The Evils of Socialism

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,396
9,555
113
Washington DC
Hospitals.

Public education.

Police.

Fire and emergency medical services.

Health care.

Food and drug safety.

Consumer product safety.

Old age pensions.

Roads and bridges.

Sewers.

And, depending on your definition. . .

Laws.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,888
2,746
113
New Brunswick
Hospitals.

Public education.

Police.

Fire and emergency medical services.

Health care.

Food and drug safety.

Consumer product safety.

Old age pensions.

Roads and bridges.

Sewers.

And, depending on your definition. . .

Laws.


So people who want no socialism in their society, that'd make them Anarchists, would it not?

So Republicans/Conservatives are in truth Anarchists?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,396
9,555
113
Washington DC
So people who want no socialism in their society, that'd make them Anarchists, would it not?
So Republicans/Conservatives are in truth Anarchists?
No, they're people who don't understand what the word "socialism" means, and whose definition thereof ("taking money from one for distribution to others") is ill-thought.

By their definition, even having an army, or courts, is "socialist," because it takes money from some who will never use those things.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
The problem is defining socialism. I also think there's a pretty sizable difference between having some social programs and systems in place and being a completely socialistic country.
The former helps people in need, or at least it's supposed to anyway. The latter punishes those who dare try to get ahead.

The thing is, there are a number of systems that look great, on paper. But once you introduce that variable known as the human element, things can go to shit pretty damn fast. Communism is a perfect example of that. On paper it is arguably the purest form of govt. However, I think it can only work when you have small, relatively like-minded population. The other issue is when you introduce a centralized ruling govt, you pretty much betray the spirit and ideals of true communism.
But in the harshest reality, you can call yourself whatever you want, it still doesn't mean that's what you are. For example, "democratic socialism" is a term that does little more than attempt to put lipstick on a pig. It's still communism no matter what they call it. Hell, North Korea calls itself a "democratic people's republic", which is basically three lies for the price of one.
Democratic socialists insist the only way to true fairness is a single class system. Anyone who buys that is a complete fool. As long as there is a ruling govt, there will still be two classes; the ruling elite and everyone else whose quality of life will depend entirely on the whim of their socialistic masters.

Socialists also like making people dependent on govt. Who else would think it's a great idea to give otherwise able-bodied, able-minded people free money to sit around and do nothing? Mincome anyone?

The idea of full-on socialism is also disastrous for welfare states with open or very porous borders. Norway is a very socialistic/welfare state. But you'll also notice they didn't join the EU so somebody else could force unreasonable immigration quotas on them. Hmmm, I wonder if they're a bunch of xenophobic fascists like those damn pro-Brexit Britons.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Hospitals.

Public education.

Police.

Fire and emergency medical services.

Health care.

Food and drug safety.

Consumer product safety.

Old age pensions.

Roads and bridges.

Sewers.

And, depending on your definition. . .

Laws.
the military
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,396
9,555
113
Washington DC
The problem is defining socialism.
Funny, it's not a problem for me.

Technically, the definition is "worker ownership of the means of production."

Realistically, it's a meaningless term stupid a-holes bellow whenever there's a government program or regulation they don't like, in their typical Chicken Little overgeneralization.

I also think there's a pretty sizable difference between having some social programs and systems in place and being a completely socialistic country.
There are no completely socialistic countries, so I don't see that as a problem.

The former helps people in need, or at least it's supposed to anyway. The latter punishes those who dare try to get ahead.
No, it taxes those who have gotten ahead for the benefit of people in need.

You're starting to slip back into the absuridist view.

The thing is, there are a number of systems that look great, on paper. But once you introduce that variable known as the human element, things can go to shit pretty damn fast.
Of course. That's obvious. The problem is that, instead of debating whether a given program or law is sensible and achieves its goals, a certain sector of the population chooses to bellow "SOSHULISM!" and cram their empty heads into empty MAGA hats.

Communism is a perfect example of that. On paper it is arguably the purest form of govt. However, I think it can only work when you have small, relatively like-minded population. The other issue is when you introduce a centralized ruling govt, you pretty much betray the spirit and ideals of true communism.
When you have any government at all, you don't have communism. Communism is like the perfect vacuum. It's a theoretical concept that does not exist.

