Socialism is a Joke

[USViking]

Capitalism and Socialism went head-on
for a Century, and Capitalism emerged
as the clear victor.

It is as we speak not losing ground,
it is gaining strength.

Is there any doubt that the overall
standard of living is increasing?

In all Socialist countries standards of living
are hard-pressed to stay even.

e.g. Ukraine. Am I missing something?

[earth]

Sweden. Canada. Britian. Germany. Spain. Greece. Pretty much the entire EU. Sure they're not as God-awful powerful as Americans but the disparaging difference between rich + poor is not near the pitiful expanse that America is at. Think of socialism as the last defence in the ideal of "all men are created equal".

Even with the equality that has come out of a great "capitalist" nation such as America is still rife with inequalities. You can have all the rights as another person but it's plain that those with power have special rights about those that don't. I use for example Martha Steward, OJ, Kobe, The Enron Scandal... etc.

Up here In Canada I can use Brian Mulrooney, Paul Martin, most politicians. Those in power receive a slap on the wrist for wrongdoing. Everyone else would see hard jail time. Western Society is still a society of inequality.

That inequality is based on monetary value.

Therefore it can be argued that Capitalism is creating as many, if not more, problems that were there to start with.

[USViking]

None of the Eu was as close as you claim.

If they were close then ,are they now getting closer,
or farther away- which?

Answer: farther away.

You long for a socialist reversion.

Joke.

[Duo_Maxwell]

USViking: He didn't mean close to America's power, he meant that the socio-economic gaps between the populations that those states weren't as large as the gap in America.

Here in America we have hundreds of thousands of homeless living on essentially nothing, while having the highest amount of millionares and billionaires in the world. That doesn't exist in the socialist heavy mixed economies.

Pure capitalism is ruthlessly cutthroat. Pure socialism is essentially communism. I believe in a mix of the two, being capitalism heavy.

[DMann]

the disparity isn't comparable to the US? Almost half those countries are Monarchies. They all have ghettos and they all have poverty standing outside looking in the rich peoples windows. I know for a fact France and England have horrible slums equivalent with New York vity slums. so, I don't know how you can say it's better over there.
They may have socialized medicine, But, in england(London), I went to a dentist, and HE was missing teeth. It's not the best service.
I had a flu in Berlin. I couldn't even find a doctor. Although, i'm sure they have them I just couldn't read german signs. I went to a store to get aspirins and the guy there didn't understand me. So, i tried to simplify by holding my head and saying "PAIN". He brought me a small jar of white paint. I said eff it and drank it right there in the store.. It sort of tasted like medicine. It was better when I added some Vodka.

[earth]

None of the Eu was as close as you claim.

If they were close then ,are they now getting closer,
or farther away- which?

Answer: farther away.

You long for a socialist reversion.

Joke.

The EU is more more of a socialist mindset than NA that was the point. And no it's not getting farther away from socialism. Here in Canada there was huge push for our PM to put money back into health care + education, which he is doing. Spain just put in a socialist party. Germany's worker's unions are among the most powerful in the world. Sweden has one of the best public health care systems.

DMann: I disagree with you on the slums. In every city outside of America I have seen the slums are nowhere near the degradation. I can walk through the projects of London, Paris, Berlin, etc. and they are nowhere near walking through the slums of Chicago or Detroit.

As well, monarchies have nothing to do with affecting the flow of money in a country. You could view a monarch as the CEO of a company that actually cares about the lives of it's workers. Monarchies can be bad and they could be good. For the most part the Monarchies in the EU are doing quite well in enforcing the benifits + social programs that the people are privvy to.

[Oliphaunt]

well it might just be subjective concerning the slums.. i've been to Chicago and L.A. and alot of other american cities.. i got lost in south central L.A. which ws fun..

i really dont think they're any worse than the slums i've seen in Paris, Rome, and Poland though...

[gopman]

The unemployment rate in the EU is almost twice as high as it is in the US. Canada's is also considerably higher. I'd have to conclude that means the gap between rich and poor is not only larger, but more static. In the US you can move on up to a de-luxe apartment in the sky.

[ZXL]

Gopman take a look at the thread in the International Politics about 'Europe has a lot to loose if Kerry is elected' (or something like that), there I explained why unemployment is higher here than there.

[Thermopylae]

Sweden. Canada. Britian. Germany. Spain. Greece. Pretty much the entire EU. Sure they're not as God-awful powerful as Americans but the disparaging difference between rich + poor is not near the pitiful expanse that America is at. Think of socialism as the last defence in the ideal of "all men are created equal".

