What's wrong with socialism?

[spliffymcstoner]

I see, so your source of information is your friends who by nature of being your friends probably have similar ideas to yours - most of the time this is the case.

Do you have more credible sources of information? I am not an expert in political science but everything I can find on the subject suggests that Socialism is a way-point between Capitalism and Communism and that the vast majority of formerly Socialist countries are turning toward Capitalism given the world wide failure of the former.

On a more general note, do you understand that Socialism is really a euphemism for collective theft? Socialist programs are income redistribution by definition, they take what one man has earned away from him and give it to another. This is morally wrong.

Now I have no problem with taxation for the purpose of infrastructure we all use and I would even be willing to accept some modest forms of Government assistance, but when we get to the point where hard working people are expected to pay the way for lazy criminals I think that is going too far.

In America we already pay the way for lazy crack heads and it disgusts me. To add insult to injury, many of the people earning the money have to take drug tests to keep their job. They have to take drug tests to earn the money but the people who receive the money don't have to take drug tests to get it. Is that your idea of fairness?

Britain is not socialist, anyone who thinks that needs their head examined

 

[doobnVA]

I see, so your source of information is your friends who by nature of being your friends probably have similar ideas to yours - most of the time this is the case.

Do you have more credible sources of information? I am not an expert in political science but everything I can find on the subject suggests that Socialism is a way-point between Capitalism and Communism and that the vast majority of formerly Socialist countries are turning toward Capitalism given the world wide failure of the former.

On a more general note, do you understand that Socialism is really a euphemism for collective theft? Socialist programs are income redistribution by definition, they take what one man has earned away from him and give it to another. This is morally wrong.

Now I have no problem with taxation for the purpose of infrastructure we all use and I would even be willing to accept some modest forms of Government assistance, but when we get to the point where hard working people are expected to pay the way for lazy criminals I think that is going too far.

In America we already pay the way for lazy crack heads and it disgusts me. To add insult to injury, many of the people earning the money have to take drug tests to keep their job. They have to take drug tests to earn the money but the people who receive the money don't have to take drug tests to get it. Is that your idea of fairness?

More credible sources than citizens of these "other countries" themselves? I'm afraid anyone would be hard-pressed to find such a mythical creature. Do you consider yourself to be more informed about current events in America than say, someone who lives in Egypt? Why is that, again? Oh right, because you are LIVING those current events as they happen. I think you'd be surprised to find that I don't base my friendships on what political views a person holds, as most other rational people would agree is a sorry excuse for alienating yourself from society. Differences in opinion actually cultivate healthy interpersonal relationships. What kind of person wants to be surrounded with people who are exactly like themselves? Someone with a very negative self-image who needs a lot of reassurance, that's who.


It's quite obvious that you aren't an expert in anything related to politics. There are many sources you could refer to in order to ascertain the true differences between "socialism" as it applies to Marxist-Leninist theories of government and "socialism" as a social philosophy. Problem is, none of these sources are GOP-backed or considered "fair and balanced mainstream American news media". It would involve actually picking up a book and READING the information contained inside, then making a rational, informed decision on your own. These are all things you appear to be unable or unwilling to do, for whatever reason.

Redistribution of wealth is not a euphemism for collective theft. It is not about taking away the money someone has earned and giving it someone who has NOT earned it. it's about giving EACH PERSON their FAIR SHARE of the fruits of THEIR OWN labor. It's about encouraging everyone to contribute EQUALLY to society, in order to better society AS A WHOLE instead of lining the pockets of a small class of "elites" at the expense of the working class. If you don't contribute, you don't get that fair share - you get a helping of whatever scraps are leftover so you can merely survive until you put yourself back into the game to EARN your fair share.

You realize that if we had a single payer, universal health coverage system that the only people who would be getting this "free ride" are the people who are ALREADY getting a "free ride" under the current system? The difference is, under a universal, single-payer system those "free rides" would actually be PAID for instead of being considered "unpaid losses" which are then tacked on the cost of care for everyone else. The current system actually causes hospitals and doctors to LOSE money, because they are forced to care for the uninsured and simply "eat the loss", which means the average insurance policy holder pays more in order to recover those losses.

