Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
OverSword

Socialism, why not?

170 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, CJ1983 said:

What about people who just want to be left alone and don't care to give or receive? 

Have enough self respect to not take from others, and enough self discipline to earn what you get. I understand extenuating circumstances happen, or you're just born into a poor family.   But each individual is ultimately responsible for their own happiness or sadness.  

If I'm in a work environment full of crappy people who are being horrible to me, paying me a low wage.  How I deal with it and how I react is my problem, not theirs.  If I choose to stay in that environment, I am the one to blame, not them.  Don't want to be paid a low wage, don't accept the job in the first place.  

I pay into my retirement, I will collect said benefits. Am I to blame that others chose a job path that had no retirement plan? Do we not live in America?  I am a minority who was born in a lower class gang filled area of California.  I have never let my circumstances dictate my future.  My military service paid for my college degree, as I knew it would.  My friends who chose to work at fast food places, were offered nothing, they knew this.  That's their problem for choosing that line of work. Why should I or anyone have to supplement their income?

Churchill once said 'If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20 he has no heart. But if he isn`t a conservative by the time he is 40 then he has no brain`. Socialism has three major flaws:

1. People are not equals.

2. There is a scarcity of resources.

3. It violates the rights of those who are better than the lowest denominator.

Socialism/Communism is about redistributing to the lowest denominator what everyone better than them has. This violation of their rights is why Socialism and Communism creates failed states. The USSR being the most well known example.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
On 9/14/2017 at 6:42 PM, Alaric said:

Public Education =/= Socialism

Public Roads =/= Socialism

Public Safety =/= Socialism

Public Health =/= Socialism

Those things are Socialist.  Two of them are extremely beneficial to society and the other two are a squandering of wealth.  Sure, you can point out aspects that are beneficial too but for the most part it would be more beneficial to do away with what’s there and start over.

 

Any of those things doesn't make a country socialist...

Correct, they don’t make a country Socialist.

 

so how many can you have before you turn socialist? Half dozen? 10? 50?

I would say it depends on several factors including culture, people, history, work ethic, current government type, mindset, etc.  For nation A, it may only take 1 and nation B, it would be 1000.  But at the same time, say, if you are approaching 50 (I would call that high) then you might already be a Socialist nation.  It’s not the programs that make it Socialist, it is the mindset (or conditioning) of the people.  People are conditioned to ignore the freedoms they lose.  The Founding Fathers provided a protection from this but it also assumed that people would be active in the body politic, which they aren’t.

 

My point is that a country could have 101 or 1001 social programs in place, but it does not necessarily make that society "socialist" by any stretch of the means

Precisely!  Depending on the foundations of a nation, a strong Republic can incorporate elements of Socialism for the benefit of the people.  But that becomes a slippery slope because it is initially government controlled and remains as such.  That is a bad combination.  It is asking for trouble.  And that trouble is the whole reason we had a Revolution in the first place.  A Socialist government incorporating elements of a free society, i.e. a Bill of Rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Socialist version) or a free market, ultimately usurps those guarantees for the benefit of the state.  In time, Socialism deteriorates any other institution that it tries to absorb.  It is the Blob of economics, politics, and culture.  It is the Borg of same.

 

Demark as well as every other European nation is Socialist.  They just use the benign sounding term of Social Democracy.  First thing you have to understand is that a Democracy is a form of Socialism.  The US is not a Democracy.  We are a Constitutional  Republic.  At times the two can resemble each other.  No matter how benign a Socialist nation begins, over time it drifts toward the 100% end of the spectrum (Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism).  That is guaranteed.  The more social programs a nation provides, the easier it will be for the government to control the people.  By then it even loses the common understanding of a Democracy.  Would one be able to call the elections in Iraq under Saddam Hussein as a democracy?  Or a China under Mao?  Or the Presidential elections in Iran?  Perhaps in the thinnest veil of definition.  All you can say is that the people voted but the outcome was predetermined.

 

Conversely, those trying to couch socialism as merely a collection of social programs to help the less fortunate are either lying to you, or useful idiots, ignorant of the real aims of socialism: taking complete control of the means of production and distribution of goods, erasing history and redifining science, re-writing culture and through that... the re-organization of society as a whole.

Socialism is not a set of social programs although; social programs can be used to pound away at sensibilities until it breaks it down.  It does that with the aid of those things you listed.  Socialism is an ideology.  It sounds great on paper, however, by erasing history and re-writing culture and replace it with bread and circuses, especially the younger generations have nothing to compare Socialism to.  Only in time in any given population, you will always have some small group that gain an epiphany that they are far from free and that there is something better out there.  And it results in revolution.  This is the truth that our Founding Fathers knew and tried to codify protections from Socialism for posterity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 7:52 PM, Likely Guy said:

A true socialist will care about 'the other'.