But in the harshest reality, you can call yourself whatever you want, it still doesn't mean that's what you are. For example, "democratic socialism" is a term that does little more than attempt to put lipstick on a pig. It's still communism no matter what they call it. Hell, North Korea calls itself a "democratic people's republic", which is basically three lies for the price of one.
Yeah, but it's a great way to yell instead of thinking.

Democratic socialists insist the only way to true fairness is a single class system. Anyone who buys that is a complete fool. As long as there is a ruling govt, there will still be two classes; the ruling elite and everyone else whose quality of life will depend entirely on the whim of their socialistic masters.
Depends on your definition of "class." If you mean groups of people who are born with, and cannot lose, different legal status, the United States is a classless society. If you mean "how much money you have," the United States has 328 million "classes." If you group people according to some arbitrary standard, you're arbitrary. And lazy. And stupid.

Socialists also like making people dependent on govt. Who else would think it's a great idea to give otherwise able-bodied, able-minded people free money to sit around and do nothing? Mincome anyone?
And Real Americans and Old Stock Canadians want people who can't make it without help to die in a ditch.

This is pretty much what happens when you define your enemies with lazy, overblown generalizations.

The idea of full-on socialism is also disastrous for welfare states with open or very porous borders. Norway is a very socialistic/welfare state. But you'll also notice they didn't join the EU so somebody else could force unreasonable immigration quotas on them. Hmmm, I wonder if they're a bunch of xenophobic fascists like those damn pro-Brexit Britons.
I'll not comment except to wish you and Blackleaf great joy in jerking each other off.

I find it interesting that you're willing to go on at length about what "they" want, but never quite mention what you want.
 
Last edited:

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
You're starting to slip back into the absuridist view.
Denmark: If you own a home your overall basic tax rate is 60%. If you rent it's a bit less. Any overtime, bonuses or anything else that adds extra to your paycheque/wallet over and above your normal pay is taxed at 90%. Of course when it comes to taxing overtime pay, Canada isn't much better. In fact there are quite a few ad hoc arrangements between employer and employee where when the employee would normally get paid overtime, he gets paid straight time and banks the rest to use take an extra day off here and there.

And Real Americans and Old Stock Canadians want people who can't make it without help to die in a ditch.
Speaking of making lazy, over-blown generalizations.
This is pretty much what happens when you define your enemies with lazy, overblown generalizations.
:lol:

I'll not comment except to wish you and Blackleaf great joy in jerking each other off.
So no answer huh? That's okay, most people who push socialism go through get lengths to avoid answering that question.
I find it interesting that you're willing to go on at length about what "they" want, but never quite mention what you want.
Then maybe you should have given it a different thread title. You didn't ask what I wanted, or anyone else for that matter.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
No, they're people who don't understand what the word "socialism" means, and whose definition thereof ("taking money from one for distribution to others") is ill-thought.

By their definition, even having an army, or courts, is "socialist," because it takes money from some who will never use those things.


So... by definition, ancient civilizations were Socialists.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
So people who want no socialism in their society, that'd make them Anarchists, would it not?

So Republicans/Conservatives are in truth Anarchists?




No. What it appears is that the definition and history of Socialism is evolving.



This is the definition of Socialism....




Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.



Now we know that this would never stand on its own so Socialist now say everything good in society is because of Socialism. Police, Fire Departments, roads, schools, etc. is because of Socialism and Socialists. If you are against Socialism then you MUST be against all good things that governments provide.



Take Sen. Warren when she made the statement that successful people and businesses became successful because of what government did for them such as roads and education. It completely ignores the fact that roads and schools are paid for with the taxes levied upon the taxpayers AND businesses and corporations. The government did not provide these things on it's own.
 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I didn't see any comment on how natural resources are used to generate more income for the state than for the foreign businesses that develop the resources for their use outside of the nation. The IMF is not a socialist entity unless you admit they work only for the World Bank and their only desire is to the World Bank. Create an economic disaster that starves many of the least important citizens and they offer a solution that puts them into perpetual debt.
A socialist Nation would try to be as independent as possible while the IMF makes sure they cannot even grow enough food for themselves because 'denial of food' is one of the first economic weapons used by the IMF using their 'political entity' the UN.

