California is the most liberal, most socialist state in the Usa it has 167 billion in debt!!!!!!! its schools rank 37 out of 50 it has over ten percent unemployment despite having eight percent of the us population...it spends one third of the welfare dollars the fed gives out you have to be rich to buy a house there it has the highest prison population BY FAR the weather is nice though
Putting it bluntly, socialism is a smokescreen thieves hide behind to distract their victims and, in too many cases, fool themselves into believing they are committing a moral act rather than an immoral act of force. No act of kindness (such as allegedly wanting to eliminate an poor underclass, though I should mention it is socialism that divides people into classes) justifies the use of force outside of self-defense.
And I don't recognize your right to dictate my morals or make me ignore reality, so you can take the "you are a filthy monster for not believing as I believe" and throw it at someone stupid enough to believe it.
Socialism is like meepo from DOTA 2 (if what I've heard is correct). If you're bad as meepo, meepo is the worst hero you could possibly pick. It doesn't help that he's the hardest hero to play good as too. But if you're good as meepo, he's the best hero you could be and the team will be expecting you to be the one to win the game (even if there's other carry's).
Not really. Socialism is about forcing people to share because they DON'T care enough to do it willingly. That was the whole basis of it (wealth being concentrated in fewer hands and the rich not paying the poor enough to buy the goods they produced).
Likewise corporatism and cronyism are great if you are getting paid for it. What do you think is worse: A poor person not working but getting paid a bit for it or a poor person working their arse off but barely scraping a living while a richer person who puts in far more work lives in luxury. Which do you think is the greatest injustice?
Machine-IntellectualFeatured By OwnerNov 22, 2012Hobbyist Writer
I believe we need things like regulation so big business won't rule the world or we don't eat bad food, I believe in publicly funded healthcare, education, and I believe people should come together as a community to better their homeland.
I'm not sure who this will show up for, but I would like to say that I am revising my opinion. I used language hat did not represent what I actually meant and inadvertently ended up supporting communism, which in real life I do not. Hence, this thread no long represents my opinion.
I don't normally post in forums, but this was on the front page and caught my eye.
Look... I was born in the USSR and lived there for 20 years. What you have in Canada is NOT socialism. Can you own property? Can you sell it? Can you start a business? If you answered yes to any of the above then what you have is not socialism, but capitalism with socialistic elements. If you had real socialism, you'd hate it, believe me. John Stormer was right when he said that it's "a disease of the intellect that promises universal brotherhood, peace and prosperity to lure humanitarians and idealists into participating in a conspiracy which gains power through deceit and deception and stays in power with brute force." Granted, he was speaking about communism, not socialism, but I personally don't believe communism is achievable. Socialism is as close as you can get to it, so your comment about being "socialist but not communist" is actually kind of an oxymoron.
The only equality you get with socialism is equal poverty, apathy, and misery. You get your fair share and you pay your fair share, so's the basic idea, but tell me this: WHO decides what's fair? Human beings are simply not happy with the bare minimum. It's in our blood to want to improve our lives and the lives of our loved ones, to strive for bigger, better. Socialism doesn't let you do that. Take your free shit and shut the hell up, be glad you're getting even that. It takes away ambition. It makes people apathetic. It turns people into slaves. Slavery doesn't always come with literal shackles. Sometimes the shackles are purely ideological.
Anti-capitalists say capitalism is driven by human greed, but so what? Greed is part of the human nature. Good luck editing it out. If greed drives capitalism but results in a better world, what's wrong with that? Of course, by that I mean true capitalism, not the crony capitalism we seem to have now.
So for all those who're praising this recent change of direction in American politics, and embrace socialism... All I can say is, SIGH. Enjoy it while it lasts, which I don't expect will be for long. Don't take my word for it, just look at Greece. That's going to be you in a couple of years. Because fact of the matter is, true socialism does not work.
Why is the only alternative to hardline communism presented as "capitalism"
socialism features the same flaw as our current "capitalist" system is that it allows the power to be in the hands of a few, who both abuse it, and don't know how to govern beyond staying in power, and sooner or later disenfranchise those with the real talent, and motive to do good.
Again, I bring up individualist anarchism as a viable alternative to both, try reading some Thomas Paine.
I've read about anarcho-capitalism/agorism. I saw this the other day, and I think he's talking about the same thing: [link] . While it sounds good, I see two problems with it. One, the current government would never let us transition to it, especially if it takes off and becomes successful. And two, I don't see how any form of anarchism can stop power-mongers from gaining and abusing power.
In a free market society the abuse of power depends entirely on the size and involvement of the government. The smaller the government the lesser the potential for abuse of power. That's what I believe.
"The question still stands: what would stop power-mongers in either system from gaining and abusing power?"
the fact there is no power to grab. Its all distributed. There are no groups which are undemocratic. I will mandate all groups of people are democratic in nature, either dirrectly, or throught a republican type representative system
Unless everyone is absolutely equal in every aspect of life, there's always power to grab. You can't change human nature. You'll always have bad people in the world. You'll always have greedy, arrogant, devious people who believe themselves above others, and that they're destined to rule others and the world. What would stop such people from saying "screw this, I want to be on top and rule all these groups, now who's with me"?
Also, as I understand it, anarchists believe in respecting all human rights - shouldn't that include my right to start a government, should I want to do that? How does that fit in?
"Unless everyone is absolutely equal in every aspect of life, there's always power to grab."
You can make everyone absolutely equal in any aspect of life without creating lots of unquestionable power.