A true Socialist only cares for themselves.  The party elites only care about maintaining their level of power.  The cogs only care about surviving the day.

 

A true capitalist will are about his coin.

That’s true but then you need to understand what “coin” actually means.  It’s a representation of work done.  That is how things get done, like looking after one’s family.  That’s a very bad and greedy thing isn’t it?

 

On 9/14/2017 at 8:12 PM, Likely Guy said:

There are no Utopias however, either Socialist or Capitalist..

I wouldn’t want either.  But if given a choice, I’d rather live under a Capitalistic one.

 

The sooner we abandon those concepts, the better.

If you mean a utopia then I agree.  But there is no such thing as a Capitalist Utopia anyway.  Capitalism is controlled (somewhat) chaos.  A Capitalist Utopia is actually Socialism.  It might be better known as Crony Capitalism.

 

One is built on "dog eat dog". That is however inherently unhealthy.

Both are built on dog eat dog.  It is very healthy.  It weeds out those that are weak and keeps the culture healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're all gonna have to figure something out. 

People are living longer than ever, and the jobs are finding their way into robot hands. 

It's gonna be a cluster when the resources (food, water, fuel) dwindle, the climate catastrophes ensue, there are refugees from the islands and coastlines, and there are few jobs left for humans. 

At some point, I think we should start valuing people over money, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh please this is not industrial revolution, we have robots working alongside humans for decades and everything was fine, until politicians decided to fix it with new regulations, and unions turned into extortion mobsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aztek said:

oh please this is not industrial revolution, we have robots working alongside humans for decades and everything was fine, until politicians decided to fix it with new regulations, and unions turned into extortion mobsters

Lol. We aren't gonna have jobs to worry whether they're union or not. 

Up is down, right is left, black is white, and everything you believe is wrong. But you won't know that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

Lol. We aren't gonna have jobs to worry whether they're union or not. 

Up is down, right is left, black is white, and everything you believe is wrong. But you won't know that. 

that answers absolutely noting, but you are being consistent, that is a plus,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2017 at 1:32 PM, ChaosRose said:

We're all gonna have to figure something out.

Yes we will, like Man has always done.

 

People are living longer than ever, and the jobs are finding their way into robot hands. 

If people are living longer, then that means there will be more jobs for people.  Man hasn’t become obsolete yet.

 

It's gonna be a cluster when the resources (food, water, fuel) dwindle,

Man has always faced dwindling resources.  It just requires better management.  In a couple hundred years, we’ll reach a Type I Civilization.  Our energy needs will be met.  Food and water will be abundant.  At least the technology will be there to provide them.  I know it’s fun for the intellect to get into these whatif apocalyptical scenarios but the only way that is going to happen is if we get hit by a deadly virus or an asteroid and that is beyond Man’s control.  There will always be barbarians at the gate (and they will need to be dealt with) but I could see the Globalists doing their best to manufacture some crisis.  What Antifa is embroiled in right now is indicative of said crisis.  As long as the Socialists are kept under control, such crises will be marginalized.

 

the climate catastrophes ensue, there are refugees from the islands and coastlines,

I think you’ve been listening to the MSM too much.  Man has always been at the mercy of nature.  We just happen to be in a warming period and are probably nearing the peak.  Using the prior periods, I would say within the next 200 years. 

 

and there are few jobs left for humans. 

There will be plenty of jobs for the entrepreneur.  Somehow this nation has lost the spirit of entrepreneurship.  I hope that if there is one thing that would rub off onto this nation from a Trump Administration would be a spirit of entrepreneurship.  I believe that monopolies destroy the free market system.  Entrepreneurialism defeats monopolies.

 

At some point, I think we should start valuing people over money, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. 

Well, money represents the sweat of people.  It is the wealth of a nation.  Wealth must be accumulated and used wisely.  Spending on social programs is very unwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 0:40 PM, aztek said:

anyone who likes socialism that much should give half of their paycheck to a random homeless.  and watch him waste it, and demand half of your next check,.

I lived in my truck for six years. Less than ten years later, I owned a house. Thanks so much for your vote of confidence.

 

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Alaric said:

Public Education =/= Socialism

Public Roads =/= Socialism

Public Safety =/= Socialism

Public Health =/= Socialism

Any of those things doesn't make a country socialist... so how many can you have before you turn socialist? Half dozen? 10? 50? My point is that a country could have 101 or 1001 social programs in place, but it does not necessarily make that society "socialist" by any stretch of the means (see "Denmark is not socialist" https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist/amp" )

Conversely, those trying to couch socialism as merely a collection of social programs to help the less fortunate are either lying to you, or useful idiots, ignorant of the real aims of socialism: taking complete control of the means of production and distribution of goods, erasing history and redifining science, re-writing culture and through that... the re-organization of society as a whole.

