Socialism is the best ideology

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Originally posted by jiggerj
No system of government can succeed as long as humans are running the show.

Quite the pessimist huh?

I don't know, I think we will get it right some day. Humans aren't that bad, we do a lot of great stuff - 2 sides to the coin and all that.

Capitalists are horrible people so they must convince themselves and others that it is human nature to be a horrible person. (:

Erich Fromm is the go to guy for this capitalist argument. Erich Fromm goes into great detail explaining that the freak Sigmund Freud was wrong about human nature. We are not that bad at all for the most part. It is human nature to want to do good and to want to do the right thing. It is human nature to care about others. It is human nature to want to contribute and to feel a part of something. Socialism is human nature.

Erich Fromm for 'human nature' capitalist excuse nonsense.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by fadedface

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by fadedface

 

Okay. I'll attempt to be fair.

Can you please show me a country where socialism has successfully been implemented?

Socialism or strong socialist policies worked successfully in the post war British Labour government led by Clement Attlee which lifted thousands of British people out of poverty and hardship through the creation of the National Health Service.

I've seen a retrospective documentary about the Soviet Union which was broadcast by the BBC which interviewed people from former East Germany who stated they preferred life under a communist system than the capitalist one they now have.

So socialism worked in a transitional aspect.

Do you think it would be just as applicable in a permanent setting?

You have to understand, your examples were; post-war Britain and the Soviet Union where there was also a transition from a brutal Czar ruler.

What you refer to as "Transitional" was in fact Capitalists Usurping the Socialist State that was the UK pre1970. and to its eventual demise in the 1980's...

reply to post by lampsalot

Private property, the building block of capitalism is a very new concept in the relative scheme of human history. We were "communists" for the vast majority of our existence as a species. People shared everything...

LOL Where in the world did you ever get this idea? Even before man evolved into, well, man, we DIDN'T share anything! Watch documentaries on socialism in chimps and you'll find that they don't share food. With gorillas and baboons, I've seen how Alpha males don't share women. They even kill the babies of the previous alpha male so that the mother will give birth to the babies of the new alpha male.

And, when man came on the scene, the strongest TOOK control. They took the best portions of food. Mated with any female they wanted, and frightened the hell out of the entire tribe to keep them in order.

No, no, sharing has always meant that those in power get the most, and those with the least power (the majority) get the least.

reply to post by fadedface


I gave you a star and flag just for trying and recognizing the many advantages of socialist government but the many pitfalls experienced thus far and notorious characters who have tried it, have spoiled it's name. The Roman Republic had a few successful years and our Democracy worked briefly, but neither has been perfect or permanent. I really don't think the best ideology has been found yet. I think it is a compilation of the above but it considers the best and worst, the strengths and weakness of history. It remembers that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I do not want to rant, although I seriously hate it, when people think so black and white.

I doubt anybody here has ever lived or even talked to somebody who liced under some more communistic country.

Many of my relatives lived under Soviets, I am currently living in post-soviet country.

Many people remember several good aspects from the soviets.

1) Nobody had to live to survive. There was no unemployment, no homeless people. Food costs were low. The salaries were good enough to eat well and live without luxuries.
2) No kid had to worry about future. Free of charge universities, which were high-quality education during that time.Universities were planned according to needs, so that every field would produce as many highly educated people, as the market needs.
3) Intellectual activities did not cost much. One could get over 1000 new quality books or textbooks for full monthly salary. Also the intellectual activities like opera or theatre were similar cost
4) No worrying about hospital bills. Medications were cheap, hospitals government-run.

Of course there were more negative aspects than positive. Questioning the authorities led to death or prison, the too much equality led many people to prison because of an extra cow or something. No right to travel around the world. The extreme propaganda. Eiter you think like us or go to prison. No freedom of speech etc.


