Socialism: Good or Bad?
- Thread starter Fbuh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Calm down, and I'm sorry, but no, socialism does not require only one party. Okay, one type of socialism does, but not all. Yes, there is more than one type of socialism (Economic, Sociological, etc.), the united states has been practicing a sociological form of socialism for quite some time now. We are not solely capitalistic just as we are not solely socialistic. We have come to the same realization that numerous other countries have, you can't have just one of these.Spitfire175 said:
Communism has existed, it just wasn't as picturesque as we had hoped. Perfect Communism, is just an idea. Then again, so is perfect socialism and capitalism. I dare you to name one country that has never used more than two of these forms(that includes fascism as well).
p.s. Cuba isn't just a socialist nation.
p.s.s. Giving nations names like Capitalist, Communist, and Socialist is getting a bit old, as all we are doing is waiting for them to break out of that label...and eventually they all do.
I hate to quote myself, but, here goes:jboking said:
Can we lay this to rest now?
EDIT: Aye, I agree about the labeling. Nothing is ever pure 100% something. And the left/right view is outdated.
Socialism used as an economic method in certain sectors works ok.
Single payer,defensive military, post office, police etc etc.
Pure capitalism fails.
Pure economic collectivization (communism) fails.
And the National Socialist Party was a right wing fascist party.
The name was politics IE The Republic of North Korea.
If the Republican party called themselves "Crazy Christian Torturing Domestic Surveillance Party" they would get even less votes than they do now.
Single payer,defensive military, post office, police etc etc.
Pure capitalism fails.
Pure economic collectivization (communism) fails.
And the National Socialist Party was a right wing fascist party.
The name was politics IE The Republic of North Korea.
If the Republican party called themselves "Crazy Christian Torturing Domestic Surveillance Party" they would get even less votes than they do now.
Socialism is where government helps take care of your basic needs(food,healthcare,insurance,education), capitalism is where you take care of all your needs by seeking as much profit as you can get.
Both become corrupt and stagnate if not done in moderation.
In the US we have to much capitalism as our public officials are not watched, regulated and protected from "profit" enough to do the public's bidding. Because of it business and the rich can corrupt government more and more.
Both become corrupt and stagnate if not done in moderation.
In the US we have to much capitalism as our public officials are not watched, regulated and protected from "profit" enough to do the public's bidding. Because of it business and the rich can corrupt government more and more.
the socialism part only bloody worked. it got germany back from a crippled nation with terrible debt into a nation with the potential to take over all of europe. the nazi party also completely restored german national pride. you can say they were horrible, but you can't say they weren't effective.Mcface said:
anyway I think a lot of the hatred for socialism is based on propaganda and ignorance. why do I think this? well from what I see on the news a lot of the people who complain are actually those who would benefit most from it. if you researched properly into what you're arguing about, listening to both sides, that's fine. but often people are all too quick to jump on the bandwagon. done stating the obvious...
also, I'm clearly in favour... just so long as it doesn't turn into INGSOC... cookie is on offer.
It's a shame that since then Friedman's theories about removing government influence to increase efficiency have apparently failed repeatedly in practice and have been academically discredited.Deimateos said:
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." - John Maynard Keynes
Just because your democratic doesn't mean you can't be socialist. And even though the american economy is mixed now, it should lean more to towards socialism like canada.
It is something that works in concept, but not in reality. The problem being that nature is for whoever has the most power wins. Sure it is survival of the fittest, but it is who has the most brain power or the most strength. So it ends up everyone is equal but one guy then. Now I don't think it is really a bad deal when it has capitalism working Something in concept should work but doesn't in reality. When both are fighting each other it ends out pretty well. That is how a good deal of safety things occurred.Heck the whole cold war gave birth to the internet is good evidence what happens with capitalism fighting socialism. Neither one is good on there own, but working against each other the idea of it works. Just when one takes out the other say hello to 1984 or Hoovervilles is all I got to say on it.
I'm for a good mixture of the two, because competition and opportunity are good and poverty is bad. That, and the extremes suck.
If I had to choose between pure socialism and pure capitalism, however, I'd go with socialism. Say socialism breeds laziness all you like, I'd still much rather live in a society of bums than one where everyone but the few ultra-rich has to work absurdly long work days for comically small amounts of pay. I'd much rather not return to the industrial revolution, thank you.
And now to hide, as threads like these are rarely pleasant.
If I had to choose between pure socialism and pure capitalism, however, I'd go with socialism. Say socialism breeds laziness all you like, I'd still much rather live in a society of bums than one where everyone but the few ultra-rich has to work absurdly long work days for comically small amounts of pay. I'd much rather not return to the industrial revolution, thank you.
And now to hide, as threads like these are rarely pleasant.
I don't like socialism as it goes against some basic principles of mine. If everyone comes out even in the end, what incentive is there for people to strive towards excellence and work hard? There is no longer any reward for this, and as a result most people would not. Therefore, society stagnates and no progress is made.