 

I think you're splitting hairs here. Saying those things don't make a country socialist is like saying Christians who bomb abortion clinics aren't violent because they have a peaceful religion. At some point people are going to have to come to terms with the fact that they don't live alone in the world and they are as much a part of it as anyone else.

I don't know if you guys have noticed lately, but capitalism doesn't seem to be working for the majority of the nation either. We're a capitalistic society - our economy moves when we spend money. But for the last 30 years or so, the main businesses have been run by landlords and hospitals. Most people are now paying at least 40% or 50% of their wages to rent and/or hospital bills. They aren't doing what we need people to do to keep our economy going: spend. And that's because after paying rent or mortgages, buying food, paying utilities and other bills, there isn't that much money left to spend.

As for wanting to cut back on those "socialist programs", take food stamps, for instance. Oh, you can cut them off if you want. But how do you plan to shore up the grocery stores? Maybe we shouldn't have this many people on food stamps, but they are and that's a fact you can't deny. Another fact you can't deny is if you cut all the food stamps off, people are not in this week or the next, going to magically come up with the means to generate enough money to feed themselves. Meantime, grocery stores, to whom food stamps are a LARGE part of their profits, will be forced to cut back, lay off staff, cut supplies, or even go out of business.

What happens when you have to drive 30 miles to the only store that's still open and they don't stock half of what they used to? What happens to the truck drives who will be out of work because they're not being paid to deliver any longer? And what work, exactly, do you think people 70 and 80 years old are going to do to be able to feed themselves?

And that's just ONE example.

The thing is, every single time you take money from people, pool it, and then portion it out for the greater good of society, that's socialism whether you like it or not. If we were a totally capitalistic society, only rich kids could go to school because their parents could afford it. The poor kids would be left without an education. But because we all know that everyone benefits from education, our government sponsors education for the masses. Free to them from our taxes. I pay for it, although I have no kids and will never have kids.

If we really wanted to have a capitalistic society where each person gets exactly what they put in, then we need to do away with all those things. I want the money back that my taxes paid into funding roads, schools, tax cuts to businesses. You can have back the money you paid into welfare, social security, and Medicaid. We can go back to a lawless world where we have no police or fire protection, no health insurance, car insurance, or house insurance, no FDA, no public health system, nobody to work on keeping our water clean, no roadwork of any kind, no public transportation, and certainly no lawyers, no courthouses, and no laws because we won't have judges. Is this what we really want?

 

 

Edited by rodentraiser
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rodentraiser said:

I lived in my truck for six years. Less than ten years later, I owned a house. Thanks so much for your vote of confidence.

than you are minority, you are not the only former homeless here, some do want to get out or that life, and try their best,. and succeed , but for the most part, being homeless is their choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As a Swede I'm finding it a bit strange that Americans, in particular Republicans, often refer to Sweden when it comes to socialism. I think that Sweden has never been a socialist country. However, the USA is a quite extreme right-wing country compared to most other countries in the world so I guess that's why. Things that are self-evident to most developed countries in the world, like public health insurance, is by many Americans called socialism. I think that Swedes think of countries like the Soviet Union when they hear the word socialism.

It's true that the social democratic party has had a lot of success in Sweden though. They often used to have around 45 % of the votes and they were in government continuously between the 1940s and 1970s, mostly as a minority government. However, after 2000 or so they haven't been that successful, they typically have around 30 % of the votes nowadays. Their politics has also moved quite much to the right. During the 1990s you could often hear social democratic voters saying that they didn't recognize the party anymore, that the ideas had moved to the right.

Edited by fred_mc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, pretty much, compare to USA Sweden looks like socialist country, thou the biggest indicator of socialism is not social programs but private sector, its existence to be exact.

my in laws are from former USSR, after visiting Canada few times, talking to their friends that live in Canada, they say Canada is like a child of  USA and USSR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:02 AM, aztek said:

than you are minority, you are not the only former homeless here, some do want to get out or that life, and try their best,. and succeed , but for the most part, being homeless is their choice. 

Do you have any idea how many homeless people are working full time jobs?

And yes, homelessness was my choice, too, when I moved into my truck. My rent was rising beyond what I could pay on my salary, so I elected to move out before I was evicted. There are many people in Silicon Valley who work for tech companies and are choosing to live in campers because they can't afford rent. How does that make the situation different from everyone else's?

Likewise, I'm choosing homelessness again. In about a year the back pay for my disability will be coming through and I'd like to buy some land with it. But I won't have enough to buy both land and a place to live. I'll be car camping on the land until I can afford to put a house on it. But if I drive to a park and people see me and my car during this time, they'll have the same opinion of me that you do of the homeless. But the reality will be that I own land and I will be saving more money than they can because of my "choice".

So you can't look at someone on the street and say this person's a failure forever or that person chose what he did so he should have to be stuck with it. The world doesn't work like that. Without personally knowing these people, you have no idea what their lives were like or why they ended up where they are, or even what they're doing to advance themselves.