Capitalism has more positive sides. Although it has lot of negative ones also
1) Creating inequality. The salary gaps are too much. Not considering the fact that all people are not born equal. The fact that you are more talented does not mean you should earn 50 times more than the average talent person... No person should earn more than 10 times more than another, who puts in the same amount of hours or even more.
2) Money mattering more than anything else.
3) Billion people oppressed as slaves to work for minimal salary in order to raise the profits
4) Billion of people starving as millions of tons of food are thrown away.
5) People profititeering on the basic human needs of other people - food, shelter, water, education etc.
6) Everything as cost-effective as possible. Very unhealthy chemicals used in the foods and drinks in order to save money.
7) Extreme wasting. Everything built to live the consumption cycle, so that it would break down, so person would buy it again. Every major company uses the method in order to minimise the cycle to exactly the warranty period.Statistically the likelyhood of a product to break increases a lot, as soon as the warranty ends. Every company wants to bring to somewhere around the warranty period.
8) Pollution=money. If we pollute some area forever, only thing we have to do is pay an amount of money for it.
9) Taking all that is possible from the ground to raise the profits, at the same time poisoning the grounds.
10) It is not though at all whether something good for the people or not, what matters is whether it brings in money or not.
etc etc.

Capitalism is better than socialism, although it has too many negative effects on people and nature in order to be sustainable in the long run. It just wastes the planet and eventually leads to collapse of civilization, nothing more.

THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. I´m tired of all those ism-s. Neither of these is perfect or not even good. Taking the best out of all is the way to go. Not pure socialism, not pure capitalism. Mixing these up. It is done currently a bit by most countries,especially Nordic, although the world is still too capitalistic to survive in the long run. Of course one day it will end anyways, although it should come naturally, how its meant to, not because WE, humans, have wasted the planet

Ideas which I believe should be in the perfected system

1) Nationalised services for human needs (non-profit). Healthcare, basic foods (only organic vegetables, local-grown fruit), prison system, education, water. basic shelter, low-speed internet
2) Banning all harmful pesticides
3) All resources owned by government, who controls that not too much is used and sells them accordingly.
4) Banning any substance from companies using in foods
5) Setting salary caps. (minimum and maximum salary MAX=10x MIN)
6) Free strong public transportation
7) Wasting/Pollution not tolerated.
8) Fully transparent system
9) Strong property rights.
just a few random ideas.

Ideally I see a system, which encourages self-responsibility and those who work harder get more, while these who dont, still dont have to strggle to survive. Every basic need is covered from food to basic shelter. If anyone wants to live minimalistically, they can easily. The water and food is enough to live in a minimalistic shelter, which has only basic resources in it. Although if one wants a computer, TV, car, more luxurious food items or more food (certain caps, so that one can eat well, although if they want even more, they more, same about water), bigger house they have to work hard for it. Many people would not work much, just to get maybe TV or computer, still technology would eliminate the needs for most jobs, so not so many people are needed for working. They can just do their hobbies, what they really want, instead of doing what they do not want to, killing themselves with extra hours, simply to survive somehow.

I understand that is just an utopia, although that is how I see how the world should be like.

Originally posted by jiggerj

LOL Where in the world did you ever get this idea? Even before man evolved into, well, man, we DIDN'T share anything! Watch documentaries on socialism in chimps and you'll find that they don't share food. With gorillas and baboons, I've seen how Alpha males don't share women. They even kill the babies of the previous alpha male so that the mother will give birth to the babies of the new alpha male.

And, when man came on the scene, the strongest TOOK control. They took the best portions of food. Mated with any female they wanted, and frightened the hell out of the entire tribe to keep them in order.

No, no, sharing has always meant that those in power get the most, and those with the least power (the majority) get the least.

Just because they didn't share and were greedy doesn't mean they had a concept of private property.

reply to post by beezzer


America, Britain, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland...just off the top of my head.

Socialism + democracy.

reply to post by Cabin


I think a hybrid system is the obvious solution. State Capitalism.

State Capitalism is the best of both worlds. A nominally sociallist government can oversee a non-control economy in the interest of the people. This is the best of both worlds and it can meet the needs/desires of both the socialist and the capitalist.


edit- I think its a very interesting time in history because China and Russia hold the future of capitalism in their hands.

We know that both nations have a communist history.

China have proven that State Capitalism is successful and in doing so they have highlighted that American style western corporatism/crony capitalism/supercapitalism does not work. China has risen against all odds while the West has destroyed itself. China has a surplus while the West is bankrupt.

