Socialism is the best ideology

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by Gary29
Socialism is one of the greatest evils on the planet. It tries to destroy the individual and subsume them into a collective for some mythical greater good.

I would argue that consumerism does the same thing, except replace mythical greater good with GDP.

Surely you jest?

Consumerism doesn't force anyone to follow a specific path. It simply allows people to use their own money to purchase the goods and services that they want.

Consumerism is probably better at pushing technological advancement than war, and nobody has to be killed for it.
Consumerism is a willing buyer and a willing seller coming together for a mutually beneficial reason.

I am an unabashed capitalist, HOWEVER, socialism DOES work!!

Every country in the capitalist world uses a tax system to pay for basic education. Often from people who do not have children and derive no direct benefit from this "redistribution" of funds. County and state taxes which fund local roads and emergency services also fall under the definition of a form of "socialism".

These are workable.

Two aspects taint this ideology, however, degree and size.

The family unit is the perfect "socialist" group. Each according to his need. each contributing based also on need and ability.

Where it starts to break down is size. The bigger the group the more enforcement comes into play. Everyone doesn't think, live or, bottom line, place the same importances on the same the same issues.

Freedom of choice is senior to responsibility.

The bigger the group the more enforcement comes into play. that's where the original concept of a "union" of independent states operating in concert via a restricted federal gov't.

I could go on, but this is obvious to thinking people. What really kills it is the fact that those in charge of the current world-wide tainted/enforced socialism are, in fact, capitalists!!!

All to protect their families, fortunes and to control the system that they are dependent on.

I guess my point is that freedom of choice must, must, must, be senior to any "system" no matter how enticing the "ideal" book version seems.

Does this make sense?

Originally posted by fadedface
Capitalism condemns those who do not have the competitive edge to survive in the social darwinistic order it imposes on society.

Socialism condemns the productive to have to carry the unproductive on their backs.
Socialism imposes slavery on the productive and weakens the human herd.
It goes against evolutionary history and evolutionary psychology.
It's anti-human.

reply to post by beezzer


That's a difficult question because almost every instance of socialism in recent history has been governed by capitalists.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by fadedface
Capitalism condemns those who do not have the competitive edge to survive in the social darwinistic order it imposes on society.

Socialism condemns the productive to have to carry the unproductive on their backs.
Socialism imposes slavery on the productive and weakens the human herd.
It goes against evolutionary history and evolutionary psychology.
It's anti-human.

Don't capitalists take advantage of cheap labor akin to slavery in other countries?? isn't that part of the reason why companies are leaving the usa?? because people want fair wages to be able to live comfortably? aren't people being asked to adjust to cheaper wages to cmopete with other countries with slave like wages??? so which one imposes slavery like conditions again??

Socialism does not condemn the productive... it just keeps some people from setting up the rules so they are on top and the rest remain on the bottom.



Both capitalism and socialism have the positive and negative points. The common factor that makes it fail is people... people in both systems ask what's in it for me and those people usually reach for power then corrupt the system in their favor.

evolution If we were animals there shouldn't be laws preventing us from killing each other in our everyday lives.

reply to post by FlyersFan

It goes against evolutionary history and evolutionary psychology.
It's anti-human.

Which basically means that if you aren't a shark, you get eaten by one. So our economic processes are supposed to operate at complete odds with our constitutional rights?

Socialism assumes that all people are equal, when that is not the case.

Should Bill Gates have "the same" as everyone else, despite the brilliance and work that had to be poured into Microsoft (especially early on).

In a socialist system, there is no reward for trying harder, or wanting something more. No reason to try to start your own business (since the government owns them all).

This doesn't lead to ingenuity or advances, it leads to destitute countries that still haven't recovered today.

reply to post by fadedface

Socialism is the fairest and most equal political ideology where wealth is evenly distributed

It is not fair at all. Tell me with a straight face what is fair about me working 48 hours in a week and Uncle Sam taking half of that and giving it to someone who did not work even 1 hour?

There is complete logical fallacy embedded in the Socialist's idea of what is fair and just.

reply to post by docpoco

Should Bill Gates have "the same" as everyone else,

Oh please don't use Bill Gates as the example. He has poured 5 billion of his own money into the Common Core indoctrination program of youth where teachers and parents alike have no say whatever In the curriculum. What is great about teachers standing around while the kids take a standardized test the teachers never even see? Because that is what Bill stands for these days, along with teaching Global Warming as a standard science curriculum. Microsoft has partnered with UNESCO, in fact, which is the educational arm of the UN, that is Common Core is Global.
Gates is completely globalist, completely NWO, completely elite, and completely Statist. And you paid for it with your expensive Office Word license.

