Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism

Recommended Videos

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
101194 said:
Because nazi's where socalist, And Russians. And american doesn't like them, Thats it kids.
That's not very fair at all.

And no, there's nothing wrong with it. Pure socialism I guess, but what exists currently up here in Canada and places in Europe works perfectly. It's only Faux News fear-mongers who go around with "obama iz scury socialist lololol" without really seeming to have a very good understanding of what socialism is.
 

Break

And you are?
Sep 10, 2007
965
0
0
The biggest problem with Socialism is that it was mentioned a lot during America's astonishingly successful propaganda campaign during the Cold War.

I mean, sure, there are problems with the theory, but that's not what you're asking.

Also, giving a choice of a "good thing" or a "bad thing" isn't really an intelligent poll. It's just a thing.

shumped said:
101194 said:
Because nazi's where socalist, And Russians. And american doesn't like them, Thats it kids.
what?

germans where fascists and russians were communists or am i wrong?
That's the joke. People have called Obama a communist, and people have called him a Nazi. Sometimes the same people have compared him to both. It's why the whole thing is so funny.
 

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
shumped said:
101194 said:
Because nazi's where socalist, And Russians. And american doesn't like them, Thats it kids.
what?

germans where fascists and russians were communists or am i wrong?
Yeah, this is what I was getting at as well. I think he might have been trying to make a funny, but it failed.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Break said:
The biggest problem with Socialism is that it was mentioned a lot during America's astonishingly successful propaganda campaign during the Cold War.

I mean, sure, there are problems with the theory, but that's not what you're asking.

Also, giving a choice of a "good thing" or a "bad thing" isn't really an intelligent poll. It's just a thing.
Sorry pretty new at this, I think this is my third topic so not too Imaginative with the poll.
 

101194

New member
Nov 11, 2008
5,015
0
0
Cakes said:
That's not very fair at all.

And no, there's nothing wrong with it. Pure socialism I guess, but what exists currently up here in Canada and places in Europe works perfectly. It's only Faux News fear-mongers who go around with "obama iz scury socialist lololol" without really seeming to have a very good understanding of what socialism is.
Sorry, That came off a little wrong, What I ment was that people are easily fooled into believing because a form of goverment was used by evil people is must be evil (Nationzite Sozpeiac are NAZI's) and Socailist workers of Russia where the main part of the Communist revolution. I have no problem with socalisim in general, It just gets poluted with false ideals and Dicks and fuckers.[/quote]
 

Reneux

New member
Jul 13, 2009
33
0
0
Socialism is about economic theory that states in part, that some services neccessary to an advanced society are not well served by private enterprise. Two easy ones to mention would be the court system and the police system. We also enjoy a socialist fire department. Most people quickly agree that the govenment should manage those. However, like everything else some people would set the peg further right or left. Or more accuratly further left or right on a range of topics that matter to them. Many of the folks decrying socialism in health care, are activly using Medicare. The Senetors and congressmen saying that it will kill grandma, are actually using that exact same system right now. This is the same plan being discussed in congress at the moment. A government run, health INSURANCE plan. Not government doctors or anything like that.
One benifit of this plan is that it will stop hospitals from having a two tier payment plan.
The two teir payment plan works exactly like this: My friend was hit in a motorbike accedent, he payed 150 out of pocket for an MRI, his insurance paid the rest at a "negotiated rate" with the service provider they paid 400 dollars total 550. My daughter needed an MRI because she has autism, and her doctor was worried she might have tumors or the like, but the insurance declined to pay, my out of pocket 1250. Even leaping past the notion that physical health and mental health are covered disparatly why should the insurance company pay so much less for the same proceedure with the same facility and techs?
Back to the socialism again, and lets think about banks, as we learned in 1929 the profit motive can be very disasterous for these, also the credit and loan fiasco of the '90's for a quick reminder. Now think about the home mortgage crisis, and realize that it's not enen the unqualified loans that were made that fueled the meltdown. Even if the market had been robust we still would have failed because of the nature of the credit defalt swaps. Unless we choose to live like the medival times we are going to have to, as a society place create mechanisims that ensure that these neccessary institutions are free from graft and looting.
I hope that was helpful, and I admire you posting an honest question, as we really should discuss these things, rather than the one line hate speach that has become all too familiar.
 

jman737

New member
Apr 22, 2009
27
0
0
Both facism and the totalitarian dictatorship that Russia claimed to communism are actually extreme forms of socialism. That't the problem with socialism. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. If you give too much power to the government, it corrupts. Want an example? Russia. The theory of Marxist communism stated that one man would rise up and teach the ways of communism once the revolution took place. Lenin rushed it, but the revolution still took place and one man took the role of teaching the people. His name was Joseph Stalin...

PS. In the Canadian health system, it takes 6 months to get an MRI. Lots of cancers that could be treated in the early stages, ones that could be diagnosed with and MRI and biopsy, will kill someone in 6 months.
 

oppp7

New member
Aug 29, 2009
7,045
0
0
It's good in theory, but it puts too much power in the hands of a few people. You can't have pure capitalism either. I think a mix of the two would be best, instead of either extreme.
 