Even with the equality that has come out of a great "capitalist" nation such as America is still rife with inequalities. You can have all the rights as another person but it's plain that those with power have special rights about those that don't. I use for example Martha Steward, OJ, Kobe, The Enron Scandal... etc.

Up here In Canada I can use Brian Mulrooney, Paul Martin, most politicians. Those in power receive a slap on the wrist for wrongdoing. Everyone else would see hard jail time. Western Society is still a society of inequality.

That inequality is based on monetary value.

Therefore it can be argued that Capitalism is creating as many, if not more, problems that were there to start with.

Socialism is slavery through cheap economics. Socialism destroys a vital aspect of humanity--- ambition.

[earth]

Socialism is slavery through cheap economics. Socialism destroys a vital aspect of humanity--- ambition.

I'd love for you to prove that. It's just an opinion.

[Larani]

Socialism is slavery through cheap economics. Socialism destroys a vital aspect of humanity--- ambition.


Yeah and ambition gets the monkey to pick up a jaw bone and kill other members of the species instead of sharing the waterhole. :D

[cicero191]

Yeah and ambition gets the monkey to pick up a jaw bone and kill other members of the species instead of sharing the waterhole. :D

Yep. And if nobody had ambition, nobody would have bothered to find the water hole or to drink. They would all just sit around and die of thirst.

[Larani]

Yep. And if nobody had ambition, nobody would have bothered to find the water hole or to drink. They would all just sit around and die of thirst.


oh I disagree I think thirst would take care of that Thirst and ambition are two completely different things.

[cicero191]

oh I disagree I think thirst would take care of that Thirst and ambition are two completely different things.

But what is ambition but a higly developed survival sense?

And what if it was the only source available, both were dying, and only one could have it?

[Larani]

But what is ambition but a higly developed survival sense?

And what if it was the only source available, both were dying, and only one could have it?

Socialist I think would draw straws..

A Capitalist would claim it was thiers and if the other guy did some work for him he might give him a sip or two. and if that didn't work the Capitalist would kill him.

[Larani]

Socialist I think would draw straws..

A Capitalist would claim it was thiers and if the other guy did some work for him he might give him a sip or two. and if that didn't work the Capitalist would kill him.


Actually I gave to correct this...
A Capitalist would claim it was thiers and if the other guy did some work for him like helping to find more water he might give him a sip or two, but he would let the other guy know that if they did find water that it too belonged to the Capitalist. Now if the other guy could accept those terms then ok, otherwise the Capitalist would kill the other guy in his sleep and then go out looking for new opportunities and new suckers to take advanatge of.

[earth]

To say that ambition is lost in socialism is a very grey area to hit on. You would be assuming that ambition is based in our capitalist mindset where our ambition is towards making money. We judge our society on money.

It takes an extremely open person to allow themself to think of the idea that if there was no money that ambition would no longer exist.

Where would the ambition go?

Socialists, like myself, tend to believe that it would go towards bettering our fellow man.

IMO it's our ambition of money that is holding us back. Our greed is stopping us from realizing that there is a whole world that could be living at 100% instead of 15% of the world. That, is ambition. So when you say a socialist lacks ambition please think of that. Our ambition does not involve greed or money.

Our ambition involves gaining a true equality in all our brothers and sisters.

If you ask me, a much more noble cause.

[DMann]

To say that ambition is lost in socialism is a very grey area to hit on. You would be assuming that ambition is based in our capitalist mindset where our ambition is towards making money. We judge our society on money.



Socialists, like myself, tend to believe that it would go towards bettering our fellow man.

IMO it's our ambition of money that is holding us back. Our greed is stopping us from realizing that there is a whole world that could be living at 100% instead of 15% of the world. That, is ambition. So when you say a socialist lacks ambition please think of that. Our ambition does not involve greed or money.

Our ambition involves gaining a true equality in all our brothers and sisters.

If you ask me, a much more noble cause.

excellent post.

greed is NOT good. capitalism is running amouk. I think it could well be the thing that leads us all to a very sad ending

[Anvils Hammer]

humm, from everything ive every read.
pure capitalism will detroy the earths natural resources in the blink of an eye and reduce most of society to total poverty,
pure communism will acheive exactly the same for opposite reasons

we need a mix of the two,
i feel that more lefty european countyrs have the balance right

[cicero191]

To say that ambition is lost in socialism is a very grey area to hit on. You would be assuming that ambition is based in our capitalist mindset where our ambition is towards making money. We judge our society on money.

It takes an extremely open person to allow themself to think of the idea that if there was no money that ambition would no longer exist.

Where would the ambition go?

Socialists, like myself, tend to believe that it would go towards bettering our fellow man.