I think we can agree now, as we both came to the same conclusion and it seems that our only disagreement was based on misunderstanding. Though, I think I would have to disagree in regards to assuming to the first form of socialism. I rather believe that when we do not specify, we have to assume that we are speaking of socialism as it is known today, which is far from it's first form. But really, that is semantics.Spitfire175 said:
I'm glad we can agree now.
Just so you know, it's supposed to be p.p.s., as in post post script. It sounds funny the other way. Grammar Nazi AWAY!!!jboking said:
Because state run fire departments, police, military, schools and organizations like the F.D.A. are the scourge of humanity, right?Kukul said:
If you're not personally responsible for your basic needs, then you're not responsible for whether you live or die, PERIOD. I'd rather not put my life in the hands of a government that has proven, over and over again, it has the reverse midas touch, turning everything it touches (Social Security, Public Schools, Medicaid, the list goes on...) into utter shit. But that's just meZippyDSMlee said:
Yes, because WE have failed in our duty to keep an eye on them. No one can expect any government to regulate it own corruption if the PEOPLE aren't willing to stand up to them when/before it happens. That's like expecting a corrupt police station to truly police itself. Just try to get a police shooting conviction, the best result likely gotten is an "investigation" that will "go cold" before the week is out. Everyone keeps mentioning that "politicians are corrupt", but never ask themselves, "who voted Obama in?". Those same corrupt politicians! Corrupt people NEVER vote in someone who will give the less power, only more power. Anyone that takes a look at how much Obama is trying to increase governmental oversight in all aspects of life can see WHY those wholly corrupt politicians voted him in. He's even Pro-"Federal" Reserve, the group of banks that got is into this economic mess (Google 'obama federal reserve')! But there are politicians trying to undo the messes WE'VE allowed to go untended.ZippyDSMlee said:
Proof in actions:
http://www.examiner.com/x-22208-Salt-Lake-City-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m9d1-Ron-Paul-takes-on-the-Federal-Reserve-with-HR-1207
History repeats itself (More Friedman, on the Fed and the 1930 Deppression):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5OP-VmXgE
Like you mentioned, no matter WHAT system we use, corruption will exist. The rich will always influence and corrupt when it suits them, UNLESS we change the ways that they can influence politics. If the country changes its system to redistribute the riches wealth, the rich will simply move to a country that doesn't do that. And if you are super rich (multi-billionaire+), you don't have to live in a country to influence its political operation.
How radical you are about your parties beliefs. Typically figuring out if someone is a liberal or a democrat is very easy. Just ask yourself the question, "Is this person reasonable about his beliefs?"Agrael said:
if the answer is no, the person is likely a liberal. The same thing works for determining the difference between a republican and a conservative.
Sweden would say socialism is good...but who cares about sweden? All they have is good medical care, nice communities, relatively low crime, a decent GDP, and some beautiful women. And many over there think they're "happy" (though some say that norway is the 'happiest' country, how sad...). But of course this is because their socialist government put computer chips in their brains, and pumped them full of narcotics to make them think everything is ok, and it makes them follow the rules like a robot, and have an insatiable hunger for capitalist's FLESH. Thus we'd better not worry about whether or not the US is socialist or capitalist but be worrying about impending invasion by the swedish super-happy-robo-zombies swimming over to EAT OUR BRAINS.
Its not nesseccarily that its bad but rather that it can lead to something bad. When Karl Marx thought up of communism he really felt that he had stumbled upon the template for a happy eutopian society. He was in no way evil, hell I'd actually enjoy a conversation with the guy, maybe buy him a drink. But then you get assholes like Stalin and Chairman Mao who completely rip the whole thing up to match their insane agendas and next thing you hundreds of millions are dead.
Mind you those are extreme examples and should never be referenced in any debate unless there is good reason for such. Socialism is different from communism in that it is an economical model, not a political and economic one, and seeks to control the economy through deliberate and collective social control, not complete and collective ownership.
The problem with this model is that if the economy relies too much on the government then it is set up for failure. Capitalisam is the engine oil of our buisness world because it rewards efforts, i.e. providing a better service than the other bum across the street. Take away too much capitalism grade engine oil and the whole things grounds to halt.
It goes from A to B.
A: My company shall produce a better product than all of our competitors and we shall become number 1!
to
B: Oh why bother?
Mind you those are extreme examples and should never be referenced in any debate unless there is good reason for such. Socialism is different from communism in that it is an economical model, not a political and economic one, and seeks to control the economy through deliberate and collective social control, not complete and collective ownership.
The problem with this model is that if the economy relies too much on the government then it is set up for failure. Capitalisam is the engine oil of our buisness world because it rewards efforts, i.e. providing a better service than the other bum across the street. Take away too much capitalism grade engine oil and the whole things grounds to halt.
It goes from A to B.
A: My company shall produce a better product than all of our competitors and we shall become number 1!
to
B: Oh why bother?
Socialism refers to public ownership of the means of production, and it's not a very good system because economic calculation is impossible in a socialist nation.