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

Am off to research communism next after seeing a couple of things in it that are interesting. Maybe I'm partly a commie at heart.

Edit : that will be an anti-state type of communism though, I know that bit already, before anyone starts. (this was found quickly, but still, not sure about communism yet and how it could possibly work : Anarchist Communism)

Oh, and if someone wants to call me evil for researching communism : thanks in advance.

Extract from above link :

Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism, and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property

Wow, I bet governments and corporations love the idea of this ever being implemented!

Just to add another thing : I'd go for capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, (state or no-state.) whatever really, if it simply meant that we could just exist peacefully and fairly with eachother. Anything I research is with that goal in mind basically.

Socialism is great for people that have no goals or desires if you do youhave to either be a leader or move and why does socialism need leaders anyway??

reply to post by Cabin


Communism in the forms that manifested in Russia and China in the last century was responsible for the deaths of millions of citizens. So there is little question that it was abused in the extreme. Capitalism, on the other hand at present, is totally set up to serve a very small group of people, largely at the expense of everyone else. This too is evil. Socialism, like the kind you see in countries like Denmark and Sweden are something different entirely, and provide good quality of life for people living there. But these countries have small relatively homogeneous populations compared to the U.S. In the US we now have a population of 300 million, that's enormous. We could have a better social safety net in America, but we have to figure out how to pay for it. Taxing the rich wont really do it, they are only one percent of the population, that is not enough revenue BUT we should stop tolerating the allowance of such an inequality of wealth. We have to reverse the policies that have allowed such a small segment of the population to own such an obscene amount of the country's worth And the relatively low wages in a service economy are not high enough to tax the working class to the degree to pay for a social safety net. We need to DEMAND better wages, and a real living wage, possibly an international living wage, so predatory capitalists can no longer just ship labor to the country paying the lowest wage. But the big stumbling block to all of this, is that government is totally serving the interests of the plutocrats, and the people in general have no representation. This we have to figure out a way to change. Until we have real meaningful representation in government, everything will continue to serve the agenda of the one percent.

reply to post by kozmo


Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

We should help eachother if we can, but it should never be forced upon us by any Government or Law

That is the key. We should help if we are able and willing, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government should FORCE people to do it.
My wife and I have adopted a hand full of children from third world countries. They are grown now, and two of them have also adopted children. No one needed to force us, we received no government help, and would have refused it, if offered. Actually, the government made it harder, with all the paperwork we had to go through, and all of the machinations of the US Department of Immigration. Our children are all contributing citizens of the US.
No government help wanted please. Help needs to come from the heart, not from government edicts.
When was the last time that the government did anything right, or made things easier? No need to answer, anyone; it was a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by FoosM
One problem with Socialism is how it gets paid for.

When its paid from income, as in an income tax, then problems arise.
Because forcibly taking money from one person to help another bothers a lot of people.
Not only that, but taking money from someone income is basically a slippery slope into slavery.

Money is taken ANYWAY, do you think weapons systems or politician's INSANE wages are coming from thin air?
You are already in a socialist system, REALIZE THAT already.
You pay your #-heads in the gvt insane sums and pensions but freak out by the idea to take this money to support the PEOPLE instead? Why is that?

Originally posted by mikell
Socialism is great for people that have no goals or desires if you do you have to either be a leader

And capitalism provides any working person their goals and desires? If that's so, why are we in such a bad shape today? How comes people work 40+ hours and cannot even pay for medical treatment?

Oh..because someone brainwashed you all it takes is "hard work" and you will realize your goals and desires. Problem: The 1% for whom that applies..who cares? What about the rest? What about their "goals and desires"?

What is more important? An idiotic goal to have a mansion in Beverly Hills and a gold plated Ferrari, or knowing you won't have to worry about housing, food and medical care?

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by kozmo

 

Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

Switzerland is not Socialist but a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic. The largest party affiliation, the Swiss People's Party is made up of right-wing conservatives. They are anti Big Government, anti-immigration, and promote the ideal of Individual Responsibility, so in a nutshell, anti-Socialism.

Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy, not Socialist. The Queen is head of State.

Sweden is a combination of the two, a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. The King heads up the Executive Branch.

None are Socialist. So none can be examples for pro-Socialism arguments.

edit: sorry to burst the collective bubble.

Socialism is good if ran by angels. But in the real world socialism is use to control the masses n consolidate power n wealth for the government insiders while keeping everyone else down, poor n dependent for government control. That's the real secret they don't tell u.

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by kozmo

 

Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

Switzerland is not Socialist but a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic. The largest party affiliation, the Swiss People's Party is made up of right-wing conservatives. They are anti Big Government, anti-immigration, and promote the ideal of Individual Responsibility, so in a nutshell, anti-Socialism.

Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy, not Socialist. The Queen is head of State.

Sweden is a combination of the two, a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. The King heads up the Executive Branch.

None are Socialist. So none can be examples for pro-Socialism arguments.

edit: sorry to burst the collective bubble.

edit on 10-3-2013 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2013 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

No it is you showing ignorance. Any government, by definition, is socialist to some degree. All socialism actually is an association of people working towards a common goal.

Therefore the libertarian obsession with free association is actually socialist (and often racist to boot).

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by kozmo

 

Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

Switzerland is not Socialist but a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic. The largest party affiliation, the Swiss People's Party is made up of right-wing conservatives. They are anti Big Government, anti-immigration, and promote the ideal of Individual Responsibility, so in a nutshell, anti-Socialism.

Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy, not Socialist. The Queen is head of State.

Sweden is a combination of the two, a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. The King heads up the Executive Branch.

None are Socialist. So none can be examples for pro-Socialism arguments.

edit: sorry to burst the collective bubble.

edit on 10-3-2013 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2013 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

No it is you showing ignorance. Any government, by definition, is socialist to some degree. All socialism actually is an association of people working towards a common goal.

Therefore the libertarian obsession with free association is actually socialist (and often racist to boot).

I must claim ignorance to the point you are trying to make

Originally posted by primus2012

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by kozmo

 

Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

Switzerland is not Socialist but a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic. The largest party affiliation, the Swiss People's Party is made up of right-wing conservatives. They are anti Big Government, anti-immigration, and promote the ideal of Individual Responsibility, so in a nutshell, anti-Socialism.

Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy, not Socialist. The Queen is head of State.

Sweden is a combination of the two, a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. The King heads up the Executive Branch.

None are Socialist. So none can be examples for pro-Socialism arguments.

edit: sorry to burst the collective bubble.

edit on 10-3-2013 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2013 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)

All have large social safety nets and notably happier populations. Their economic model depends on a thriving middle class instead of a thrive at all costs free market. They may not be socialist governments per se, but they employ a successful social safety net and have a better standard of living than ours, and happier people as a result.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by kozmo

 

Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

There are cracks showing in your wonder socialist states. Unemployment and the worry of paying for the entitlements people have come to expect. (not to mention the populations of those countries are small)

This has to be a sponsored topic for the New World Order No one wants the government to tell them where they can live and in public housing and where they can go . Socialism is the NWO system and they want servitude no quality of your life . Again read the Protocols of Zion and see what is going on today . It will astound you and piss you off .

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by kozmo

 

Really, it failed in Denmark? Sweden?? Switzerland??? I dont think so, and if you were to ask the people who live in those countries if they would trade their standard of living with people in the U.S. I am willing to bet they wouldn't.

There are cracks showing in your wonder socialist states. Unemployment and the worry of paying for the entitlements people have come to expect. (not to mention the populations of those countries are small)

edit on 10-3-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

They are also missing the point that those "Socialist" societies are being run by the extremely wealthy royal/elite class. That does not fit into the definition of Socialism whatsoever. Sounds more like a serfdom, where they are taxed beyond their means, but across the board for everyone under the elite level. Gives the illusion of Socialism. Sounds like a well laid out plan to me, what's the saying "hook, line, and sinker"?

