, Nazis, China, North-Korea may be it in paper, but it has nothing to do with the real idea behind it... It is a strong arguments to bring these countries out, see how they did. Yet, none of them has ever been even a bit socialistic country...

The purpose of this thread, as I say again, was to show how so many people misinterpet the meaning of it. Ideas which are implemented in Scandinavia (free higher education, free healthcare, more opportunities for everyone) and several other countries are immediately dismissed by many in US and other right-wing countries as being socialistic ones? Sorry, but you are a perfect example of such person... automatically bringing judgements without knowing any details...

reply to post by Kali74

Thank you, Kali! Great explanation. Most appreciated. I too find my brain trip-up over distorted definitions.
If I understand correctly, it is the issue of ownership that defines socialism vs. capitalism. (I may have made mistakes in my previous reply to the OP...I hope not...)

So - if I am clear, in socialism, the employee/worker owns a share of the business profits based on what they put into it, and there are no higher-level 'share holders' to earn money for - if the business does well, the employee-owner does well, if times are hard, the employee expects to tighten their own belts in response. Also, every worker has the responsibility to vote on how the company should be run, etc. There is a truncated pyramid, in which some people may be paid more for the value they give the company, but overall the profits are spread broadly to the majority. In capitalism, the worker is paid a salary defined by the executives, but they are considered an "expense" of the company - the profits of the company as a whole go back to the investor class shareholders. The employee may be laid off when times get tough or mergers happen and they generally do not have a leadership vote in the direction the company goes. The pyramid is peaked, with money and power being pulled to the top. I'm not sure I have that all correct. But its my current understanding...

What we call 'social programs' are taking public funds and applying them to public resources for the masses, versus, taking personal funds and putting them into privatized sources (i.e. Social Security, public schools vs. private investments and private schools).

peace,
AB