Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism

[Rolling Thunder]

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.

Hey again Akai. We've been down this road before, but I want to point out that you are actually out of line with classical anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin. Bakunin had very similar ideas to Marx, but the two separated into two philosophies of Marxism and Anarchism. You are actually taking the Marxist side of the split. Because of that, I think you should call it Marxism rather than Anarchism. Although they have similar goals, Marxism cannot really be reconciled with Anarchism. As I've pointed out before, Marxists have a habit of shooting Anarchists.

In fairness, Anarchists have a habit of shooting everyone.

 

[cartzo]

if americans dont like it it must be evil.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Socialism would be great if it could work but people would take advantage of it so ultimately it is an idiolistic dream that can never happen although would be nice.

 

[jman737]

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.

I think you are blatantly prejudiced against against government control. That's why so many conservatives in the U.S. are attacking Canada and Europe right now. They are emotionally against public health-care and government programs. You probably want the figures on Canadian health-care to be as bad a s possible to back up your argument. Well sorry buddy, but Canada is going to kick some serious ass this century and eventually you will make a fool out of yourself when you try to make fun of Canadian and UK and E.U. healthcare.

Also, while this is a bit presumtuous, I'm going to assume that you just asked me to try to find negative things about Universal Health Care to make you're emotions happy. Well, I decline. As much as I respect your passion for what you believe in, I respectfully ask you to find somethiing more worthy of your passion. Perhaps global warming, which will put the world's most impoverished into even more poverty. I highly doubt that what your president (do you recognise him as you're president, if you don't mind?) is really going to create some sort of evil world where elderly are killed off to increase the efficiency of the system. I understand that Canada is just another country to you, and you are using it as an example of what you don't want, but I hope you understand when I get offended by you making lies about it. And also, despite what I think you seem to think, Canada is NOT an example of what should not be done. Work needs to be done on the system, but that hardly means it's an example of what shouldn't be done. I don't think there's anything in this world that couldn't do with some improvement, and certainly not something as bit as the health care system when looked at as a whole.

I will not offer my opinions on what you should do in the U.S., but I will tell you what I heard my mom saying. She roughly said "Why don't they look at places where it does work, like in Europe?" the answer, to me, is because they want to victimise the whole idea of free health care. Canada has only had free health care for a few decades, while in Europe they have had it for much longer. For something only a few decades old, it works pretty well (In Canada).

Lonan, I am sorry. I did mean to say surgery times instead of MRI times and meant no offense to you or Canada at all. I am prejudiced against government control because the government is run by people, and people are human, so to speak. But really, I was way out of line and I apologize.

 

[wheelchairman2]

what exactly is wrong about caring for those worse off than me? I don't mind paying for things when EVERYONE benefits...

I don't think I could put it any better so I'll just repeat myself: The implication is that if I don't support nationalized healthcare, I don't support helping people. I like helping people, I've given money to charities before and I will again, but that doesn't mean that I think the government should be able to force people to give charity under the threat of imprisonment.

do you complain about having to pay for education? is education 'not a right' either? Because your taxes damn well pay for that as well

the charity argument doesn't actually stack up, charities only help a select group of people, public funding is spread out, so everyone at least reaps some benefit from what they paid for.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Of course, the problem with that video is that healthcare is not a right.

HEhe your my new favorite person of the week. It's rare that someone believes similarly to the way I do. The problem with arguing our view is that people see that and they automatically think you would let grandma die cause she is poor. It sucks because liberals have a huge EMOTIONAL advantage in their arguments.
I dissagree with government education= I hate education
I disagree with government taxpayer funded healthcare= I want grandma to die
I hate our extreme levels of taxation= I hate roads/police/firemen

These are of course wrong but thats the label that liberals can apply and it's hard to get people to reason around it.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Of course, the problem with that video is that healthcare is not a right.

HEhe your my new favorite person of the week. It's rare that someone believes similarly to the way I do. The problem with arguing our view is that people see that and they automatically think you would let grandma die cause she is poor. It sucks because liberals have a huge EMOTIONAL advantage in their arguments.
I dissagree with government education= I hate education
I disagree with government taxpayer funded healthcare= I want grandma to die
I hate our extreme levels of taxation= I hate roads/police/firemen

These are of course wrong but thats the label that liberals can apply and it's hard to get people to reason around it.

Liberal = Someone who believes in the freedom of all. I take it you believe this to not be anyone's right?