Originally posted by SimonPeter
This has to be a sponsored topic for the New World Order No one wants the government to tell them where they can live and in public housing and where they can go.

You must be getting some things wrong. If we take semi-socialist/capitalism countries as example, for example Germany, if you are unemployed and eligible for welfare due to your unemployment, you will get financial aid to help you pay your monthly rent/utilities etc. Of course there is a limit, you won't get money to rent a mansion. (You can do that if you have a effing job and make enough).

No one "tells you" where you need to live and where to go. You have, IN FACT, the EXACT SAME liberties as in the States to get/find a job and make money and effing SPEND your money whatever way you like it. The only "obligation" is in fact that if you receive aid you need to show you are in fact looking for work.

Even if you WOULD end up in public housing (because it is the cheapest) and might be the only housing available due to a tough market finding a new apartment - it's still better than being homeless and sleeping on a bench? Be free to tell someone "If you don't want to live in public housing then get a job", BUY a effing house if you can afford it or rent a better one once you have the money.

People don't get into public housing because "the government tells them" but BECAUSE THEY ARE UNEMPLOYED have no money and can't get in somewhere else.

Hmmm. Was going to leave this but after doing more research I can't.

Socialism caused millions of deaths = not such an easy thing to say.

Here's why I think this is, if you think I'm wrong let me know why :

Lenin was a Marxist. Marxism had the idea that things went in these stages :

Primitive Communism: as in co-operative tribal societies.
Slave Society: a development of tribal progression to city-state; aristocracy is born.
Feudalism: aristocrats are the ruling class; merchants evolve into capitalists.
Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the proletariat.
Socialism: workers gain class consciousness, and via proletarian revolution depose the capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, replacing it in turn with dictatorship of the proletariat through which the socialization of the means of production can be realized.
Communism: a classless and stateless society.

en.wikipedia.org...

In 1917 you have the Russian Revolution, where the Bolsheviks won. This could be seen as far as I know as the workers gaining class consciousness and taking over, so from capitalism to socialism. Then we have this as the outcome :

All Russian banks were nationalized.
Private bank accounts were confiscated.
The Church's properties (including bank accounts) were seized.
All foreign debts were repudiated.
Control of the factories was given to the soviets.
Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.

en.wikipedia.org...

Then we have the Russian civil war not long after. Kind of a coincidence the way I see it, especially seeing as several countries, including America, UK, Italy, China and so on attacked Russia and from that point onwards things were never the same. So possibly a lot of the upper classes were horrified at the idea of the workers gaining control and that played a big part in them attacking. (I know there are other reasons, but this can definitely be classed as one of them as far as I can tell after researching a bit.)

Now here's the main part : Stalin and Lenin were both friends and in power, Stalin was a Bolshevik, but Stalin was the guy who seems to have turned the gains the Bolsheviks had made into a form of pure fascist madness. This is where you have millions and millions of deaths. This isn't socialism. He fell out with Lenin, and Lenin wanted him out. Lenin was the Marxist guy who was probably the best to implement socialism properly, but when he died Stalin was the madman.

Look at this :

Lenin suffered a stroke in 1922, forcing him into semi-retirement in Gorki. Stalin visited him often, acting as his intermediary with the outside world, but the pair quarreled and their relationship deteriorated. Lenin dictated increasingly disparaging notes on Stalin in what would become his testament. He criticized Stalin's political views, rude manners, and excessive power and ambition, and suggested that Stalin should be removed from the position of General Secretary. During Lenin's semi-retirement, Stalin forged an alliance with Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev against Trotsky. These allies prevented Lenin's Testament from being revealed to the Twelfth Party Congress in April 1923.

