What's wrong with Socialism ?


china
#1



I 've bin rich and I've bin poor.....rich is better .
If you are smart you depend on yourself not on your government ; no matter what country you live in.
Last edited by china; Nov 18th, 2008 at 06:35 AM..
 
scratch
#2
Interesting poster and message.....lived with it for 40 yrs.
It's a dichotomous thing.
 
Scott Free
#3
Socialism is a terrible cancer in the wallets of those who desire more than their fair share.

 
TenPenny
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Socialism is a terrible cancer in the wallets of those who desire more than their fair share.

I would be careful tossing out phrases like, 'their fair share'.

To some, that means equal share, no matter what. To others, that means a fair share based on how much you work for it.
 
Nuggler
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Socialism is a terrible cancer in the wallets of those who desire more than their fair share.


Good one, Scott.

To give my opinion to the thread question; nothing's wrong with socialism.

No doubt, living in China, one would be dealing daily with a government strong enough, and even predisposed to taking everything one has, should one not follow the party line.

The quote of Sophie Tuckers' about rich is better is a good'un though. No doubt true, and no doubt not original to "China", even though he did not see fit to use quotations, perhaps being naive enough to believe we would think him capable of original thought.



__________________________
 
scratch
#6
Another hour (no chance,right?) would have worked.

regards Nugg,
scratch
 
SirJosephPorter
#7
There is nothing wrong with Socialism; there are aspects of Socialism that make very good sense (such as government looking after the poor, the disadvantaged etc.). Just as there are aspects of Capitalism that make very good sense (market competition, free enterprise, free trade etc.).

Both these philosophies are inimical, harmful if carried to excess. What works is the appropriate combination of the two, or Social Democracy, as is practiced in Europe and (to some extent) in Canada.

Unbridled Capitalism reigns supreme in USA and we see the result of it, with 40 million people without any kind of health insurance, the sub prime fiasco (banks loaned mortgages to high risk families, there was nobody to oversee the banks) etc.
 
darkbeaver
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post




I 've bin rich and I've bin poor.....rich is better .
If you are smart you depend on yourself not on your government ; no matter what country you live in.

If you're smarter you depend on yourself and fellow citizens to do the smart thing and become government.
 
darkbeaver
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

There is nothing wrong with Socialism; there are aspects of Socialism that make very good sense (such as government looking after the poor, the disadvantaged etc.). Just as there are aspects of Capitalism that make very good sense (market competition, free enterprise, free trade etc.).

Both these philosophies are inimical, harmful if carried to excess. What works is the appropriate combination of the two, or Social Democracy, as is practiced in Europe and (to some extent) in Canada.

Unbridled Capitalism reigns supreme in USA and we see the result of it, with 40 million people without any kind of health insurance, the sub prime fiasco (banks loaned mortgages to high risk families, there was nobody to oversee the banks) etc.

Gooday SJP, You seem an intelligent well adjusted asset to the species. Our present economic mess is the result of an imbalance of power, the rulers of our economies have never respected limits or regulation and care nothing about the people, their single purpose is to rule in perpetuity. So while it is or was perhaps politically correct to support market competition, free enterprise, and free trade as insturments that can provide a wider dispersal of wealth this is only the facade that hides the real purpose of those insturments which within the prevailing paradigm will never realize any progress save for those who control the capitalist economies. I offer the present dismal state of affairs as proof. We will never address inequalities while inequalites remain the survival techniques of the rulers. While 1% own 70 % of the assets of this planet I'll believe nothing that they say especially since promised change has been their constant drone for three-hundred years. While the solutions for redistribution remain to be developed and tried none will succeed while the bulk of the planets resources remain locked in the control of the wealthy, step one has always depended on control of that element of humanity.
 
Vereya
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

I 've bin rich and I've bin poor.....rich is better .
If you are smart you depend on yourself not on your government ; no matter what country you live in.

China, you are an older person than me, and from what you've posted here about your life, you are more experienced. But do you really believe, really-truly and in earnest, that you can be independent of your country's government?

As for Socialism - I am old enough to remember it, and I am not impresed with what I remember.
 
china
#11
Quote:

China, you are an older person than me, and from what you've posted here about your life, you are more experienced. But do you really believe, really-truly and in earnest, that you can be independent of your country's government?

No Vereya ,I don't believe so .

Quote:

As for Socialism - I am old enough to remember it, and I am not impresed with what I remember.

Socialism?.....depressing .
 
Walter
#12
Socialism has killed a lot of people in the last 100 years: Nazi Germany at least 6 million, Stalinist Russia at least 20-50 million, Pol pot's Cambodia 2 million, Mao's cultural revolution 40 million.
 