IMO it's our ambition of money that is holding us back. Our greed is stopping us from realizing that there is a whole world that could be living at 100% instead of 15% of the world. That, is ambition. So when you say a socialist lacks ambition please think of that. Our ambition does not involve greed or money.

Our ambition involves gaining a true equality in all our brothers and sisters.

If you ask me, a much more noble cause.

Why should bettering others interest me more then bettering myself? I have far less motivation towards the former. I think that might be an almost universal trait.

[DMann]

Why should bettering others interest me more then bettering myself?

how about doing both?

[Larani]

Why should bettering others interest me more then bettering myself? I have far less motivation towards the former. I think that might be an almost universal trait.


Maybe ask yourself, would bettering yourself for the good of the all which includes self. Would that be bettering yourself or not?

[chris99]

cicero you write: Why should bettering others interest me more then bettering myself? I have far less motivation towards the former. I think that might be an almost universal trait.

both are universal traits---don't you care about bettering others such as family members--by bettering i think that we mean helping people out so that they can live a happy fulfilled life

[cicero191]

cicero you write: Why should bettering others interest me more then bettering myself? I have far less motivation towards the former. I think that might be an almost universal trait.

both are universal traits---don't you care about bettering others such as family members--by bettering i think that we mean helping people out so that they can live a happy fulfilled life

You are correct. But why should I share my income to improve the lives of people I have not met, do not know, and do not love?

[Larani]

You are correct. But why should I share my income to improve the lives of people I have not met, do not know, and do not love?

You ask the question, I'll leave it to you to find the answer in the very question you posed. It's in there Trust me.

[DMann]

You are correct. But why should I share my income to improve the lives of people I have not met, do not know, and do not love?

community?

[cicero191]

Do these people deserve my money? Have they honestly tried to earn money themselves? Did they know that they would not get enough money with their jobs and instead are taking mine? Are they just plain lazy?

It seems to me that many who take money can not answer these questions correctly. Therefore, I would prefer to keep my money, reduce administrative costs, and give it to those who truly deserve it.

[earth]

cicero191: Again, it's a very tough thing to wrap ones mind around but in a true socialist society there is no money. You have no income. With the removal of money goes the removal of greed. You would not have these defensive actions towards your paycheck.

That, is what free's you to wanting to better your fellow man and ultimately better yourself.

If you have volunteered you know the power + joy that comes from doing something for the sheer benefit of another person.

[DMann]

Do these people deserve my money? Have they honestly tried to earn money themselves? Did they know that they would not get enough money with their jobs and instead are taking mine? Are they just plain lazy? who? the homeless? the mentally ill? people born into poverty?

[gopman]

Earth! You can't take away money! It's the only thing I love! :(

[earth]

And that's why it will continue to be a pipedream for years to come. Too many people have too much of a vested interest in a piece of paper. It really is quite sad too. We value profit over the health, wellfare + education of our fellow man. Very sad.

[gopman]

It's nore than a piece of paper, it's a fiat money. Geez Louise.

[Larani]

Do these people deserve my money? Have they honestly tried to earn money themselves? Did they know that they would not get enough money with their jobs and instead are taking mine? Are they just plain lazy?

It seems to me that many who take money can not answer these questions correctly. Therefore, I would prefer to keep my money, reduce administrative costs, and give it to those who truly deserve it.


Who are these people?

[cicero191]

cicero191: Again, it's a very tough thing to wrap ones mind around but in a true socialist society there is no money. You have no income. With the removal of money goes the removal of greed. You would not have these defensive actions towards your paycheck.

That, is what free's you to wanting to better your fellow man and ultimately better yourself.

If you have volunteered you know the power + joy that comes from doing something for the sheer benefit of another person.

Then I would not work. I'm sorry. I'd just use the power of my brain to make the world better. Sorry if that seems sarcastic, but it's true.

[cicero191]

who? the homeless? the mentally ill? people born into poverty?

No. The people who have made no effort and have defrauded the government out of other people's hard-earned and grudgingly paid tax money.

[earth]

Then I would not work. I'm sorry. I'd just use the power of my brain to make the world better. Sorry if that seems sarcastic, but it's true.

Again, a mindset that is put forth by money. You are assuming that you are getting some sort of personal worth out of working a job. You are not allowing yourself to think about if there was no money you would still work because you want to keep providing the same services you enjoy today. People still need to work at blockbuster. People still need to work at the grocery store. People still need to work at the phone company. Everything is free though because there is no money.

