Why Socialism is a Good Thing: An Example

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Never said 100% true socialist was the way to go... But if that scenario makes your argument better, good for you.

Never said dictatorships was the way to go, but thank you for giving those examples. I am against any dictatorship.

Again, our lives are better with socialist programs. Maybe I should add that our lives are better with capitalism too.

Capitalism does lead to a big poor class. The socialist programs assist those poor. Capitalism, true capitalism, has no care for a poor class. The poor are nothing more than a cheap labor source for a capitalist.

If you disagree with the above, you are a fool. The 2nd reason why corporations out source to poorer countries is that exact reason. It is a better bottom line.

In true capitalism, the poor are the perfect slave class.




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

robhines
....
So I think I can see what you're getting at. You're talking about corrupt state socialism, and on that note, I'm totally with you. I don't want that crap either and it could be even worse than what we have now. But on the other hand, I do want genuine socialism, where workers own the means of production, a decentralized form of government is ran by elected members from different areas of the working class, (basically each member is temporary, and voted into power via votes from members of their working sector.) instead of corporate puppets, and the class system is destroyed. A class system breeds inequality and I'd love to see it gone.
...


Look, I am not a rich person, I don't own any companies, I am not a CEO, and don't even have a small business, but in my short life I have come to learn and understand that the claims of "socialism making us all equal, etc, etc," are all lies. This is the true reason why every time socialism and or communism are embraced what happens is dictatorship.

I was spoon fed the claims of socialism, the teaching of Marx, Hengels, and Trotsky, and I saw and see the truth of this lie.

Socialism promises that all workers will own and control the means of production, but how can that be true when one of the tenets of socialism and communism is the abolition of private property? In truth, despite claims of the contrary in either socialism or communism the workers do not own or control the means of production, instead a group of men and women who self appoint themselves, mostly the top "revolutionaries" are the ones who own and control everything.

Even if it was true that under socialism or communism the workers will own and control the means of production and if everyone had equal rank then NOTHING WILL EVER GET DONE simply because everyone thinks differently and if everyone had the same amount of power and control over all infrastructure, we would be stucked in endless debates and discussions on what to do, and how to do things with the infrastructure and services.

Just take a look at this website and how many different opinions members have, how members almost never change their minds no matter what evidence is presented to them and no matter how good an argument is presented to them. Now multiply that by 6 billion people.

Socialism and communism are lies. BTW, perhaps you are too young, or perhaps you have forgotten but there used to be a time when it was known by everyone that under socialism the STATE is the one that owns and controls the means of production. In the case of socialism and communism the STATE are the top brass of the socialist or communist party, and since under socialism and communism everything is controlled and owned by the STATE, they all become nothing but dictatorships.

Under socialism and communism people are told that "for the good of all we must give up certain liberties, and we must make many sacrifices". What they don't tell you, and you learn too late, is that those sacrifices include your free will, since the good of the STATE/the revolution ALWAYS comes first no matter how much the people suffer.

No wishing, and no matter how many times socialism and communism are tried the same thing will happen over, and over, and over, and over again.

In the last 80+ years Communism alone has taken more than 110 million lives, and has imprisoned millions more. That's without adding the murders caused by socialists/fascists such as Hitler and Mussolini. Then there are other examples like the Red Terrors such as the one that occurred in Spain in 1936. Time, after time, after time when socialists or communists have taken completely over a country they have brought nothing but death, misery, suffering and starvation for the people.

That is the truth of socialism and communism.

I am not advocating corporatism, which is what we have now. Too many people are forgetting or want to ignore the fact that it was "Progressive Democrat" American President known as Woodrow Wilson who alongside a Democratic Congress who signed and enacted the Federal Reserve Act, giving all the power of the economy of the United States to the rich banker elites who own the Federal Reserve. These same Progressive Democrats implemented the IRS and all it's current taxes, which keep increasing very often.


...
In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, remaining unmatched up until the New Deal in 1933[.[2] This agenda included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Because of this act, these same bankers took slowly control over the world by implementing the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and other "world organizations" in which the true owners are the same international bankers who own the Federal Reserve.

These are the same people who through their puppets in power are asking you, and every other person that "they need more power to make life better for everyone, and all the people have to sacrifice to ensure this goal."

These are the same people calling now for a One World Government, which they have been calling for at least 50 years or more.

You think things will be better when these people have all the power as they have been asking? These are the same people who use socialism, and communism, and fascism and corporatism to gain power and to slowly but surely oppress more, and more people.

These are the same people calling for no borders to exist, no flags to exist, for no one to have any allegiance to country, or even religion or even to family but to their idea of a One World United, under one flag, under One Government.

These are the same people who have been running the world these last 50 years or so, you think things will become better because they will call it socialism or communism again?...



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 


Really?... Is that why corporations are outsourced to socialist and communist regimes where they can hire people for 2 dollars or less?...

This outsourcing of industries is part of their plan to make people more, and more dependent of government. You obviously didn't know that for example the United States has the highest corporate tax in the world, despite people claiming that corporations in the U.S. don't pay taxes, it's quite the contrary.

BTW calling me a fool won't change facts that you don't want to admit. Corporations are either forced or given incentives in one way or another to leave the U.S., and other similar countries and to set shop in socialist or communist nations like China, India, etc. This is turn will make workers in one World nations become more dependent on government and transform our nations in third world countries, which is EXACTLY what the rich elites want to do.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 

Your scenario isn't not how economies work or play out in real life. In real life Mericorp does not start lose money by outsourcing overseas where labor is cheaper.

I could spend every day for the rest of the year thinking of a way to solve a "problem" of a company increasing profits by finding cheaper labor without threatening to shoot people. Thats the only difference between a socialist and a capitalist. Your assumption, and an incredibly bad one, is that a gun-point violence solution must automatically be the best one. You identify a problem and immediately assume threatening to shoot people is the best way of resolving the problem. Socialists always try to solve problems that don't actually exist using immoral values.

The US economy has very obviously never been more socialist. It has never been more controlled by the government. Yet the obvious death of capitalaism and introduction of socialism is leading people to see what socialism does and say "oh, socialism is wonderful". What planet do you live on? Come back to Earth. The biggest sign of socialism is high government spending. Government spending has never been higher. 80,000 pages of business regulations were added last year. Another sign of socialism. Obamacare. Socialism. 2008 banker bailouts. Socialism for the wealthy elite. Government ownership of General Motors. Extreme Socialism. I think when people saw the government take over General Motors they should have been recognizing we are a socialist country. I mean if you can't see that clearly there is no reasoning skills there.

Bad moral values enable big government. Big government enables big business and general economic misery. Big business enables monopolies and wider rich-poor gaps. And now we have both. The solution is eliminate the problem, not create more of it. The facts and figures are out there that show all of this.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We have to agree to disagree, this will never end if not. This is because you keep referring back to state socialism, and refuse to believe any other form could exist. Now I can see why you might think that, because every attempt has failed so far, but it still doesn't mean that the actual theory of workers owning the means of production can never work. In fact if we're to progress that must happen. We can't exist like this forever.

To say something is communism just because some media and/or government loons tell us it is, it's purely wrong. Communism is a state without classes or money, that's absolutely not happening anywhere at all and hasn't done, and it's one reason why these terms, like Chomsky said, are almost useless now. They've just become associated with so many other things, and it's surely by design to obscure what the truth is, it's basically propaganda.

The form of socialism I prefer is libertarian, you have to realise that it's a theory, it's never been applied anywhere succesfully on a wide scale before, (at least not in the history we're aware of.) and yes, it might never happen. But you can't associate the type of it that I'd like to see with this state stuff you keep going on about, because I prefer forms of libertarian socialism where the state has an absolute minimal amount of power. I'm bordeline anarchist, how could I like the state?

This is not state socialism. To give a couple of quick wiki quotes, so that finally, even if you think it'll never happen, you can at least know more about what I'm thinking when I think of socialism :


Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life

Libertarian socialists generally regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression that must be continually challenged and justified. Most libertarian socialists believe that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they political, economic, or social.


en.wikipedia.org...


I'm about as anti-state as I think it's possible to be. I can't stand the state as it exists, it'd be puure madness for me to support state socialism. Yes, I can see what you might be thinking : it might start off like that, but it'll just turn into state socialism. Well I can see why you'd think that seeing as almost every country on the planet is screwed with corruption, and it almost always seems to end in a mess, but at some point something might change. To think otherwise is just negative, defeatist, and I refuse to go along with it.

The thought of people thinking I'm pro-state just because I say socialist is sad and highlights the general collective lack of knowledge we have when discussing these issues. Most people simply don't know that there's different forms of it. Or they do what you do and associate all the deaths with socialism and communism, when in fact they're all the result of insanity.

If you keep denying it then I have just as much right to say that all the death the west has caused is capitalist, maybe? Do you see what I'm getting at now? It's not capitalist, it's insanity. To kill people like they don't matter is insane. It's mental illness. It's not capitalist, or socialist, or communist at all.

It makes no sense, and collectively we have to stop doing daft things like this if we're ever going to have a reasonable debate about these subjects. People have to be educted/do their own research more on what these terms mean and how they can vary if that's ever going to happen though.
edit on 15-1-2014 by robhines because: added



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


China artificially devalues its currency. They do this to improve their economy.. By the way, it works. The king of capitalism has been recently surpassed by a communist nation.

Must be sad when a communist nation, full of socialism, is doing a better job on the global market than a democratic, capitalism embracing, nation.

But, you probably think capitalism and the global market are the same thing..


Bet you also think American Worker Unions are capitalism too..
edit on 15-1-2014 by ChuckNasty because: added last line above



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

robhines
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We have to agree to disagree, this will never end if not. This is because you keep referring back to state socialism, and refuse to believe any other form could exist. Now I can see why you might think that, because every attempt has failed so far, but it still doesn't mean that the actual theory of workers owning the means of production can never work. In fact if we're to progress that must happen. We can't exist like this forever.

To say something is communism just because some media and/or government loons tell us it is, it's purely wrong. Communism is a state without classes or money, that's absolutely not happening anywhere at all and hasn't done, and it's one reason why these terms, like Chomsky said, are almost useless now. They've just become associated with so many other things, and it's surely by design to obscure what the truth is, it's basically propaganda.

The form of socialism I prefer is libertarian, you have to realise that it's a theory, it's never been applied anywhere succesfully on a wide scale before, (at least not in the history we're aware of.) and yes, it might never happen. But you can't associate the type of it that I'd like to see with this state stuff you keep going on about, because I prefer forms of libertarian socialism where the state has an absolute minimal amount of power. I'm bordeline anarchist, how could I like the state?

This is not state socialism. To give a couple of quick wiki quotes, so that finally, even if you think it'll never happen, you can at least know more about what I'm thinking when I think of socialism :


Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life

Libertarian socialists generally regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression that must be continually challenged and justified. Most libertarian socialists believe that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they political, economic, or social.


en.wikipedia.org...


I'm about as anti-state as I think it's possible to be. I can't stand the state as it exists, it'd be puure madness for me to support state socialism. Yes, I can see what you might be thinking : it might start off like that, but it'll just turn into state socialism. Well I can see why you'd think that seeing as almost every country on the planet is screwed with corruption, and it almost always seems to end in a mess, but at some point something might change. To think otherwise is just negative, defeatist, and I refuse to go along with it.

The thought of people thinking I'm pro-state just because I say socialist is sad and highlights the general collective lack of knowledge we have when discussing these issues. Most people simply don't know that there's different forms of it. Or they do what you do and associate all the deaths with socialism and communism, when in fact they're all the result of insanity.

If you keep denying it then I have just as much right to say that all the death the west has caused is capitalist, maybe? Do you see what I'm getting at now? It's not capitalist, it's insanity. To kill people like they don't matter is insane. It's mental illness. It's not capitalist, or socialist, or communist at all.

It makes no sense, and collectively we have to stop doing daft things like this if we're ever going to have a reasonable debate about these subjects. People have to be educted/do their own research more on what these terms mean and how they can vary if that's ever going to happen though.
edit on 15-1-2014 by robhines because: added


The fact of the matter is that, in a free market capitalist system, the workers can own the means of production. Most small businesses in the US are worker owned.

Workers in the us can and do band together and start a business.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

robhines
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We have to agree to disagree, this will never end if not. This is because you keep referring back to state socialism, and refuse to believe any other form could exist. Now I can see why you might think that, because every attempt has failed so far, but it still doesn't mean that the actual theory of workers owning the means of production can never work. In fact if we're to progress that must happen. We can't exist like this forever.
....



You can agree to disagree all you want, but you are not going to change the fact that the tenets of socialism and communism make it impossible for the claims of "the workers owning and controlling the means of production."

For crying out loud I have given excerpts from socialist websites which clearly show that although they "claim" the workers will own and control the means of production, a tenet of socialism CLEARLY state that the workers CANNOT own the means of production...

Socialism and communism is based on lies, and unless you read all the tenets and documents about socialism you won't understand it because you just want to believe the claims of other socialists who are also completely ignorant about socialism and communism.

Here it is AGAIN, from a SOCIALIST website...


...When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property...

www.pslweb.org...


Yet people like you are so brainwashed that you don't want to accept what is right in front of your eyes...

edit on 15-1-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   



The fact of the matter is that, in a free market capitalist system, the workers can own the means of production. Most small businesses in the US are worker owned.

Funny,
In capitalism, workers dont own means of production either, contrary to what you are saying

Apple outsourced its production to China. Nobody can stop them. "the workers can own the means of production" is really fitting that, yeaaa riiighhhtt

Actually, if you want to know, USA already "outsourcing" to other countries and nobody can stop that. It is OK to do that, except - the lower class in USA didnt get covered.


Workers in the us can and do band together and start a business.

Yeapp, lets do that, lets band together and start a business,
yeap, lets make a pact and elect our worker leaders,
yeap, ...after few more "yeap", you get socialism, this is HOW communist/socialism get started.

Welcome to your own solution (not mine!).



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

fractal2
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 

Your scenario isn't not how economies work or play out in real life. In real life Mericorp does not start lose money by outsourcing overseas w


When a large percentage of the populace is unemployed OR get's their pay cut OR works a sh!tty job despite better qualifications it means that more people have LESS money.

If people have less money, they cannot spend that much, the buying-power of the entire society goes down.

So...who will ultimately buy what Mericorp produces? Where do people go and buy if they don't have a lot of money?

The corner-stone for a "well off" society is employment. If this is in danger, ULTIMATELY Mericorp will lose money unless of course they open up other, cheap markets to sell. (Eg if they sell their widgets in China etc.)

Worse, the definition of a healthy economy (for me!) is NOT only whether Mericorp loses money or not....because this may lead to the absurd situation to look at CORPORATES and their financial standing only for assessment of our economy.

But 20 major corporates who are in the black (and not losing money) do NOT automatically mean that all is fine "with the economy". A big percentage of the populace may still be under-paid, under-insured, in-debt, having problems getting adequate work..

So..would you ignore all those people and only look at the corporates and say "Hm!! Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. at the moment are actually doing pretty ok". THEREFORE, our economy is doing good. Let's ignore the unemployed etc." Ah...yes..MAYBE company X is "doing good" BECAUSE they did outsource and no-one domestically is actually working for them anymore : )

And I personally think this is exactly how the assessment of the economy happens, since the major companies are examined and how well they doing....NOT the actual society as a whole. There are still many steps involved so as that the well-being of many corporates will actually effect the real well-being of the entire society.

OBVIOUSLY there is a relationship of the well-being of companies and well-being of the society (it's capitalism, after all!)...but this happens only then when the well-being of a company is actually directly flowing back into the society. (Say, by hiring more people domestically). But corporates are driven by capitalist ideals, profit etc.

The "being well off" for the corporate will at first NOT benefit others BUT the corporate only since the corp is not a welfare agency which releases their profit towards the society for the benefit of everyone : )

Short: I (And ultimately everyone) will only see a benefit of corp X doing well once they hire and pay a fair wage. Everything else is rather irrelevant, it's statistics without any significance.
edit on 32014RuWednesdayAmerica/Chicago38PMWednesdayWednesday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   


reply to post by fractal2
 

The US economy has very obviously never been more socialist. It has never been more controlled by the government. Yet the obvious death of capitalaism and introduction of socialism is leading people to see what socialism does and say "oh, socialism is wonderful". What planet do you live on? Come back to Earth. The biggest sign of socialism is high government spending. Government spending has never been higher. 80,000 pages of business regulations were added last year. Another sign of socialism. Obamacare. Socialism. 2008 banker bailouts. Socialism for the wealthy elite. Government ownership of General Motors. Extreme Socialism. I think when people saw the government take over General Motors they should have been recognizing we are a socialist country. I mean if you can't see that clearly there is no reasoning skills there.

Bad moral values enable big government. Big government enables big business and general economic misery. Big business enables monopolies and wider rich-poor gaps. And now we have both. The solution is eliminate the problem, not create more of it. The facts and figures are out there that show all of this.


You know something ?
What you are pointing out is a capitalist symptom/problem of a capitalist nation. Your belief of what is socialism/communist are pretty screwed up and its so obvious.

USA is not a socialist country, far from it, if you think USA is a socialist country, go here.

In a communist/socialist country, huge government spending is good, if that is measurable at all.
There is NO banker bailout, no such thing exist.
Socialism for the wealthy elite.----- What is elite when you are on equal footing ?
Government ownership of General Motors. ---- Socialist do this from day 0, anything new ?.
Big business enables monopolies and wider rich-poor gaps.---- Yeah, capitalist do this, I agree whole heartily. "Big business" does not exist in a socialist/communist country.