What was Libya before NATO came calling??
https://www.africanexponent.com/post/ten-reasons-libya-under-gaddafi-was-a-great-place-to-live-2746
Education and medical treatment were free
Newlyweds received U.S $50,000 from the government
Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project
Libya had no external debt and had reserves of $150 billion most of which were frozen globally
The price of petrol was $0,14 per litre
Having a home was considered a human right
Gender equality actually a reality
The Human Development Index was better than two-thirds of the countries reported on
People had enough food
Privatization of all Libyan oil to every citizen


The improvements made by NATO.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/years-regrets-libya-gaddafi-demise-171019073901622.html
The country's deterioration has led many inside and out of the country to question whether the country was better off during Gaddafi's 42-year-long reign.
'Dream of return'
For one group, however, there is no hint of regret over the late leader's demise.
The self-styled "Brother Leader" left little room for dissenting political expression, and those who dared align themselves with opposition political movements risked imprisonment or death.
Spurred by the atmosphere of repression, thousands of Libyans fled the country seeking new homes in other Arab states or further afield in Europe or the US.


The visit is to confirm the war against then is getting the desired results. Not only foes starvation punish the least important it sends a clear message to the rest of the world what resisting UN guidelines will get you. Step #1, accept the IMF loan (to fix the same things they had wrecked through lack of spare parts of bombing by a NATO friendly entity who do what they are told or the same underhanded means would be used against them.
His visit a year ago should have resulted in the same conditions that exist today were there a year ago and when no improvements are made that has to be taken as part of the 'master plan' and the UN reports are confirming that both the war and the sanctions are doing just what they are intended to accomplish.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/...-visit-yemen-as-fears-grow-of-mass-starvation

U.N. aid chief Mark Lowcock will travel to Yemen this week amid intense diplomacy to end a war that has pushed millions to the brink of famine.
The three-day visit beginning Thursday will allow the U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs to see first-hand the world's worst humanitarian crisis, a UN statement said Wednesday.
U.N. peace envoy Martin Griffiths is hoping to bring the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Huthi rebels to Sweden in the coming days for negotiations on ending the three-year conflict.
At least 8 million people are at risk of starvation in Yemen, but UN aid officials fear four million more will face mass hunger if the fighting continues.
Lowcock, who last visited Yemen in October 2017, will hold talks with officials in the rebel-held capital of Sanaa and in government-controlled Aden.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/253688-u-n-aid-chief-calls-for-end-to-fighting-in-yemen

U.N. aid chief Mark Lowcock appealed Thursday for a halt to fighting in Yemen amid intense diplomacy to end a war that has pushed millions to the brink of famine.
"I'd like to see a cessation of hostilities, especially around the key infrastructure, especially around Hodeida," Lowcock told reporters after arriving in the rebel-held capital Sanaa.
Under heavy international pressure, Saudi-backed pro-government forces have largely suspended a five-month offensive on the insurgent-held port city of Hodeida, a key entry point for imports and aid.
U.N. agencies say 14 million Yemenis are at risk of starvation and the closure of the port would exacerbate the humanitarian crisis gripping the impoverished Arabian Peninsula country.
"I have come because I am very concerned about the humanitarian situation here, which has deteriorated since I was here last," Lowcock said.
"I'd like to see the environment in which the aid system operates, made easier for the aid agencies.
"I would like to see stronger economic support, more resources injected into the economy, salaries paid, more foreign exchange so that ordinary people have more money to buy the essentials to survive."
Lowcock will spend three days in Yemen to see first-hand the world's worst humanitarian crisis, according to the U.N.
U.N. peace envoy Martin Griffiths is hoping to bring the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Iran-aligned Huthi rebels to Sweden in the coming days for negotiations on ending the more than three-year conflict.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Has true socialism ever existed anywhere in this world?
Or is it just another chimera?

USSR was always held as the beacon of socialism, Under Lennon he tried to stay true to Marxist socialism, but it morphed into a dictatorship under the guise of communist socialism and failed due to bankruptcy.


How can it possibly work in it's purist form? The people (Gov.) owns everything, collects all the finances, you are chosen to your position by metrics and testing, your allotted housing, pay, credits to your allotted tier in life, no chance to advance unless voted on by the collective eh MHz;). The mix of capitalism with deemed essential social services is the right way to go, you can't let people starve, but still have to be given an incentive to better their lives.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
I didn't see any comment on how natural resources are used to generate more income for the state than for the foreign businesses that develop the resources for their use outside of the nation. The IMF is not a socialist entity unless you admit they work only for the World Bank and their only desire is to the World Bank. Create an economic disaster that starves many of the least important citizens and they offer a solution that puts them into perpetual debt.
A socialist Nation would try to be as independent as possible while the IMF makes sure they cannot even grow enough food for themselves because 'denial of food' is one of the first economic weapons used by the IMF using their 'political entity' the UN.
What was Libya before NATO came calling.