[Larani]

No. The people who have made no effort and have defrauded the government out of other people's hard-earned and grudgingly paid tax money.

cicero191 have you ever heard the term it takes money to make money. It is the money doing the work for many men and women short of them deciding where it ought to go they then spend there days lounging around on cruises and such. You have to understand that in most people minds that defraud the Goverment they see themselves as no different the the people I just describe to them thier just milking a source. No different then the Employer who milks the labor of his workers who do the real work.

[Jard]

cicero191, every post of yours on this thread, makes me think you are lazy and greedy. A bit like :

"The people who have made no effort and have defrauded the government out of other people's hard-earned and grudgingly paid tax money."

I guess your not too different one from another... just a question of opportunities.

[GI Joe]

I have 2 companies that I have started and am about to start a third. I have many people on my payroll and provide many other jobs through my outsourcing and services and materials purchases. I started my first Company on a shoe string and risked everything I had. If I lived under a sociialist system these jobs would not be there because there would be no motivation to start a company if you were even allowed to. Why risk what I have for no personal benefit. Capitalism provides jobs and mobility like no other system can.

The concept of no money is BS because there would still be perks people in power would enjoy that most wouldnt. In the old Soviet Union the people at the top earned the same amount of Rubles as a factory worker but did they live the same, I dont think so. The top had plenty of western goods, summer homes and many perks that the factory worker could only dream of.

[ukperspective]

You are correct. But why should I share my income to improve the lives of people I have not met, do not know, and do not love?


firstly thats a pathetically short sighted, selfish and unrealistic attitude but let that go.

Ever heard of economies of scale ? Taken to its extreme your philosophy means no collaborative enterprises whatsoever. I dont 'love' everybody in my country but that doesnt mean I dont think its a good idea to have roads and schools built through shared taxes. I dont use the car as much as some but does that mean I think its wrong to pay for roads ?!

A more direct example is healthcare. At present my health is good, but I also feel good about knowing that if I am ill my taxes will pay for me to be taken to hospital if I am in a car accident for example. Most of the time I am paying for people that I dont 'love' as you put it but I know that a shared endeavour to have a hospital paid out of tax (a naugty socialist idea I know) benefits me. In the States as I understand it if you are unemployed and therefore not having your health insurance paid for by your employer you face huge bills if you need healthcare so the system kicks you when you are down and when you most need support. That to me is a sign of a primitive society that doesnt care about its sick. You think thats a good thing ?

I'm pretty glad you are not in charge buddy

[GI Joe]

firstly thats a pathetically short sighted, selfish and unrealistic attitude but let that go.

Ever heard of economies of scale ? Taken to its extreme your philosophy means no collaborative enterprises whatsoever. I dont 'love' everybody in my country but that doesnt mean I dont think its a good idea to have roads and schools built through shared taxes. I dont use the car as much as some but does that mean I think its wrong to pay for roads ?!

A more direct example is healthcare. At present my health is good, but I also feel good about knowing that if I am ill my taxes will pay for me to be taken to hospital if I am in a car accident for example. Most of the time I am paying for people that I dont 'love' as you put it but I know that a shared endeavour to have a hospital paid out of tax (a naugty socialist idea I know) benefits me. In the States as I understand it if you are unemployed and therefore not having your health insurance paid for by your employer you face huge bills if you need healthcare so the system kicks you when you are down and when you most need support. That to me is a sign of a primitive society that doesnt care about its sick. You think thats a good thing ?

I'm pretty glad you are not in charge buddy

Actually if you are not working and are poor you can get medicaid, Its many of the working poor that have no coverage because their employers dont give coverage. That is something that needs to be addressed

The people that work for me from the top to the bottom get the best Insurance possible. They pay a max of $15 for anything. My one employee was diagnosed with heart problems, a week later he was getting a triple bypass at the Cleveland Clinic. His Dr is the surgeon for many in the Saudi Royal family. I pay a lot for their Insurance but it is one of the reasons I dont have a high employee turnover. In the UK and Canada how long does it take to get the tests and a tripple bypass operation? I have heard it can take over a year. How many people die because of that?

[earth]

I have 2 companies that I have started and am about to start a third. I have many people on my payroll and provide many other jobs through my outsourcing and services and materials purchases. I started my first Company on a shoe string and risked everything I had. If I lived under a sociialist system these jobs would not be there because there would be no motivation to start a company if you were even allowed to. Why risk what I have for no personal benefit. Capitalism provides jobs and mobility like no other system can.

The concept of no money is BS because there would still be perks people in power would enjoy that most wouldnt. In the old Soviet Union the people at the top earned the same amount of Rubles as a factory worker but did they live the same, I dont think so. The top had plenty of western goods, summer homes and many perks that the factory worker could only dream of.