EDIT: I think if you did some actual research into the histories of these countries you claim are turning towards capitalism, you'll find most of them aren't and have never been considered "socialist states" in the first place, and the ones that are or have been still have a steaming serving of socialism to go with their capitalism.

 

[CaptnJack]

Socialism isn't totalitarianism, either. You can have democracy AND socialism together. Adopting socialist ideals doesn't mean throwing away the Constitution, which actually has a socialist influence in it already (all men are created equal).

There are lot of socialist aspects to our policies already (taxes, welfare, etc). It seems universal health coverage is the only thing we haven't embraced.

Socialism IS only good in theory unless you can trust your gov't, it gives the leaders the ability to step in and take major sharehold on companies among other things, if they think a company is making too much money they can step in, take majority and no one has any say. (plus really, can we trust their agendas? how many senators and congressmen have been found to be pocketing money in the past?) im just saying like most forms of gov't its ideally nice sounding, but in practice very falliable.

 

[CaptnJack]

More credible sources than citizens of these "other countries" themselves? I'm afraid anyone would be hard-pressed to find such a mythical creature. Do you consider yourself to be more informed about current events in America than say, someone who lives in Egypt? Why is that, again? Oh right, because you are LIVING those current events as they happen.

ok well particular politics work in diff areas in the world based on what THOSE people are comfortable living with, if they are ok with being suppressed, or kept in a blind area, because they're use to it and understand how to make it work comfortably, however America...not so much, we cant trust our leaders, we've been lied to, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers have been lost based on these lies, while it MAY work on some level for other countries, i dont think its a good move for america.

 

[c5rftw]

soviet union, socialism/communism=fail. America, freedom/capitalism=win until now when were becoming more socialist. notice only socialist politicians criticize capitalism... look having everything for free and everybody equal sounds awesome, it really does. it just doesn't work. never has, never will. all it takes is for the people to realize, oh shit i dont have to do anything and i still get money/food/government checks(sound familiar?). then it quickly fails... funny the soviet union collapsed not too long ago.. people forget very quickly

 

[doobnVA]

Some good points from the last few posters. No, we don't trust our government anymore - which is pretty sad. I'm not saying that America could just magically turn into a pure socialist state, or that it would GOOD if that happened, but I do think we could all open our eyes to the possibility of democratic socialism, which would actually allow us to take a fair amount of power BACK from the government and put it in the hands of the PEOPLE. That is, if the people are willing and able to govern themselves. As it stands, we've come to rely far too heavily on the government and have essentially reversed our roles. The government is in control of US now, instead of the other way around. Capitalism will not correct this.

 

[CaptnJack]

Democratic socialism wont either, the point about it is we truly have no say what our present leaders say or do, for we are not a democracy anymore, haven't been for better part of a hundred years, we are a democratic republic, we elect leaders and put good faith that they will do right by the American people, adding socialism on top would only entice unwavering greed, and opportunity.

 

[doobnVA]

Democratic socialism wont either, the point about it is we truly have no say what our present leaders say or do, for we are not a democracy anymore, haven't been for better part of a hundred years, we are a democratic republic, we elect leaders and put good faith that they will do right by the American people, adding socialism on top would only entice unwavering greed, and opportunity.

You're absolutely right, but this creates a conundrum of sorts - because any political or social system is susceptible to corruption. Unless we are able to restore democracy, anything we do essentially gives more power to the corrupt engines of our government. Remember that there was set in place by our founders a system of "checks and balances" , but those are now a wholly owned subsidiary of those who hold the true power - the corrupt. This means they are corrupt by association, and can't be trusted to check our oil or balance our tires, let alone uphold our constitutional rights and protect our liberties against those who seek to destroy us.

 

[The Warlord]

Everyones always talking about how great democracy is. Basically 51 % of the people can take away my way of life by putting it to a vote. Fuck democracy. Gimme a pure republic so the "mob" can't take away my rights. My way of life and my livelyhood has been taken away from me in America due to democracy. it's mob rule.