Walter
#13
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin

"What was wrong with communism wasn't aberrant leadership, it was communism" - William F. Buckley, Jr.

"Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute" - Ayn Rand
 
DurkaDurka
#14
No Walter, crazy dictators were responsible for that. Notice how you attribute a dictators name to most of those countries.
 
Vereya
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

No Vereya ,I don't believe so .

Then why post things you don't really think like you do think them?
Guess it's too subtle for me...
 
GreenFish66
#16
Global Communism and capitalism is what has happened to the safety net of socialism!
 
Praxius
#17
All forms of government "Could" be used for some pretty good things, and they all have their pros and cons depending on your outlook in life.

But in the same breath, all it takes is one or two people who shouldn't get into power, who did, to screw up a good system and then whenever that form of government is brought back up, everybody always goes back to those who screwed it up for their own selfish agendas.

Socialism had some good points in history, but some screwed it up for the majority, but that's not to say that Democracy is perfect in any sense, as it has a plithora of flaws, corruption and many leaders have abused that system as well.

But the difference is that everybody puts "Democracy" right beside "Freedom" so they turn a blind eye to some of the very same actions that were taken in other forms of government and just blame those who were in power at the time, but very rarely ever brand Democracy as evil as Communism or Socialism based on those leaders' actions.

The thing I see as a difference between Socialism and Democracy (Or Capitalism in more detail), is that Democratic Capitalism divides the population through personal greed and advancement over others in the same population, which can lead to corruption, unfair situations, rich getting richer, poor getting poorer..... in other words, easier to control and manipulate.

Now if everybody was given fair and equal treatment, equal pay, equal benifits, equal opportunities (No matter what your background) then there is very little division between the population, because everybody is on the same playing level, which also could mean a much more united population.... so if and when the government does screw up or go corrupt, you have a bigger unified population against them who are all out for the same cause, rather then a select % that the problem affects.

As far as I see it, if you work or goto school, then you are contributing to scoiety, as every job is just as important as the next..... because somebody's gotta do it. If you're working in the sewers to make sure everybody else's live is a bit easier and you're getting paid peanuts compared to some guy who sits in an office all day and clicks a few keys on the keyboard every so often and gets paid thousands a week, then who's going to want to do the peanut job?

What about experience over another one for working longer? Should they get paid more? To me, given more responsibility and authority in your position due to experience should be enough..... along with more recognition for your efforts and experience should be enough..... considering in this situation, everybody is getting paid and earning equal ammounts, all your bills and needs are already covered.

Perhaps reward with more time off or a holiday with your family somewhere could work.

Just a thought.
 
Praxius
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Socialism has killed a lot of people in the last 100 years: Nazi Germany at least 6 million, Stalinist Russia at least 20-50 million, Pol pot's Cambodia 2 million, Mao's cultural revolution 40 million.

Much of that was Facism and Communism.... not to mention those in power were responsible for those situations, not the systems.

But as I see it, if a paticular system allows leaders to get away with a lot more then they should, then the system should be looked at and changed.

Don't forget, Canada has a few levels of socialism in our democracy, such as universal health care, etc.

To me, no one system as it currently stands is perfect, which is why I tend to focus on a hybred concept of them all (Take all the goods and get rid of all the bads)
 
GreenFish66
#19
Well said praxius....We need to take the best of ..To benefit the most !
 
fubbleskag
#20
Guns don't kill people, mario van peebles!
 
gopher
#21
''"Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute"''

That's something for the compassionate [sic] conservatives to remember.
 
Zzarchov
#22
Note: That while Hitler rose to power with Socialism, he turned its back on it the moment he gained power, which is why he had the "Night of Long Knives" and erradicated the Brownshirts who put him in power, and installed the right wing SS as his advisors.
 
SirJosephPorter
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Socialism has killed a lot of people in the last 100 years: Nazi Germany at least 6 million, Stalinist Russia at least 20-50 million, Pol pot's Cambodia 2 million, Mao's cultural revolution 40 million.


Nazi Germany was Nazi, not Socialist.

Stalin was Communist, so was Pol Pot and Mao. All three practiced different versions of Communism; it had nothing to do with Socialism.

The fact that you blame all these deaths on Socialism merely indicates your bias, nothing more. Same as religious people blame all these deaths (by Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao etc.) on Atheism, rather than on Socialism.

They are wrong and so are you. Socialism is not a totalitarian system, like Communism or Nazism. If Socialism was really responsible for so many deaths, people wouldn’t be proud to call themselves Socialist, but many people are. In Europe there are openly Socialist parties (e.g. Spain) which win elections, form governments and subsequently are defeated.