I can agree where you're coming from but in all honesty it is possible to have no money. You first have to look at the fact that if money is gone, you won't have those perks for people in power or higher up because no one would be greedy. You wouldn't have $4 million dollar houses because if they're free and there's no money people will start living modestly again. No one would be driving $150,000 Hummers because we'd be more interested in hybrid cars and saving our enviroment.

We would be more interested in starting up businesses because there would no longer be that risk countered with the opportunity. Edited to add, the reason we will start businesses is related to our inherant need to better ourselves. It is a proving ground of sorts being able to bring a business out of the ashes. It has nothing to do about money. It has everything to do about sitting down one night and saying "I made this business."

I'm going to leave this convo as it is tiring saying the same thing over and over. I will leave by saying again, it is really worth anyone looking into a socialist party where you live. I don't care if you agree with their views or not it really is worth listening to them and hearing it explained to your own ears how it is plausible. Speaking of which I have mine to go to tonite at 7pm.

[cicero191]

Again, a mindset that is put forth by money. You are assuming that you are getting some sort of personal worth out of working a job. You are not allowing yourself to think about if there was no money you would still work because you want to keep providing the same services you enjoy today. People still need to work at blockbuster. People still need to work at the grocery store. People still need to work at the phone company. Everything is free though because there is no money.

What personal worth does one get by being a janitor or working stocking shelves? People do that so they can get by day to day. If there was no money, and people could rely on others to provide for them, then they would not work.

ukperspective: That's why I don't take my philosophy to the extreme. If you want to talk to somebody who takes the philosophy to the extreme, go to ericsdawson or some other libertarian. I personally regard socialism as an extreme system.

Regarding healthcare: Some of the reports coming out of Canada say that your system is worse then ours. A matter of opinion, I suppose.

[gopman]

If there were no money it would be extremely difficult to trade because you would have to find someone who not only has what you want but wants what you have.

[MikeD4o7]

The idea of no money is noble, but would only work if human beings were "angels". In truth there WOULD be abuses in the system and there WOULD be a diproportionate amount of work done by some while others took a free ride. Keep in mind this is coming from a Naderite and a pretty far left liberal.

Obviously there has to be a balance between socialism and capatalism... here's basically how I see the ideal system. A system where everyone's BASIC needs were covered. A roof over their head, a couple meals a day, education, and healthcare. No extra luxuries provided by society... nothing beyond what it takes to live like a human being with basic human rights. Everything beyond that should be based almost primarily on capatalism. The government's only responsibility beyond providing those basic rights would be to ensure competition in the markets. There's probably some tweaking that I should add, but that's pretty much the way that I see government should be in a nutshell.

[GI Joe]

So Earth if there was no money and everything was free, does that include free table dances from strippers. and how would gambling work.

[earth]

Mike: The socialist idea is that without money there would be no abusers in the system because greed would be eradicated.

GIJoe: Gambling wouldn't work as we know it. Gambling would be those common "man bets" that we have for no money. And yes, table dances would be free.

[earth]

Oh and "Go Tribe"? Kiss my butt. Blue Jays all the way.

[gopman]

The socialist idea is that without money there would be no abusers in the system because greed would be eradicated.

And then the drive for sex will dissapear when we put boys and girls in different rooms.

Both of you: Baseball sux go Redskins ;)

[atshvets513]

Hi, I was born in the Soviet Union, emigrated to the US in '92 and never regretted ever since. The fact is, socialism is a disaster and western economies are suffering. During the good old USSR, people would steal from the government at an incredible rate(simply because all of that wealth would go primarily to better the super-powerful communists and the military). Everyone was looking for a way to cheat the system, get away with that little extra kopeck if necessary. The idea that everyone would work for free, for the "better of all" is the worst thing I could probably think of and as proof of it, look at all of the "communist" countries out there. The Soviet Union, where, where is it????? Oh yeh, there it is, a patchwork of small states that are dirt poor and have problems stemming from AIDS to mass-corruption(not to mention natural disasters, horrible economies, etc.) China communism??? Give me a break, they invest into everything from lighters to microchips to make a buck so that they could drive those nice brand new european sports cars(red just like the flag). North Korea??? Wow, talk about a mess, nothing short of a miracle will help that dump.

And yes Earth, socialism would work "ideally", but realistically it would be a screw up of the highest proportions.

[GI Joe]

Mike: The socialist idea is that without money there would be no abusers in the system because greed would be eradicated.

GIJoe: Gambling wouldn't work as we know it. Gambling would be those common "man bets" that we have for no money. And yes, table dances would be free.


There will always be greed in humans, capitalism harnesses this greed as an economic driving force that provides opportunity and jobs.



The free table dance thing works for me but no Gambling counts me out. :lol: