Is Socialism a Good Thing?

Only if you have the money to pay for it.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: generik

Is Socialism a Good Thing?

Of course it is when large corporations get taxpayer money when they are to big to fail, or when very profitable oil companies still get subsidies, or when research think tanks get taxpayer money to conduct BS research studies.
The above is where all the money should go, not to poor shlubs working 2 jobs just to make ends meet. Chumps!!

Socialism for the rich....and cut their taxes so it will trickle down.


medium.com...

A quote from a rather famous socialist...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler

Yea, but he turned Germany back into a world power, which was beaten in WW1, and was broken for paying the damages...an taxes during the depression where a loaf of bread would of costed a leg, nvm finding one.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: generik

Collectivism puts decisions in the hands of the few. That is hardly an idea without profound risks.

....Particularly when those few are flaming ignorant morons like AOC.....

Socialism is one of those "looks good on paper" ideals, kind of like communism, but you see how it gets screwed up in the process of execution.

Is caring about your society a good thing? It does require some empathy and can result in some discomfort when seeing things not working right. I can understand those that are just focused on themselves with a whatever for the rest of it, less problems to deal with.

Here in Australia most of our taxes do go on roads, schools, hospitals, police and other important social infrastructure. Seeing the corruption going on in the US congress with its corporate welfare as the homelessness and poverty levels rising does make one wonder just who is being represented.

When trying to account for the value of education it is a life long analysis. With a smarter population it raises the potential of the Nation. It is well known that not all students will succeed in their chosen endeavors, the ones that do make it help justify these cost. Would Elon Musk be where he is without an education?

With the medical system in Australia it will stitch you back up in an emergency free of cost. It is not good for the GDP to have citizens damaged. There are public and private hospitals.

A lot of problems I see between socialists and capitalists is in how far ahead the account goes. Capitalists are about the now when it comes to accounting for a situation while socialists do try and account for the long term implications of things.

originally posted by: Specimen88

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: generik

Is Socialism a Good Thing?

Of course it is when large corporations get taxpayer money when they are to big to fail, or when very profitable oil companies still get subsidies, or when research think tanks get taxpayer money to conduct BS research studies.
The above is where all the money should go, not to poor shlubs working 2 jobs just to make ends meet. Chumps!!

Socialism for the rich....and cut their taxes so it will trickle down.


medium.com...

A quote from a rather famous socialist...

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler

Yea, but he turned Germany back into a world power, which was beaten in WW1, and was broken for paying the damages...an taxes during the depression where a loaf of bread would of costed a leg, nvm finding one.

So you're literally OK with Hitler.

Good addition to the thread on why socialism isn't exactly good...

Yes.

a reply to: Gromle03

Norway is not 100% socialist. That wouldnt work. But neither would absolute capitalism.

Absolute capitalism is what made America the most powerful nation on the planet.

It fueled our industrial revolution, made possible amazing discoveries in science, promoted the arts, build an entire nation with the richest standard of living for all citizens ever seen in history.

Saved other countries from absolute socialism, as an aside.

No... capitalism isn't the problem.

The problem is once a capitalist system gets a country to where the standard of living is high enough that people have enough free time to start to dream of bettering themselves on the backs of others, it promotes socialism.

Which we have been sliding slowly into for the last 100 years.

It may still happen here in America... the Dystopian dream of Hegal.

If it does, those of us who are left after will just rebuild.

Because what's left will be actual Americans.

I see a lot of reasons stated here that socialism is "bad."

But if you stick to the basic definitions of socialism - that is, that the means of production is owned by those involved in that production rather than 1 boss or owner collecting the bulk of the profits,

... then what's so wrong with this? Are people working within a capitalist framework really so satisfied with their opportunities and prosperity that anyone suggesting another arrangement can only do so at the peril of the demonstrated prosperity of the West?

Is the fear that the employees would be at the helm of business? That they don't have as much incentive to make the business profitable? Or that they are not educated enough or innovative enough to drive the economic engine?

Or is it the fear that large profits would become distributed rather than concentrated? So in this case, wouldn't the "badness" of socialism really depend on whether you belong to the business owner class or employee class?

Once again, sticking to the basic definition of socialism being that the people own and control the resources, are we sure that this form of socialism has been implemented historically so that we can use it as evidence that it doesn't work?

Considering that employee-owned businesses are alive and well in the United States (although they're not the majority of businesses) does their existence represent a threat to prosperity, and if so, how?

I'm asking mostly hypothetically. Thanks!

a reply to: povray

If I start a business and do all it takes to get it up and running, including sink incredible amounts of my own money and resources into it (capital), and then it gets large enough that I need to hire one or two or even three people to help me run it, why do they suddenly become part owners of everything that I originally earned and invested just because I hired them?

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Gromle03

Norway is not 100% socialist. That wouldnt work. But neither would absolute capitalism.

Absolute capitalism is what made America the most powerful nation on the planet.

It fueled our industrial revolution, made possible amazing discoveries in science, promoted the arts, build an entire nation with the richest standard of living for all citizens ever seen in history.

Oh well. That must have been a while ago.
Travelled around California and Nevada a some years ago, and the standard of living is subpar what Im used to. Unless you are on top economical ladder.
The middleclass didnt seem to have that high standard of living.

But dont get me wrong. I really liked it. USA is an amazing country. Will return to do a road trip while V8 powered cars is still a thing.

a reply to: povray

Simply because for people in a capitalistic system, the rewards go to those who work for it.

As opposed to a socialist system, which rewards all equally, provides no incentive to work and then collapses.

It isn't like we haven't tried socialism before in America.

We actually tried it first in 1620.