Saying the people who choose homelessness are the ones who can't get off the street is silly. It's like saying all people who get food stamps abuse the privilege. You simply can't make a blanket statement like that and expect it to be true. There are people who prefer the street. There are also those who have worked their way off the street.

And you can't use your criteria of success and apply it to everyone. Maybe I don't want to do what you do and have what you have. That doesn't mean I'm not successful. It just means I have a different definition of the word than you do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:00 PM, fred_mc said:

As a Swede I'm finding it a bit strange that Americans, in particular Republicans, often refer to Sweden when it comes to socialism. I think that Sweden has never been a socialist country. However, the USA is a quite extreme right-wing country compared to most other countries in the world so I guess that's why. Things that are self-evident to most developed countries in the world, like public health insurance, is by many Americans called socialism. I think that Swedes think of countries like the Soviet Union when they hear the word socialism.

 

It's because of the Communist bogeyman that Americans are scared stiff of anything resembling socialism or communism. If it hadn't been for the red scare through the 50s and 60s, Americans would have no objection to some of the things that would benefit us, socialistic or not. We would have had public health a long time ago if the dinosaurs that think that we're doomed the minute we put a toe in the water of socialism still didn't sit in Congress and pass down their outdated ideas to others.

And the fact is, we're about as bad as the communists. Oh, we haven't killed 20 million of our own citizens (yet). But when you look at what we've done to people in insane asylums or at Guantanamo or in the Tuskegee studies or how we - yes WE, the US - interfered with elections in South American countries to the point of trying to assassinate their candidates (all done in this century), I don't think we can hold ourselves up as shining paragons of virtue and say we won't have socialistic programs because they might make us bad people. The ship's already sailed on that one.

And what's really ironic here in the US, is how we're all supposed to be independent, take care of ourselves Americans, but the first thing you have to be when you start a job is be a "team player". Go figure.

And before anyone says anything, yes, I'm an American and it's my country right or wrong. But that doesn't mean I have to sit by with my mouth shut and be silent about the things we shouldn't have done. Otherwise those things just get done again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:37 AM, RavenHawk said:

Both are built on dog eat dog.  It is very healthy.  It weeds out those that are weak and keeps the culture healthy.

 

Unless 1) you're the weak one or 2) you're willing to fund a people shelter so all those who are "weak" can be collected off the streets. Otherwise the number of weak people who have been weeded out are going to be an eyesore and everyone will complain about them, *cough, cough*

If I can remind everyone here, the average person in this country is not an A person. C is the average person. Maybe it's time we quit measuring people by the highest standard possible, especially one most people won't make, and then quit calling the average person "weak".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 5:00 PM, fred_mc said:

As a Swede I'm finding it a bit strange that Americans, in particular Republicans, often refer to Sweden when it comes to socialism. I think that Sweden has never been a socialist country. However, the USA is a quite extreme right-wing country compared to most other countries in the world so I guess that's why. Things that are self-evident to most developed countries in the world, like public health insurance, is by many Americans called socialism. I think that Swedes think of countries like the Soviet Union when they hear the word socialism.

It's true that the social democratic party has had a lot of success in Sweden though. They often used to have around 45 % of the votes and they were in government continuously between the 1940s and 1970s, mostly as a minority government. However, after 2000 or so they haven't been that successful, they typically have around 30 % of the votes nowadays. Their politics has also moved quite much to the right. During the 1990s you could often hear social democratic voters saying that they didn't recognize the party anymore, that the ideas had moved to the right.

Like I said on earlier page, in the US term "socialism" usually refer to a generous social safety net, not a whole system of government owning businesses.

US has limited amount of socialism. Medicare is national health insurance, but only for people of certain age, not the whole population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎2017‎-‎09‎-‎18 at 5:33 PM, aztek said:

Canada is like a child of  USA and USSR.

Saying that is giving way too much credit to both USA & USSR :P

 

Edited by thedutchiedutch
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thedutchiedutch said:

Saying that is giving way too much credit to both USA & USSR :P

 

And not enough credit to Canadians.

As they are bound to tell you... in great detail, over and over again, until you just have to walk away.

B)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

And not enough credit to Canadians.

As they are bound to tell you... in great detail, over and over again, until you just have to walk away.

B)

Gotta love the pleasant companionship of a Canadian. You walk away and we apologize for it :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP:

It could work, if we didn't have money and operated on a barter system.  But the biggest flaw is thinking everyone is 'equal'.

People are not economically equal.  People work different jobs, with different skill levels, while some people don't work at all (some for legit reasons, and some for B.S. reasons).

Socialism only works if everyone is going to bring something to the table.  Otherwise, you have the able supporting the unable and/or the unwilling.  

I don't understand people who crave that type of society.  Talk about being a cog in the machine.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.