Dancingman

New member
Aug 15, 2008
990
0
0
I support socialism, and get annoyed with all the people who think that it will somehow turn the USA into a fascist dictatorship. Eh, second thought, I don't really feel like arguing because it'll just turn into a big circle jerk, just putting my opinion out there.
 

LCP

New member
Dec 24, 2008
683
0
0
it never works, and most of the times ruins countries. People cannot have nice things as their neighbor will want one.
 

Chunko

New member
Aug 2, 2009
1,533
0
0
I'm just against it because if people get money for no reason then they won't work (incredibly simplified version).
 

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
jman737 said:
Both facism and the totalitarian dictatorship that Russia claimed to communism are actually extreme forms of socialism. That't the problem with socialism. "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. If you give too much power to the government, it corrupts. Want an example? Russia. The theory of Marxist communism stated that one man would rise up and teach the ways of communism once the revolution took place. Lenin rushed it, but the revolution still took place and one man took the role of teaching the people. His name was Joseph Stalin...
Oh god, I'm not even going to touch this one.

jman737 said:
PS. In the Canadian health system, it takes 6 months to get an MRI. Lots of cancers that could be treated in the early stages, ones that could be diagnosed with and MRI and biopsy, will kill someone in 6 months.
Bullshit.
"The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks with 86.4% waiting less than 3 months."
Someone's been watching Faux News. Our healthcare isn't perfect, but it is still damn good. It's this horrible socialism that has lead to our very high life expectancy, low infant mortality, etc.
 

Akai Shizuku

New member
Jul 24, 2009
3,183
0
0
This post is so going to be flamebait...

Socialism is good because it can lead to communism. Communism is, at the very core of it, sharing. America, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, doesn't like that. Now, when I say America, I mostly refer to the government, because they're greedy f**ks. The American people, however, are varied in wealth but have been fed capitalist propaganda for decades by the government. Because of this propaganda campaign, Americans are afraid of communism under the (false) impression that it is a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of freedom. In reality, communism is exactly the opposite; as a matter of fact, communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, as the government becomes unecessary and thus disappears.

Sorry for the wall of text.
 

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
oppp7 said:
It's good in theory, but it puts too much power in the hands of a few people. You can't have pure capitalism either. I think a mix of the two would be best, instead of either extreme.
This is exactly how it should be done, yes.
 

Swaki

New member
Apr 15, 2009
2,013
0
0
i live in Denmark, we dont have pure socialism here but whit out being certain i would say its the most socialistic government thats working, and i see nothing bad about it honestly i cant imagine living in any other country as they all seem, not exactly evil but unfair towards the less fortune.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
oppp7 said:
It's good in theory, but it puts too much power in the hands of a few people. You can't have pure capitalism either. I think a mix of the two would be best, instead of either extreme.
As said in the Edit (and admittedly I should have though my question out a little more before posting but I was sort of in a rush at that moment) I'm not talking about Socialism in it's purest form, nothing in it's purest form works well. The question is mostly for well is mostly from a sort of lack of understanding, see I read a lot of posts, mainly from Republican Americans about how bad socialism is and how it's stealing and evil and along with a lot of other over the top negative things about socialism, see I'm from a socialist country (England) and I don't see all this evil Socialism is apparently generating. When I worked ( I no longer work(Laid off from my part time job)) I paid my taxes and it wasn't much a bit of percentage of the top of my wage and that was it, what I here from the people against it is that you pretty much have to sell your house to afford it, that you get the same amount as every one else with no chance of bettering your self(pure communism).

I don't see all this negativity towards it I knew that tax out of my wage was funding the NHS so when some pure fellow gets knocked over he doesn't get left to rot because he can't afford it.I knew my wage was going towards people who are unfortunately not able to find work and have mouths to feed, when I was younger my dad was the fellow who unfortunately got laid off with 3 kids and a wife to feed and care for. I also knew of the drug addicts and lazy basterds that populate Britain that I was paying to sit on there arse to do nothing but the potential to help others in tough situations in my mind out weight the potential of paying for another lazy parasite to leach of benefits.
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
Because if we help those who need help, they get lazy and shiftless and then we just pay for helping them forever and they don't get real jobs because the government is funding them. Stupid poor people. And it turns us into SHEEPLE! SHEEPLE! Blaaarggh! Death to commies!

At least, that's how some people feel. They don't like the concept of the government taking a tithe of their income and using that to help other people. This generally goes hand in hand with the idea that the government is the worst organization ever for getting anything done (unless, of course, if you mention that governments also run the military, which is a large wasteful government program that can topple a third-world dictatorship in less than a month, and then those same conservatives get all twitchy and say something meaningless, like "well, that's the exception that proves the rule."

To prove their point, they often point to communist dictatorships, which have absolutely nothing to do with socialism, or even communism, as Marx defined it. All the countries which have become communist over the years are largely agrarian societies (i.e. Russia, China) with lots of peasants and a low number of factories. In fact, socialism and communism are really about wage labor, which requires a highly industrialized country (Marx was specifically interested in Britain, where he lived), which creates a sharp divide between Owners and Workers.

In fact, modern Europe, and a lot of the Western world, even a great deal of American welfare policies, are a lot closer in line with the ideals of Marx and Engels than Stalin or Mao ever were. And guess what? These countries are doing great (relative to the rest of the world).

There's nothing wrong with socialism. People are just poorly informed.