Indeed, our NDP could be considered a Socialist party. So Socialism has nothing to do with Nazism or Communism, think it is absurd to blame all these deaths on Socialism,
 
fubbleskag
#24
you said bias but I think you meant ignorance
 
china
#25
Quote:

But do you really believe, really-truly and in earnest, that you can be independent of your country's government?

No Vereya ,I don't believe so .
Quote:

Then why post things you don't really think like you do think them?

Do you have a SIN no., a passport , a driver license Vereya ?Do you pay tax?
Quote:

Guess it's too subtle for me...

.....me too .
 
scratch
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Nazi Germany was Nazi, not Socialist.

Stalin was Communist, so was Pol Pot and Mao. All three practiced different versions of Communism; it had nothing to do with Socialism.

The fact that you blame all these deaths on Socialism merely indicates your bias, nothing more. Same as religious people blame all these deaths (by Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao etc.) on Atheism, rather than on Socialism.

They are wrong and so are you. Socialism is not a totalitarian system, like Communism or Nazism. If Socialism was really responsible for so many deaths, people wouldn’t be proud to call themselves Socialist, but many people are. In Europe there are openly Socialist parties (e.g. Spain) which win elections, form governments and subsequently are defeated.

Indeed, our NDP could be considered a Socialist party. So Socialism has nothing to do with Nazism or Communism, think it is absurd to blame all these deaths on Socialism,

I will not argue with that.
 
SirJosephPorter
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by fubbleskag View Post

you said bias but I think you meant ignorance

You could be right.
 
Walter
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Stalin was Communist, so was Pol Pot and Mao. All three practiced different versions of Communism; it had nothing to do with Socialism.


What is the difference between socialism and communism?
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production
 
Walter
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Stalin was Communist, so was Pol Pot and Mao. All three practiced different versions of Communism; it had nothing to do with Socialism.
Indeed, our NDP could be considered a Socialist party. So Socialism has nothing to do with Nazism or Communism, think it is absurd to blame all these deaths on Socialism,

"What is the difference between communism and socialism?"



According to Marx, socialism is a stage on the way to communism, which is the more advanced stage of humyn organization not yet achieved in China or the Soviet Union, even according to Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
According to Marx, under socialism we have a dictatorship of the proletariat which is a government organized for the defense of survival "rights." Also, distribution goes by the principle "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work."
Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."
Socialists and communists existed before Marx. Marx is the single most-respected authority and reference point, but the words "socialism" and "communism" still have various shades and applications, because of the diversity amongst those calling themselves "communist" and "socialist."
Many calling themselves socialist would like to stop with the nationalization of the means of production and not move on to communism. They also often oppose the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the name of democracy. For example, they supported the imperialist World War I, because the majorities of their countries supported it, while we Marxist-Leninists found World War I anathema to the proletariat, against survival "rights."
Since World War I, there has been a very large split between many calling themselves "socialist" and those calling themselves "communist;" however, to make matters more complicated there are socialists found who would not support World War I today and there are "communists" who would favor doing whatever the majority wants. There are also "social-democrats" who want reforms to imitate the results of socialism while keeping capitalism. When MIM uses the terms, we use them this way: 1) "Communism"--the classless society with no state of the distant future. "Communist"--someone who wants to get to communism or the adjective for "communism." Examples include many tribal societies of the past and in remote areas still living today.
2) "Socialism" refers to that period/stage between capitalism of today and the communist goal. During that stage there is "dictatorship of the proletariat." Examples are the USSR under Lenin and Stalin or China under Mao.
3) "Social-democrats"--whether they call themselves "socialist" or not, people opposing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in practice and hence socialism itself. Examples would be Sweden today.
What is the difference between communism and socialism?
 
darkbeaver
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Socialism has killed a lot of people in the last 100 years: Nazi Germany at least 6 million, Stalinist Russia at least 20-50 million, Pol pot's Cambodia 2 million, Mao's cultural revolution 40 million.

Capitalism has easily snuffed 200 million since the remote past of which you speak, you have the thirty-five year old bloodbath of Cambodia assigned to socialists when in fact I read an article today in which the destabalizing by bombing by capitalists was catalyst for Pol pot's rise.

So are we supposed to forget those of the present being snuffed as we speak while we contemplate your obsolete information, for christ sake get current Walter this is 2007.
 

Similar Threads

58
Chavez: Here Comes Socialism
by I think not | Aug 9th, 2019
285
The benefits of socialism.
by Walter | Sep 18th, 2018
10
419
Socialism Is the Only Way
by darkbeaver | Jan 31st, 2008