I know that China is against Bourgeois Democracy ( so am I ) but I cant help but to think that China is involved in a form of stagism. Hybrids combining capitalism and socialism work.

I am a socialist and in my opinion socialism will only work when we have global socialism. A global socialism based on co-operative nationalism is what I hope for. Do people think China will give us Global Socialism when they take their rightful place as sole superpower? I suspect that China is only embracing capitalistic methods so they could beat America and the West at their own game. They have.

When China does get around to putting the United States out of their misery will they pull back to a more controlled economy? Will China be the death of capitalism? I really hope so.




edit- Xi Jinping has said "We must make persistent efforts, press ahead with indomitable will, continue to push forward the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and strive to achieve the Chinese dream of great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation," To realize the "Chinese dream," China must take the Chinese way, he said. People of all nationalities must gain confidence in the theory, the road and the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and forge valiantly and unswervingly ahead along the right road, Xi said.

reply to post by DanCullen



Careful with your definitions there.

State+Capitalism = Fascism.
State+Socialism = Communism
Democracy + Capitalism = Free Market (pre-WW2)
Democracy + Socialism = North America, Europe, Australia/NZ etc. today

reply to post by Leonidas


I think its best to keep it simple. All State Capitalism really is is a scam. It is socialists pretending to be capitalist. China has much fun with this.

And the main thing to worry about is if the government is nominally socialist or nominally capitalist. China is nominally socialist and they are pushing forward the great cause of socialism with indomitable will. It is the Chinese Dream. Those Chinese are funny and clever. The Chinese Dream.. HA!

China can help the western socialist. China is a gift from god for the western socialist.

Also I would like to ask a question about personal responsibility.

The problem with me and the idea of it, is that it is does not consider talents.

Some people are more talented, is it their personal responsibility that takes them far? Or it is just lucky they were born that way, that they had the right parents, who supported their development?

I am one of those lucky ones.

It has created me a situation where I do not need to work hard to get good results.

In high-school I skipped 2/3 of my classes, finished with maximum grades. There were several girls in my class who worked hard, times harder than me. Went to every lesson, spent most of their time on homework, while I did nearly nothing, and they were the ones who ended up with worse grades. In order to get a B they needed to learn 6-10 hours, why I read it once in 10 minutes in the break and got an A...

Currently I have Master´s degree in robotics. It was similar in uni, skipping a lot, ending well. Currently doing 2 degrees at the same time and having a part-time job as engineer. That part-time job earns more than 60% of people in this country earn with full-time jobs and struggle to survive...

Is it their fault, that they worked harder and ended up worse? Why do I deserve to get more with less work. Simply because I´m lucky? I have thought so much about it, why it is so while I got the genes and others did not.

Personal responsibility is good, when everybody starts from the same level, but they don´t. The genetical difference is huge, between extremes. Some are very lucky to get good genes, some are not. Some have supporting good families, many do not. Is it the kids fault, when their parents can not afford good education, when their parents have made them work a lot when they were kids in order to earn more for the family, so it would survive? There are many cases like that.

That is where the problem with too much personal responsibility lies. Personal responsibility should be there, although the weak ones should be helped far more. It is not nanny state, when weak are helped by the strong ones... Otherwise the difference will become too large.

Originally posted by fadedface
'The only alternative to socialism is barbarism' Karl Marx

Trade and manufacture is based on necessity and everyone is designated a job based on their abilities and capabilities.

We do not know a person's abilities and capabilities.

This is a fatal boast. I witness the misery and suffering which results from this boast in my global advisement to developing nations. Only the person themself has an inkling of this; and this, only after they have 'overcome' themself. Not certainly at age 13 as socialism practices. If I were assigned my lot in life based on age 13, I would be a line worker in a factory right now, instead of assisting nations on battling corruption. I would also believe that I should be a line worker. There would be a lot of happy SSkeptics out there today, were that to have happened long ago.

This is a fatal flaw, as only obedience is rewarded early in life. In a social scenario, the better you follow the rules, the higher your 'abilities and capabilities.'

We do not know what is 'necessity.'

This is a fatal boast. I witness the misery and totalitarian control created by those who dictate what is considered 'necessity' - and in socialism SOMEONE must dictate this - otherwise it is capitalism.

Just as in Ockham's Razor which states "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" - Social Skeptics (fake skeptics), choose a different meaning and threshold for what constitutes 'necessity' than does the ethical person. Through this means they effect totalitarian control of science and social discourse. They do not by any means want the general population to dictate what constitutes 'necessity.' Hence the term Social Skeptic.

This is a fatal flaw in that we deny the fact that there is a 'chooser' who must exist in the social scenario; an agent who stands in corrupt, occulted and defacto rule.

These two boasts stem from an enormously corrupt soul.

Originally posted by fadedface

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Truth: are you a student?

No I'm not and I never have been.

Socialist left wing views are quite common among a lot of British working class people such as myself and not the exclusive reserve of 'students' and 'professors' as they seem to be wherever you're from.

edit on 17-5-2013 by fadedface because: spelling

Socialist views are pretty rare in the UK, that the reason why mainly socialist parties do so poorly in elections. Even the Labour party can't be described as one. The last time they put forward a socialist manifesto was in 1983 (The longest suicide note in history). The result was such a drubbing in the General Election, and they didn't form a government for a generation.

Socialism is one of the greatest evils on the planet. It tries to destroy the individual and subsume them into a collective for some mythical greater good. The question is who decides what the greater good is?

You make statement like "when private property is abolished" Who enforces this, and what are the penalties if someone is caught with a private posession?

Originally posted by Gary29
Socialism is one of the greatest evils on the planet. It tries to destroy the individual and subsume them into a collective for some mythical greater good.

I would argue that consumerism does the same thing, except replace mythical greater good with GDP.

The only reason Socialism is demonized is because it goes against the NWO's agenda. They don't wan't to share the wealth . Only the stimulation of there pockets will suffice. The only real way to boost an economy is to give to those that actually need it. The greedy know this. What they fear most is everyone being equal. That's why Socialist presidents win in landslides in South American countries. The game is up and they know it. We still don't. How about a stimulus plan where average people get a huge check in the mail ?

reply to post by fadedface

Capitalism factors in human greed and corruption which is why it is the prevalent political ideology in the world today.

Socialism factors in human greed and corruption which is why it is the prevalent political ideology in the world today.

Fixed for accuracy take a good look at the record debt all 'socialist' policies created.

When people are all consumed with money, and corporate products, but mandated by government proxy.

Capitalism doesn't exist.

What you described is COMMUNISM, not socialism. When everything is owned by the people, and the state acts as proxy, you get communism, not socialism. The USSR, PRC, Cuba etc were communist. Everyone works for the state and the state itself arguably acts as state capitalism. But even if it was communism in pure form, it is NOT a good idea to destroy private initiative and make everyone somewhat of a zombie depended on the state for everything.

Socialism is CENTRISM, which means certain sectors of the economy are privately owned, usually those that are not critical for society to function properly and encourage innovation, initiative and personal prosperity as well as personal responsibility to achieve success. Western europeans and canadians had socialism before TRANSITIONING TO LIBERAL CAPITALISM which is what we have today for the most part. So many people confuse liberalism with progressivism(which is socialism) its not funny. Liberalism is left wing capitalism, but capitalism in general is right wing, therefore we have center right ideology as a whole.

I am a fan of national socialism, which combines protectionism(not necessarily imperialism) and socialism. I think we should have a limited number of immigrants come into the country each year, have lots of tariffs to balance imports and exports, regulate wall street to encourage DOMESTIC GROWTH and stop the inside traders, go after illegal trusts/monopolies. discourage wreckful speculation, etc.

reply to post by NavyDoc

No, capitalism has increased the standard of living for everyone and gives people incentive to succeed. From horse and buggy to trains to airplanes: capitalism. Cures for diseases that used to kill and crippple: capitalism.

That's right capitalism is the only economic model in world history that has lifted billions out of poverty, and is responsible for the current technological progress of mankind.

Capitalism=evolution
Socialism=deevolution.

reply to post by neo96


...says a man living in a socialist state.