However, in theory I agree with you..

reply to post by votan

Socialism does not condemn the productive... it just keeps some people from setting up the rules

No, it lets some other people set up some rules so that they themselves can benefit. All you have to do is look at the regulatory House oversight committee that Barney Frank was in charge of for Fannie/Freddie to understand how a shark like him and his special friend made off like bandits while Fannie/Freddie burned because good ol Clinton signed onto laws forcing banks to loan to people who defaulted. Who precipitated the mortgage crisis? The people who decided to make banks take on people as liability. That is socialist style regulation, and you thought it was just all OSHA stuff protecting workers on the job. So when Capitalists say hey stop regulating us to death you can be all righteous and say hey what have you got against protecting workers on the job?
See how that works?

Here's an excerpt from an article for reference

In a story reported by the Washington Times, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank—co-author of the cumbersome Dodd-Frank bill and prime mover behind the destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—announced yesterday that he won’t be running for re-election to the House in 2012. The reason given: a redrawn district that includes people he’s never before represented.

communities.washingtontimes.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
Regardless of the end result, someone always loses in a transition.

The wealthy would lose in a transition towards socialism, thus the opposition.

I think that you are basing that assumption on the examples of the past, examples that as I have already pointed out have failed due to the pre-emptive actions of, often, outside interests. The 'transitions' that you speak of, presumably, those instances that have involved the nationalisation, or renationalisation of essential assets, for example, were necessitated by the actions of agent provocateurs funded by bodies outside of the nations in question, multi-national corporations that are, usually, run by boards and share holders.

In Socialism, as an economic model, as detailed by Marx, but more saliently by Lenin, there is room for 'ownership', but an ownership that recognises that it is tied to the workforce, and that there is a relationship of mutual reliance. Communism may have wanted to make all ownership a community responsibility, but socialism, with it's more realistic model, did not. What socialism wanted was a system whereby the worker was valued for their input and not merely exploited for their labour as a commodity. Owner and worker are, under socialist ideals, inextricably linked as a producing whole. Under corporationism ownership is communal, and disparate, and the role of the worker is disposable, replaceable and devalued for the sake of profit margin and dividend return. Hence why, in the first half of the twentieth century the vast majority of the 'Red Peril' propaganda was directed at the small scale industrial sector and small business owner, which, in retrospect, have suffered the consequences of the suppression of socialism as much as the employee.

The owners of businesses, who paid fair wages, who cared for the well-being of their employees etc, had nothing to fear from socialism. Only the aristocratic landowners and corporations who sought to devalue human labour did, hence their virulent and most active opposition.

Originally posted by beezzer
The only way I could imagine socialism working, would be after a complete collapse.

No, that is the worst thing that can happen under the circumstances of the modern world. We have enough, if you were to study modern history, examples to demonstrate why such a belief as yours is entirely foolhardy. Collapse leaves a vacuum. However temporary. That vacuum will be filled by whoever has the ability to fill it with the greatest expediency. Who has the ability, given the example you cite, to fill the void with the greatest expediency?

I refer you back to the quotes from Rosa Luxemburg that I previously cited. Socialism can only be worked from the base upwards, and it will only be effective given the long haul, that is why it has so far failed. Humans are, inherently lazy.

reply to post by Cerdofuego


The Zionists already beat you to it. Although I'm not necessarily suggesting that Rockefellers and Bush family are expressly Zionist, but Rothschilds are, and they all financed the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. They have already figured out how to make money while setting up the socialist and communist systems through Hegelian "conflict management".

You can call it "Crisis Management" if you like, as Rahm Emanuelle's exploitation of a good crisis is relatively the same thing.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Cerdofuego

 

The Zionists already beat you to it. Although I'm not necessarily suggesting that Rockefellers and Bush family are expressly Zionist, but Rothschilds are, and they all financed the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. They have already figured out how to make money while setting up the socialist and communist systems through Hegelian "conflict management".

You can call it "Crisis Management" if you like, as Rahm Emanuelle's exploitation of a good crisis is relatively the same thing.