Lenin died of a heart attack on 21 January 1924. Again, Kamenev and Zinoviev helped to keep Lenin's Testament from going public. Thereafter, Stalin's disputes with Kamenev and Zinoviev intensified. Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev grew increasingly isolated, and were eventually ejected from the Central Committee and then from the Party itself. Kamenev and Zinoviev were later readmitted, but Trotsky was exiled from the Soviet Union.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is a whole lot more complicated as I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg here, but what I'm trying to say is that you can't simply blame socialism for this mess. Stalin seems to have been an absolute nightmare of a man in this whole thing, and he definitely was not socialist! Yes, you could blame socialism for him getting there in the firstplace, but if things had been done properly, for instance, if Lenin's testament had got out, Stalin would never have been around in power to do what he did.

The denial of the existence of Lenin's testament remained one of the cornerstones of Soviet historiography until Stalin's death on March 5, 1953. After Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin at the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956, the document was finally published officially by the Soviet government.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can't just read a few sources saying "Marxism/Socialism caused X amount of deaths from X to X." and then blame marxism or socialism. You have to look into the history of what happened. Then you start to realise that no, it doesn't look like socialism at all.

I mean, if I can show that all the deaths Stalin caused after Lenin had gone seem to be really flimsily attributed to socialism with a couple of hours of research, mostly via wikipedia, what about if I started really researching this via several sources over a period of months? The mind boggles at the thought of it.

And communist Russia? Seriously, the way it looks is that communism was the last stage of marxism that never arrived because they wasted the Russian socialists right back in the 1920's. Possibly because they were scared crapless at the thought of Human evolution. Yes, I do think communism could be Human evolution. No more money, no more different social classes, no more state? That seems kind of evolved to me.

We've never seen it in a developed country, have we? So how can we judge?

"Evil socialists, evil communists." Yeah ok. Maybe not.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

Problem is, most wont, they will do just enough to keep their stuff and no more, it is simple logic, nobody is gonna break their back all day, when the guy next to themis slacking off. So one by one, even if they all started as perfect workers, they will get more and more kazy by the day, until the entire system collapses. Capitalism, though quite flawed, is the onky known system at present that rewards hard work, whike punishing lazy people, and thus leadingto hard workers making more, and worthless people making less.

It has always been said that communism looks good on paper, but when you mix in human nature it goes south real quick.

Who is going to go to school for 8 years and work 12 hours a day to get their bowl of porridge sitting next to the guy that got up and just read the news as his day of work and gets the same bowl?

This is what Russia faced and so they drifted from communism to a system of non-monetary perks. You do good in college, become a outstanding addition to the country, and you get a nice house, car and driver, all the high end luxuries... You become a "worker of the people" you have little currency to buy anything and so you wait in lines for hours hoping at the end there is something you can use. You live in squallier and walk a lot while working your life away.

This is what we see in China and Cuba too...might as well add NK and Vietnam...it is all the same. As you said it is all a pipe dream that turns into a nightmare for 95% of the population.

Here's another bit I'm going to leave with for now :

Throughout the war over half a million soldiers from the Entente armies would head off from the blood-stained battlefields of Europe, onto the soil of their former allies. A new type of government had been created in Russia, one proposing a government of bottom-up, working class democratic organizations of Soviets. This new Soviet government refused to go to war, and ended it's participation in World War I with the peace treaty of Brest Litovsk, something that upset the Western nations tremendously. Further, the Soviets, in their first act of government, gave all land to the peasantry and workers – an act which cried of condemnation for the bourgeois and their hallowed rights of private property over the means of production.

www.marxists.org...-civil-war-1918-20

Again, I don't think Russia ever had communism, and if you think China now is communist then maybe you really need to look up fascism instead. Russia seems to have had the start of socialism for a very short time, and then seem to have been invaded by the "alllies" probably crapping themselves at the thought of humans realising what life without fascist rulers could be like.

But then again, I'm trying to speak in a thread where socialism, communism and fascism all seem to mean the same thing to so many posters, I don't really know why I'm still even trying.