This is your beacon of socialism Phuck me your twisted.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
USSR was always held as the beacon of socialism,

No, it was always held as a totalitarian state that used the trappings of socialism - up until the death of Stalin.

It later became a horribly failed socialist state.

Nobody has ever held it up as a beacon of socialism.

A beacon of socialism would be Norway which you will notice the white natty's won't talk about.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
No, it was always held as a totalitarian state that used the trappings of socialism - up until the death of Stalin.
It later became a horribly failed socialist state.
Nobody has ever held it up as a beacon of socialism.
A beacon of socialism would be Norway which you will notice the white natty's won't talk about.

Yes under Stalin No under Lenin

Here we go again Hoid off to school for you (I hate these multi thread same subject crap)



LINK

By the 1920s, social democracy and communism had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement.[36] By this time, socialism emerged as "the most influential secular movement of the twentieth century, worldwide. It is a political ideology (or world view), a wide and divided political movement"[37] and while the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, some economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism[38][39][40] or a non-planned administrative or command economy.[41][42] Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, some socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism.[43]
The modern definition and usage of "socialism" settled by the 1860s, becoming the predominant term among the group of words "co-operative", "mutualist" and "associationist", which had previously been used as synonyms. The term "communism" also fell out of use during this period, despite earlier distinctions between socialism and communism from the 1840s.[50] An early distinction between socialism and communism was that the former aimed to only socialise production while the latter aimed to socialise both production and consumption (in the form of free access to final goods).[51] However, Marxists employed the term "socialism" in place of "communism" by 1888, which had come to be considered an old-fashion synonym for socialism. It was not until 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution that "socialism" came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticisms that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[52]

A distinction between "communist" and "socialist" as descriptors of political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the All-Russian Communist Party, where communist came to specifically mean socialists who supported the politics and theories of Leninism, Bolshevism and later Marxism–Leninism,[53] although communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[54]

Second International
As the ideas of Marx and Engels took on flesh, particularly in central Europe, socialists sought to unite in an international organisation. In 1889 (the centennial of the French Revolution of 1789), the Second International was founded, with 384 delegates from twenty countries representing about 300 labour and socialist organisations

By 1917, the patriotism of World War I changed into political radicalism in most of Europe, the United States and Australia. Other socialist parties from around the world who were beginning to gain importance in their national politics in the early 20th century included the Italian Socialist Party, the French Section of the Workers' International, the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, the Socialist Party of America in the United States, the Argentinian Socialist Party and the Chilean Partido Obrero Socialista.


So you see Hoid Russia/Soviets were indeed regarded as the Beacon to Socialism in the early 20th century

The Nordic Model is being discussed in the other thread Hoid so to further your education go take a gander
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
No, it was always held as a totalitarian state that used the trappings of socialism - up until the death of Stalin.
It later became a horribly failed socialist state.
Nobody has ever held it up as a beacon of socialism.
A beacon of socialism would be Norway which you will notice the white natty's won't talk about.
Norway? You mean that country full of White natties who refused to join the EU? In fact, they held two referenda, one on 1972 and again in 1994. Both times the people voted NOT to join. Hell, they won't even let economic migrants stay. You see Hoid, Norway practices a form of National Socialism. Plus, Norway CLEARLY believes in national and border sovereignty and WILL enforce it, thus they are a bunch of nazis according to the sub-moronic metric of the ALT-left.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Norway? You mean that country full of White natties who refused to join the EU? In fact, they held two referenda, one on 1972 and again in 1994. Both times the people voted NOT to join. Hell, they won't even let economic migrants stay. You see Hoid, Norway practices a form of National Socialism. Plus, Norway CLEARLY believes in national and border sovereignty and WILL enforce it, thus they are a bunch of nazis according to the sub-moronic metric of the ALT-left.


It is hilarious how the White Liberals hold up Lilly White Norway as a model society. The White Liberal Alt-Left is nothing but a bunch of goose stepping white supremacists. What a bunch of Xenos.


*snicker*