 

[Rob Roy]

You're absolutely right, but this creates a conundrum of sorts - because any political or social system is susceptible to corruption. Unless we are able to restore democracy, anything we do essentially gives more power to the corrupt engines of our government. Remember that there was set in place by our founders a system of "checks and balances" , but those are now a wholly owned subsidiary of those who hold the true power - the corrupt. This means they are corrupt by association, and can't be trusted to check our oil or balance our tires, let alone uphold our constitutional rights and protect our liberties against those who seek to destroy us.

you nailed it and probably don't even realize it..."anything we do essentially gives more power to the corrupt engines of government..."

So why not get rid of government?

 

[doobnVA]

you nailed it and probably don't even realize it..."anything we do essentially gives more power to the corrupt engines of government..."

So why not get rid of government?

Name one nation that has successfully adopted "anarchy". There aren't any. A nation needs a government. WE need a government. The real problem with OUR government is that they, like the rest of us, are human and susceptible to monetary influence. What we need to do is lay down the law. PROHIBIT corporate and special interest lobbies, campaign donations and the like - and let the VOTERS play a larger part in legislating (allow them, along with Congress, to vote on important issues), and keep political issues out of "pop culture" (mainstream media) and back into academia where they belong

 

[sunshine17542]

Name one nation that has successfully adopted "anarchy". There aren't any. A nation needs a government. WE need a government. The real problem with OUR government is that they, like the rest of us, are human and susceptible to monetary influence. What we need to do is lay down the law. PROHIBIT corporate and special interest lobbies, campaign donations and the like - and let the VOTERS play a larger part in legislating (allow them, along with Congress, to vote on important issues), and keep political issues out of "pop culture" (mainstream media) and back into academia where they belong

We need God!

 

[doobnVA]

We need God!

Maybe YOU need "god". I am perfectly capable of basing my moral decisions on associated consequences in real life, as opposed to some fabricated consequence that might befall me in "the afterlife".

 

[CrackerJax]

For the USA, socialism is a GIANT leap backwards. For China, it would be a leap FORWARD.

See how that works? It's simple.

 

[doobnVA]

For the USA, socialism is a GIANT leap backwards. For China, it would be a leap FORWARD.

See how that works? It's simple.

China is already socialist, you twit.

 

[Rob Roy]

Name one nation that has successfully adopted "anarchy". There aren't any. A nation needs a government. WE need a government. The real problem with OUR government is that they, like the rest of us, are human and susceptible to monetary influence. What we need to do is lay down the law. PROHIBIT corporate and special interest lobbies, campaign donations and the like - and let the VOTERS play a larger part in legislating (allow them, along with Congress, to vote on important issues), and keep political issues out of "pop culture" (mainstream media) and back into academia where they belong

Name one nation that hasn't successfully enslaved or extorted from people.

You envision "no government" as a lawless place and dangerous. That is a false assumption. Governments cause wars don't they?

Name one government that hasn't fizzled into totalitiarianism
or some version of authoritarian statism.

Can I make a book reading suggestion for you? The MARKET FOR LIBERTY by Linda and Morris Tannehill.

This book does a better job explaining
things than I can here.
You stated We need a government.
If you are intellectually curious see why we don't. Happy reading. Peace.

 

[sunshine17542]

Maybe YOU need "god". I am perfectly capable of basing my moral decisions on associated consequences in real life, as opposed to some fabricated consequence that might befall me in "the afterlife".

Man cannot survive on bread alone.

 

[CrackerJax]

The only thing the federal govt. is needed for is to protect our borders and interests abroad, and to help settle business negotiations problems internationally. That's it!

Everything else has been the creep of federal power infringing upon the states.

 

[Rob Roy]

Maybe YOU need "god". I am perfectly capable of basing my moral decisions on associated consequences in real life, as opposed to some fabricated consequence that might befall me in "the afterlife".

What you seem incapable of is allowing other people the chance to live their lives in a way that you don't approve of, even when they harm nobody. You don't need god, cool. I get it.

I don't need government, but you insist "we" need government. Isn't that hypocritical? Wouldn't it be better if you had government and those that didn't want or need it were free not to participate as long as they harm nobody?

What if the church were in control and religion were rammed up your ass? You wouldn't like that would you? That's how I feel about YOUR government.

 

[CrackerJax]

First order of business...... strip every Union out of govt. jobs. Every one.... poof...gone.