Common misconceptions, if you don't study the information more keenly and just rely on internet sources. The Rothschild's did not support 'Jewish Nationalism', which is what Zionism is. Not as a whole anyway. They supported British policy of Anglicising Palestine for strategic purposes, which is also why Britain, Churchill in particular, supported Jewish emigration, when it suited him. Additional, the Rothschild's, having invested significantly their own money, as well as loaning Britain the necessary monies, to finance the development of the Suez canal, were interested in maintaining a British influence, or at the very least, and Anglo-sympathetic influence in the region in order to maintain, and recoup, those investments.

The Rothschild's did not invest in Bolshevism, though Kuhn and Loeb did, as financier to the then British Government, provide fund for the short lived Kerensky government. Lenin was most likely supported by the Warburgs whose primary interests were in Germany, and it was Germany, specifically, General Ludendorff, who facilitated Lenin's timely return to Russia.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So our economic processes are supposed to operate at complete odds with our constitutional rights

Oh please. Exactly which constitutional right is being withheld by Capitalism?
Good luck with that.

Originally posted by fadedface
Socialism is the fairest and most equal political ideology where wealth is evenly distributed through all levels of society and the means of production is cooperatively organised and run by the working class.

Stealing from the productive and giving to the unproductive is 'fair and most equal'?? :shk:
Nope.
You do not have a right to take my earnings simply because you breath air and exist.
That's theft. Nothing more

reply to post by fadedface

Animal farm was a critique of 'Stalinism' and the hierarchical subversion of the communist ideal which degenerated into 'all men are equal but some more equal than others'

And it's ever always how it's going to be played out. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, someone will always be at the top running things and getting the better vodka. Be realistic. Even Mussolini tried to be the benevolent dictator, but there is always going to be an element of Totalitarian authoritarian rule in a socialistic society, even when they say it's for our own good. Look at Mayor Bloomberg and his little petty dictatorship telling the residents of New York they can only have a small size drink? While he has all the perks and the biggest and best of everything for himself. That is Nanny Statism, and socialism is Nanny Statism.
I had a Russian instructor tell me that Putin had a lot of wealth and he charged exorbitant amounts just for a few minutes audience.

But look, Obama is a Fabian socialist. Please let me know when you think he is benevolent enough to run the full dictatorship of the proletariat.
what's even funnier to me are these anarcho-socialists who seem to think the money is just all going to magically redistribute itself because everyone is going to be real nice when the anarchists have broken down all the systems they hate so much.

Originally posted by arpgme
Socialism where everything is shared with everyone else (free health-care through all paying taxes, and so on...)

this seems to be the most caring form of ideology rather than capitalism (nobody matters, each man for himself).

Most people automatically associated Socialism (equal sharing through ALL paying taxes) with Communism (one controls all and whatever that one cares to give is shared among all the people).


To be honest, though. I did NOT study much in this field so I probably don't know what I'm talking about! I just have a basic definition of Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Republicanism, etc.

edit on 18-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

What you are talking about isn't caring, it is the abdication of caring. It is passing the responsibility for caring onto the state.

reply to post by Gary29


Because the state isn't supposed to care, right? Since when is caring supposed to be a rare commodity? Since when is caring a responsibility hoisted onto the unfortunate few, instead of a quality of character demonstrated by the offices we're supposed to trust most?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Gary29

 

Because the state isn't supposed to care, right? Since when is caring supposed to be a rare commodity? Since when is caring a responsibility hoisted onto the unfortunate few, instead of a quality of character demonstrated by the offices we're supposed to trust most?

edit on 18-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Because the State doesn't care even though it says it does. It's like a mean parent who tells the child just let me make all your decisions for you because I know better for you than you do, and then the mean parent goes out and parties with the money set up for the family dinners, and he doesn't pay his bills because he was busy donating to some foreign cause because he felt sad for those poor kids he sees on the tv with no shoes, and then he decides that there should be a death panel after all because it's in the bill he wrote...oh wait that is beginning to sound like our government isn't it?

Since when is caring a responsibility hoisted onto the unfortunate few

or at least the half who pay taxes. You didn't think Obama was going to just take more money from Buffett did you?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Stealing from the productive and giving to the unproductive is 'fair and most equal'?? :shk:
Nope.
You do not have a right to take my earnings simply because you breath air and exist.
That's theft. Nothing more

It is not stealing if given freely. Look at it another way, isn't caring for the weak and the needy a Christian virtue? Or similarly, doesn't the US army have a policy of leaving no man behind?

You call it inhuman to care for those who need care, personally, I consider that to be what makes us most human.