Which was an abysmal failure and ended up with a capitalist system.

America's first experiment with socialism

Socialism is a pipe dream, attempted by those who can't understand simple human nature.

I say attempted because it always fails, always brings misery, suffering and death.

But let's try it again, amIright?

/facepalm.

originally posted by: Gromle03

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Gromle03

Norway is not 100% socialist. That wouldnt work. But neither would absolute capitalism.

Absolute capitalism is what made America the most powerful nation on the planet.

It fueled our industrial revolution, made possible amazing discoveries in science, promoted the arts, build an entire nation with the richest standard of living for all citizens ever seen in history.

Oh well. That must have been a while ago.
Travelled around California and Nevada a some years ago, and the standard of living is subpar what Im used to. Unless you are on top economical ladder.
The middleclass didnt seem to have that high standard of living.

But dont get me wrong. I really liked it. USA is an amazing country. Will return to do a road trip while V8 powered cars is still a thing.

You were traveling through the Democratic Socialist's dream...

What they want to make all of America look like (before the eventual collapse of the whole country.)

Thanks for pointing out that it doesn't actually work.

a reply to: Lumenari

No, but I am ok with World History.

Like I said, he did bring back a broken world power back to it feet so it could rival Britain again. He didn't seem to care so much about the States since you guys were in the Pacific mainly fighting imperials.

2 or 3 after years after the war started.

And save that crap for a liberal who thinks trump is Hitler next time.


An ok, u guys did help on d-day while I can understand that kamikazes were probably crazier then Nazis.

Is Socialism a Good Thing?

Absolutely... just don't let the government anywhere near it.

a reply to: ketsuko

If you build a train, and get its momentum going, and then someone else jumps on board I can understand the feeling that they shouldn't own half the train.

But that's an answer to a question I'm not exactly asking.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gromle03

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Gromle03

Norway is not 100% socialist. That wouldnt work. But neither would absolute capitalism.

Absolute capitalism is what made America the most powerful nation on the planet.

It fueled our industrial revolution, made possible amazing discoveries in science, promoted the arts, build an entire nation with the richest standard of living for all citizens ever seen in history.

Oh well. That must have been a while ago.
Travelled around California and Nevada a some years ago, and the standard of living is subpar what Im used to. Unless you are on top economical ladder.
The middleclass didnt seem to have that high standard of living.

But dont get me wrong. I really liked it. USA is an amazing country. Will return to do a road trip while V8 powered cars is still a thing.

You were traveling through the Democratic Socialist's dream...

What they want to make all of America look like (before the eventual collapse of the whole country.)

Thanks for pointing out that it doesn't actually work.

Meh. You’re obviously an ideologue with issues of hyperbole and imaginary scenarios. Capitalism, or unfettered power of those with capital, has always led to wars, monopolies, revolution and rebellion and the collapse of societies. Monopolization is built into capitalism. And historically innovation has thrived most in times with little or no intellectual property rights, where cooperation was the norm rather than competition

a reply to: Lumenari

So you say reward go to people who work for it.

I was born to a mother who was a drunk and I never knew my father. I left home as a teenager and got a job working in a garage for minimum wage, $4.25 an hour at that time. I was homeless for months until another employee asked me where I live and I told him I didn't have an address. He let me sleep on the couch at his place for $100 a month. I could not afford my own place because my take-home was less than $600 a month. Although I was doing my best to build my knowledge and I worked very hard, it seemed like "normal" life was out of reach. I carried all my belongings in a backpack, the most important of which was soap. I left work every day with tired muscles, dirty clothes, and bloody knuckles.

My employer let me start working even though I didn't have experience, so I did my best at first and learned as I went. Today I can rebuild your transmission, track down and fix electrical problems, repair body work, and paint your car showroom new.

Watching my paychecks, it seemed like I wasn't making what I was expecting. I checked my time cards, and did the math. Turned out I was getting stiffed, averaging only about $3.50 an hour. I confronted my boss' wife (who did the books) and she claimed she was confused by the military time that the time clock posted on the cards. I had been working there for a year and a half without a raise. I asked nicely, but insisted she recalculate every paycheck for the last year and cut me a check. When I got that check, it was fifty bucks, plus the boss fired me.

This was my first experience with employment in the United States. There are later chapters in my life, some ok but some no better. I am no fan of centrally managed economies, and I believe the freedom most Americans have had in past decades is responsible for much of the prosperity and opportunity of this nation, but if my experience is any example, I cannot say that capitalism is anything close to an assurance that reward goes to those who work for it.

originally posted by: Specimen88
a reply to: Lumenari

No, but I am ok with World History.

Like I said, he did bring back a broken world power back to it feet so it could rival Britain again. He didn't seem to care so much about the States since you guys were in the Pacific mainly fighting imperials.

2 or 3 after years after the war started.

And save that crap for a liberal who thinks trump is Hitler next time.

An ok, u guys did help on d-day while I can understand that kamikazes were probably crazier then Nazis.

So Hitler was good.

Because of his policies.

I don't know where to go from there, so we can stop talking now.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Specimen88
a reply to: Lumenari

No, but I am ok with World History.

Like I said, he did bring back a broken world power back to it feet so it could rival Britain again. He didn't seem to care so much about the States since you guys were in the Pacific mainly fighting imperials.

2 or 3 after years after the war started.

And save that crap for a liberal who thinks trump is Hitler next time.

An ok, u guys did help on d-day while I can understand that kamikazes were probably crazier then Nazis.

So Hitler was good.

Because of his policies.

I don't know where to go from there, so we can stop talking now.

Hey your saying it, not me.

What policies are we talking about? Economical, Miltiary or Politcal excuses?