"You can't change human nature. You'll always have bad people in the world. You'll always have greedy, arrogant, devious people who believe themselves above others, and that they're destined to rule others and the world. What would stop such people from saying "screw this, I want to be on top and rule all these groups, now who's with me"?"
That is understood. But that is a problem that EVERY system faces. Thats not to say you can't do things to MITIGATE the potential damage a real shiester would cause.
Thats what good governance is, trying to mitigate the power of the greedy, by making it harder to control everything, by separating power among various lines, so when someone comes into power, there are already people who are self interested in keeping his power in check, and these people are independent of each other, and accountable to the people.
Again, nothings perfect, and I'm not a utopist, but I believe there are ways to mitigate the damage that the greedy do, more than trying to appease them.
"Also, as I understand it, anarchists believe in respecting all human rights - shouldn't that include my right to start a government, should I want to do that? How does that fit in?"
No. Somethings aren't rights. Just like you don't have a right to kill people, you don't have the right to just start a government. You don't have the right to push other people around. Libertarians have a similar "non initiation of force" principle(something I like). If you think big-A Anarchy means 'no rules, no structure', you are taking the word "anarchy" literally, and ignoring the words and writings of all Anarchists both social and individualist, who all agree on rules and structure.
We just disagree with hiearchy and vertical structure, and want structure and culture to be democratic, horizontal and grass roots.
My solution is simple, is that all groups of man(and woman), be by right democratic in nature, with the right to join and leave freely.
End the notion that someone can "own" a group, or be, or enforce unelected leaders.
You probably don't post in forums because people will ignore you and I know the liberals here are going to pretend this post didn't exist or avoid it like the plague because it represents a hard truth about socialism.
Know that it is the truth because you lived it, you were there. Don't ever listen to these armchair pseudo intellectuals advocating socialism. They have no idea what they are talking about. I suggest they go move to North Korea or Cuba to experience this socialism for a few years. Guarantee you they would come back changed men and women to accept a view like yours.
Oh, I know. I hardly ever engage in discussions with them anymore because it's pointless and a waste of time. Someone actually told me once that having lived under socialism for 20 years doesn't give me either a unique perspective or a better understanding of it.
This poster sounded genuinely curious so I decided to reply. I'm not holding my breath, but who knows, maybe it'll at least make someone question what they believe.
The problem with Socialism and Communism are parasite non-workers and bureaucratic elite that take more than they give. People are smart for the most part when it comes to their own well being and will quickly take advantage of dole systems. The result is lots of people not working and society going into decay because very little of anything is being done. In the worst cases you have populations starving and eventually rising up to overthrow the socialists and even execute them in undignified fashion [link] Maybe in the future when we have artificial intelligent robots to pick up the slack of the parasite non-workers ideas like socialism will "work."
Star Trek type socialism is a very good and noble goal for humanity to shoot for. But in order to get to that point there is still a lot of work to be done and government needs to stop suppressing things like [link] "free energy." If you really want socialism we need to change the economic equation and meta reality through science and technology. Give the inventors and scientists the freedom to bring their game changing technology to market. Only after we have this technology fully developed should we start talking about implementing Socialism. Even the early socialist writers mentioned that there would be techno fix in the future that would make socialism work. Somehow that part of their writings were forgotten and tragedy resulted because it was all tried too soon. Bottom line is we need that technology part done first. Socialism will not work any other way without it.
just to point out, that in real hardline communism, the "non-workers" are labelled lumpen-protarliet (ragged poor), addressed as parasites, and taken out back and shot, along with the dissenters.
"Star Trek type socialism is a very good and noble goal for humanity to shoot for" which is also not real, doesn't work, and extremely delusional utopian in nature. Even in The Next Generation, involves a fuckton of Deus Ex Machinas to resolve conflicts the characters cannot resolve while working in their own system. Its painfully obvious what sort of fail ST: TNG would be if it was not a TV show.
For those in the U.S. who are opposed to all forms of socialism; you can always stop using public roads, municipal water and sewer or emergency, fire and police service and be sure to buy only non-inspected meat and produce as you deal only with uncertified physicians and dentists as well as unregulated businesses and unlicensed contractors. Also, remember to advocate for abolishing our military and closing all state and federal prisons.
Socialism is a fun thing, as long as you legislate it well. If well managed it would improve the overall healthcare and education by giving the poorer or less fortunate more ground and pretty much guaranteeing more social safety for all. But you can't have it without taking lots of taxes and having a good set of morals. Or at least a sense of overall justice and duty. Too many people love to exploit the socialist "free stuff for unfortunate packages".
Americans do not have the culture required to maintain socialist policies. In Canada we have a handful of socialist policies because they are a continuation of our culture. Their country is founded on fearing the British and tax. Our country was founded on British loyalty and conservatism and fear of Americans. Further more our land is sparse and nothing can be done alone ever in Canada. Transportation itself is problematic without government infrastructure.
It's a neat concept, but it's pretty much batting a 0% right now. I'm very resulted oriented, and Socialist countries have been anywhere from bad to atrocious.
I think having socialist aspects is great. I'm Canadian too, and I like the ideas of subsidize health care, and schooling, but in the end, it's still a capitalist society and those social benefits are just means of giving people a more equal opportunity to succeed in a capitalistic way.
Of course not. Why would any rational person concerned with his own welfare want to be part of a system of government where his rights can be declared null and void just because fifty-one percent of the people say so?