Thanks for pointing out why capitalism is bad.
edit on 15-1-2014 by NullVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Because I agree with most of what you said here is my response to the parts I disagree on:

NoRulesAllowed
When a large percentage of the populace is unemployed OR get's their pay cut OR works a sh!tty job despite better qualifications it means that more people have LESS money.

If people have less money, they cannot spend that much, the buying-power of the entire society goes down.

So...who will ultimately buy what Mericorp produces? Where do people go and buy if they don't have a lot of money?

The corner-stone for a "well off" society is employment. If this is in danger, ULTIMATELY Mericorp will lose money unless of course they open up other, cheap markets to sell. (Eg if they sell their widgets in China etc.)
Employment is merely a symptom of a well-off economy, not a corner-stone. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, retired people are unemployed and but living from value they have created in the past. Secondly, innovation is good for an economy for the very reason that it eliminates jobs. Farm machinery and automation has destroyed the vast majority of agricultural jobs, leading to a dramatic increase in wealth and creation of the middle class. While I agree with you that some job destruction is bad, I also believe some of it is good, and that is a reason that I say employment isn't a cornerstone of a well-off economy. Value production would be a corner-stone of an economy.

I don't see why under the presented scenario we should believe that the unemployment of the Americorp employees leads to permanent unemployment for those employees. When one person gets less money, another person is getting more money. Layoffs are sometimes a zero sum game where some people end up with less money and others end up with more money.


I (And ultimately everyone) will only see a benefit of corp X doing well once they hire and pay a fair wage.

A fair wage is whatever price, however low, that the employee is willing to work for or on the other side of the coin however high an employer is willing to pay. The reason for that is I should have the right to trade 1 hour of my labor for 10 hours of another persons labor or vice versa. The underlying principle allowing that then expands to allow any agreement to people consent to to be a good thing. People won't take a deal they think leaves them worse off.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

NullVoid
In a communist/socialist country, huge government spending is good, if that is measurable at all.
There is NO banker bailout, no such thing exist.
Socialism for the wealthy elite.----- What is elite when you are on equal footing ?
Government ownership of General Motors. ---- Socialist do this from day 0, anything new ?.
Big business enables monopolies and wider rich-poor gaps.---- Yeah, capitalist do this, I agree whole heartily. "Big business" does not exist in a socialist/communist country.

Under communism, the one corporation owns you and everything else in the country. There would still be banker bailouts because the one corporation who controls all money in the country could have a bank that is losing money and want to tap into its resources (you) to cover the losses.

While you are right that socialism for the wealthy elite cannot exist under a 100% socialist country, when you have a mix of socialism(collective owned means of production) and capitalism(individual owned means of production) then you most certainly can have the collective part of the system transferring money to the individuals part of the system.

You seem to say the government take-over of GM was socialism. So presumably you at least see evidence that in fact the US has shifted to socialism.

At this moment we have a banking system controlled nearly in full by the government. Tens of thousands of pages of law instruct the banks what to do with the governments money (who's face is on the dollar, is it yours or the faces of government officials?). They own the money and you are not allowed to deface their money.

Rich-poor gaps do not exist in a 100% socialist country. But they do exist even when you have a 90% socialist country. In a 100% socialist country all you have is one big business for each industry. Obviously a socialist would say that would be the "best case scenario". So, I don't see why they are always complaining about big business screwing everything up.
edit on 16-1-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

fractal2

Under communism, the one corporation owns you and everything else in the country. There would still be banker bailouts because the one corporation who controls all money in the country could have a bank that is losing money and want to tap into its resources (you) to cover the losses.

I believe the government also own the bank. That would make government bail out "the government" ? The correct wording would be this - the government push the production to higher level to cover the cost - "work harder people!". That is the wording you should use. Its either being more productive or close, thats the only choice available, no bail out exist.


While you are right that socialism for the wealthy elite cannot exist under a 100% socialist country, when you have a mix of socialism(collective owned means of production) and capitalism(individual owned means of production) then you most certainly can have the collective part of the system transferring money to the individuals part of the system.

You are correct on the view, but a mix of socialism and capitalism is actually - capitalism. Choose either one, IMHO they cannot exist together. If they do exist, I agree with you.


You seem to say the government take-over of GM was socialism. So presumably you at least see evidence that in fact the US has shifted to socialism.