 

[Woodsey]

God I feel stupid now but err.. What is socialism exactly? I'm 15 so cut me some slack and I do have quite an interest in politics - but it's just one of those phrases I often hear and never inquire as to what it means.

If someone could explain then I'd like to contribute.

 

[Zombie Nixon]

Of course, the problem with that video is that healthcare is not a right.

HEhe your my new favorite person of the week. It's rare that someone believes similarly to the way I do. The problem with arguing our view is that people see that and they automatically think you would let grandma die cause she is poor. It sucks because liberals have a huge EMOTIONAL advantage in their arguments.
I dissagree with government education= I hate education
I disagree with government taxpayer funded healthcare= I want grandma to die
I hate our extreme levels of taxation= I hate roads/police/firemen

It's a problem that many people have, the inability to distinguish between government and society.

 

[Pocket Apocalypse]

Of course, the problem with that video is that healthcare is not a right.

I'm tailoring this response specifically to the American situation because it relies on arguably the most American document ever written (the Declaration of Independence), but for the record I happen to agree with most if not all of what that Document says, despite not myself being American.

I quote from the Declaration (retrieved in this instance from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, if well-being (i.e. the result of healthcare) is a necessary component of or condition for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, then in America it must be considered an 'unalienable' (near enough = natural) right. It's clear that a certain amount of healthcare is necessary for life, though of course the US government just about manages to provide that. I think poor health is also a great oppressor, if of nothing else then at least of the human spirit. I accept that this is controversial, but I don't think anyone would argue that there are a whole bunch of non- or only distantly-life-threatening conditions which dramatically restrict a person's liberty, sensibly construed. I'm not going to argue that total biological and psychological well-being is a necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness, as that's not so much a slippery slope as a greasy, sheer cliff with some sort of black hole at the bottom and a minefield on the way down, BUT there's a certain level of well-being that *is* a necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness, and it's more than just guaranteed first aid if you get knifed.

QED?

I'm not a supporter of total universal healthcare - I certainly don't think people should be entitled to tax-funded antibiotics or antivirals for a cold, for instance - but in the specific case of healthcare, I don't think the arguments against socialism apply; 'socialised' healthcare isn't going to deincentivise (sp?) initiative and labour.

 

[wheelchairman2]

this is an issue really really close to my heart, i'm horrified by the idea that people are so vehmenently opposed to an idea that would save thousands if not millions of lives a year!

 

[sneakypenguin]

Of course, the problem with that video is that healthcare is not a right.

HEhe your my new favorite person of the week. It's rare that someone believes similarly to the way I do. The problem with arguing our view is that people see that and they automatically think you would let grandma die cause she is poor. It sucks because liberals have a huge EMOTIONAL advantage in their arguments.
I dissagree with government education= I hate education
I disagree with government taxpayer funded healthcare= I want grandma to die
I hate our extreme levels of taxation= I hate roads/police/firemen

These are of course wrong but thats the label that liberals can apply and it's hard to get people to reason around it.

Liberal = Someone who believes in the freedom of all. I take it you believe this to not be anyone's right?

I use liberal as in American liberals(left wing dems/repubs) not the classical liberals or the "true" definition of it.

 

[Darth Pope]

Gee, why does this seem familiar? Feels like I just posted this. Socialism is bad because any time the government runs something it becomes incredibly inefficient, just talk to some one who works in the military.

Second, our country is structured around capitalism to which socialism is an antithesis.

 

[secretsantaone]

Edit: I'm not talking about the purest of socialism, I'm more talking about what we have in the UK and most of Europe (I also believe Canada as it but I won't speak for Canadians incase I upset some one although I'd be grateful if some one would confirm this).

>UK
>Socialist

Last time I checked the UK was predominately capitalist.

 

[Wayward Sean]

I refused to vote on this poll because there shouldn't just be two choices. It isn't good or bad, those are subjective adjectives and mean very little. People equate socialism to fascism and Nazis, which is a load of uneducated crap. Some people see it as the cure-all equalizer, which is closer, but still not right. Some people are deciding that we've gone from a democratic-republic to socialism with the new healthcare reform, and that's misinformed. Yes, the handful of wealthy people may wait a little longer for things, but in the end, the government is acting in place of your insurance company. The poor can get in a lot more quickly and can get what they otherwise would die without. Some complain that they don't want to pay for Mr. Hobo to get healthy, and personally, I see that as a little selfish, because if I can help someone out for a few extra bucks per month, I have no problem with it. And I'm just going to lift my flame-shield right now, because I'm sure I'm about to get burned by a lot of people.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

God I feel stupid now but err.. What is socialism exactly? I'm 15 so cut me some slack and I do have quite an interest in politics - but it's just one of those phrases I often hear and never inquire as to what it means.

If someone could explain then I'd like to contribute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Can't get a much better explanation than that.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I refused to vote on this poll because there shouldn't just be two choices. It isn't good or bad, those are subjective adjectives and mean very little. People equate socialism to fascism and Nazis, which is a load of uneducated crap. Some people see it as the cure-all equalizer, which is closer, but still not right. Some people are deciding that we've gone from a democratic-republic to socialism with the new healthcare reform, and that's misinformed. Yes, the handful of wealthy people may wait a little longer for things, but in the end, the government is acting in place of your insurance company. The poor can get in a lot more quickly and can get what they otherwise would die without. Some complain that they don't want to pay for Mr. Hobo to get healthy, and personally, I see that as a little selfish, because if I can help someone out for a few extra bucks per month, I have no problem with it. And I'm just going to lift my flame-shield right now, because I'm sure I'm about to get burned by a lot of people.

You win over 9000 Internets for that educated and thorough response.

 

[lostclause]

Moderate socialism is good, communism not so good. Healthcare is good and if you have to pay slightly higher taxes for it, so be it (N.B. This is coming from New Zealand where you can go either private or public healthcare depending on how you want it).

God I feel stupid now but err.. What is socialism exactly? I'm 15 so cut me some slack and I do have quite an interest in politics - but it's just one of those phrases I often hear and never inquire as to what they mean.

If someone could explain then I'd like to contribute.

You know what communism is right? Socialism is generally a moderate form of that but it can vary quite a lot. Some socialist advocate central planning whilst others tolerate a free market (some mix both). Some characteristics of socialism are free healthcare, a lot of government owned assets and fairly tight government controls of the economy. Sometimes the government nationalises all assets (such as Cuba before it went fully communist and to a degree what Hugo Chavez has done).
Some people see socialism as a transition period from capitalism to communism.
Hopefully that helps. Some people use the word interchangeably with communism which isn't correct.

EDIT: Ninja'd. That'll teach me to respond in my own words

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

In fairness, Anarchists have a habit of shooting everyone.

I'm not an anarchist, but they usually shoot/attack the people who deserve it.

Ignoring McKinley and Starbucks windows for a moment, they usually fight Nazis, Fascists, the more authoritarian Communists (Stalinists/Maoists if you want to get wordy),abusive cops,and the Neo-Nazis/White Nationalist bastards like the BNP.

Sometimes authoritarians just need their asses kicked hard.

 

[Woodsey]

Moderate socialism is good, communism not so good. Healthcare is good and if you have to pay slightly higher taxes for it, so be it (N.B. This is coming from New Zealand where you can go either private or public healthcare depending on how you want it).

God I feel stupid now but err.. What is socialism exactly? I'm 15 so cut me some slack and I do have quite an interest in politics - but it's just one of those phrases I often hear and never inquire as to what they mean.

If someone could explain then I'd like to contribute.

You know what communism is right? Socialism is generally a moderate form of that but it can vary quite a lot. Some socialist advocate central planning whilst others tolerate a free market (some mix both). Some characteristics of socialism are free healthcare, a lot of government owned assets and fairly tight government controls of the economy. Sometimes the government nationalises all assets (such as Cuba before it went fully communist and to a degree what Hugo Chavez has done).
Some people see socialism as a transition period from capitalism to communism.
Hopefully that helps. Some people use the word interchangeably with communism which isn't correct.

EDIT: Ninja'd. That'll teach me to respond in my own words

Ok, thanks. Understanding a bit more now.

Well the free health care aspects seem good to me - America should take it on board. I read a comment on these forums where someone said "Obama expects me to pay for everyone else's heath care" which seemed to be ever so slightly naive; after all, everyone (or the majority I should probably say) will pay in the same amount, which would be considerably less than when they have to pay for the operations with their insurance. Imagine needing 2 operations to maintain a decent standard of living: would you rather pay all you can for it and then have no money to actually support your life, or have contributed yearly so the cost is effectively spread out and already sorted ?

I know I'd go for the latter, and it makes no sense why someone would go for the former.

Obviously it would be best to have socialism with a healthy blend of other -ism's.