I did not say that and did not agree with that. I just say socialism own the company since day 0. I also dont think USA going to being a socialist country. Not even by a long shot, it take 150million+ people to agree to change, a revolution, and I dont see any.
Recent GM/[insert company] takeover/bailout is actually a manipulation of capitalist over the government at the expense of public money (tax).
There you go, in a single line explaining the evil way of capitalist, BTW, the government still nowhere being socialist, far from it.


At this moment we have a banking system controlled nearly in full by the government. Tens of thousands of pages of law instruct the banks what to do with the governments money (who's face is on the dollar, is it yours or the faces of government officials?). They own the money and you are not allowed to deface their money.

Or is it the other way ? I believe it is the other way in USA
Do not underestimate the banking cabal, simple snap of finger and USA have to pay the Fed trillions. They wont do that
because theres more to pump and drain from USA and the rest of the world. [Offtopic: Federal Reserve is not a true part of government entity, which make it worse for Americans. Click here]
For a socialist/marxist country, you simply cannot play the market, because there isnt any.
Hint: Rouble and Yuan is NOT trade able, Soros (capitalist) cannot manipulate it.



Rich-poor gaps do not exist in a 100% socialist country. But they do exist even when you have a 90% socialist country. In a 100% socialist country all you have is one big business for each industry. Obviously a socialist would say that would be the "best case scenario". So, I don't see why they are always complaining about big business screwing everything up.
edit on 16-1-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)


People in socialist country dont complain/care about big companies, they complain about those in power dont want to come down, those in power want to be in power forever and neglect the public/people need (they dont do their job). Tyranny is easier to exist in socialist country because of its centralized/gov dependency design.
That is a socialism/communist weakness, its not about economic problem, its more about political problem. The queen bee doesnt want to step down because it would lose its privileges. If you want to argue with a socialist, use that argument, there you go, I gave you free bullets!.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

ElectricUniverse

robhines
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We have to agree to disagree, this will never end if not. This is because you keep referring back to state socialism, and refuse to believe any other form could exist. Now I can see why you might think that, because every attempt has failed so far, but it still doesn't mean that the actual theory of workers owning the means of production can never work. In fact if we're to progress that must happen. We can't exist like this forever.
....



You can agree to disagree all you want, but you are not going to change the fact that the tenets of socialism and communism make it impossible for the claims of "the workers owning and controlling the means of production."

For crying out loud I have given excerpts from socialist websites which clearly show that although they "claim" the workers will own and control the means of production, a tenet of socialism CLEARLY state that the workers CANNOT own the means of production...

Socialism and communism is based on lies, and unless you read all the tenets and documents about socialism you won't understand it because you just want to believe the claims of other socialists who are also completely ignorant about socialism and communism.

Here it is AGAIN, from a SOCIALIST website...


...When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property...

www.pslweb.org...


Yet people like you are so brainwashed that you don't want to accept what is right in front of your eyes...

edit on 15-1-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



Already responded to that here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess you're not even reading my posts, on top of being completely wrong. I think it's more or less pointless continuing to speak with you if you keep going around in circles like this.

You seem incapable of admitting that you're making mistakes, and even reading posts by the looks of it. The thing that concerns me is that some people might actually believe the errors in your posts and not research to see that you're wrong. Hopefully that's not the case for those with a decent enough interest in the subject.
edit on 16-1-2014 by robhines because: added



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   

NavyDoc

The fact of the matter is that, in a free market capitalist system, the workers can own the means of production. Most small businesses in the US are worker owned.

Workers in the us can and do band together and start a business.


I can understand that and it's a great thing. The problem is the amount of businesses that aren't worker owned and the influence some of them are having on governments. Maybe in time that'll gradually change though.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 

Your example does not bode well for socialism. What happens when the only entity putting money into society is the government? How is that productive? How is that beneficial to the people? If everyone is on equal footing and everyone makes the same salary how is that encouraging productivity and creativity? The "Nirvana" that you believe exists, does not. If there is no incentive to better oneself you still have only survival of the fittest. Some people are just naturally lazy and will not work. Why should they receive the same amount as those who do work? Why should they be carried along when they are capable of working but just choose a different path and choose not to work?



posted on Jan, 22 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 


And how do u think u can pass term limits. Even the socialists aka Democrats refused to vote for term limits when introduced by a Republican. Ur dream world would never work. Like I said in theory it sounds great, but in practices it can't be implemented, there are too many obstacles.





top topics
 
12
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join