Why Socialism is a Good Thing: An Example

amfirst1
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Once again your talking about crony capitalism or corportism. Under socialism it's much easier to have crony capitalism. Government will give the contracts to their family members. That's why socialist dictators are all billionaires and so r their friends and family members. If u r not in the circle u are screwed.

Capitalism is about the free market, supply and demand. When government gets involved to help out their lobbyists or themselves the supply and demand goes out of wack therefore, u no longer have proper capitalism.

I'm talking about socialistic program's, not crony anything.

Giving a family free food and housing has nothing to do with capitalism.

Giving free public education has nothing to do with capitalism.

Public libraries, nothing capitalism.

Crony or not.

News flash, Capitalism isn't about the free market. Free market is more socialism than capitalism...

ElectricUniverse
reply to post by robhines

 

Wow, really?... Since WHEN the ABOLITION of private property means the workers own and control the means of production?...

Under socialism the state decides where you should live, and they can take away the home that was built by your grandfather, or father by hand if they deem it "too big for your small family and a bigger family, normally a die hard socialist will get YOUR property...

And again, socialists, and leftists in general have been working hard on trying to change the meaning of socialism, when not too long ago it was widely known that under socialism:

Full Definition of SOCIALISM


1

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2

a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3

: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

BTW, before you even start that "collective control of the means of production means all the workers control it, you must be out of touch with reality. In fact "collective control means a group of people claiming to represent the people are the ones owning and controlling the means of production...

It has been happening in every form of socialist government around the world.

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh last post, I don't like being like that. It's just that the last time I got into one of these threads, I was going around in circular arguments for longer than I've ever done before in an ATS thread, and I thought it was starting up again.

Anyway, with your arguments : I can see why you have this problem. To try to put it as simply as possible : the idea of the workers owning the means of production must send shivers around the halls of corrupt power, because they know that it would mean the end of the upper classes and their manipulation, greed, "perks", and so on. We'd have to be equal.

So what seems to have been the agenda for a long time now is to bring out corrupt forms of government and label them "socialism". If you watched that Chomsky clip I linked he goes into this and explains why he thinks it's an agenda by not only Washington, but Moscow and many other power bases too. One side labels it socialism so that they get support of the masses, the other side labels it socialism to try to make people such as yourself associate the idea with all of the negative things the first side does.

The simple fact is that we've never really had socialism. Stalin's fascist crap wasn't socialism, but on the same token Lenin didn't bring in socialism either because he took away the workers power and tried to centralize it in a form of corrupt state socialism. "Communist" China isn't communist at all, it's fascism, all you have to do is look at their oppression. I mean communism is the final goal of socialism, a classless and moneyless society. That's clearly not going on anywhere, and you don't simply get that if you've never had real socialism, because it's a stage that you have to go through first to get there.

The other point is that you can never really have true socialism in one country either, because the world is so connected now. A country can't try to have socialism when it has to deal with so many economic and trade issues with other countries at the same time, it means that the resources aren't being used properly, so for it to truly work, each country would have to implement it too. So no, we don't have socialism anywhere, and the people that do and associate it with this and that bad thing are doing it for two main reasons. Either they're bought and paid for and just pushing the same agenda that's been going on for a long time : to make socialism look like a bad idea, because they're defending their power. They're defending the rule of the upper class over everyone else, an "upper" class that clearly have the resources to try to make sure that most people who haven't researched the idea properly loathe the idea of it. Or, they've not researched the different types of socialism in enough detail, and think of socialism as corrupt state socialism, and try to warn people that that's the agenda being pushed by most socialists.

So I think I can see what you're getting at. You're talking about corrupt state socialism, and on that note, I'm totally with you. I don't want that crap either and it could be even worse than what we have now. But on the other hand, I do want genuine socialism, where workers own the means of production, a decentralized form of government is ran by elected members from different areas of the working class, (basically each member is temporary, and voted into power via votes from members of their working sector.) instead of corporate puppets, and the class system is destroyed. A class system breeds inequality and I'd love to see it gone.

So if you want to carry on saying socialism is bad, fair enough. The mistake you're making though is in not researching the different types of socialism, and seeing that yes, there's a lot of people with decent intentions who want what's for the best of us all, and many of them do have ideas for a form of it that could actually help.

Edit : just checked that Merriam Webster page too and am gobsmacked. It's simply wrong because it just describes one type, the worst type by the looks of it, and the bias is incredible. Would love to know who wrote that page and whether or not they did it out of ignorance or on purpose. There's no wonder so many people attack even the idea of it from the off, when you have people creating entries like that on major websites that so many accept without checking elsewhere.

Typical that that's the first dictionary that turns up in Google too. 2nd and 3rd results have a more balanced definition (as will most dictionaries I guess, because they'll explain that there's more than one type.) :

dictionary.reference.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...



Just to finish, if anyone's interested in researching further, a few links :

Russia was never socialist—and why … what we said over the years

Libertarian Socialism - Wikipedia

People power: 3 of the world’s most successful employee-owned businesses

Freedom News Report
Mericaville-Gate

We have heard the Liberal Conservative reports of the Miracle of Mericaville. Now the true story

Mericaville-Gate.

Tonight we will cover the left out out news

-Self Proclaimed Smartest politicans in Mericaville receiving political contributions from Mericacorp's Board of Directors- totaling in the hundreds of millions. The same smartest Politicians in the world who authorized bailout package on a business by faith gesture.

-Local merchants in Mericaville applied for bailout and denied.

a)Mrs. Betty's Dinner closed because she was not big enough to be rescued
b)John's Hardware store and bait shop closed.. Denied SBA loans because did not have enough annual income.
c) Pa's Gas Station closed because did not qualify for the same subsidy Mericorp recieved
d) Joe Repairs shop closed due to inability to recieve bailout funds necessary to match new EPA requirements

What do they have in common. Did not donate to the smartest Politicians in Mericaville. Countless calls for aid and help ignored by the smartest politicians in the world.

-Mericacorp executives used bail out fund to pay bonuses for executives.
while not paying bonus's to employees

-Smartest Politicians in the world
left out key numbers

Borrowed hundreds on millions dollars on credit.
Then gave Mericacorp years to pay back bailout, for less then the interest the smartest politicians agreed to pay on behalf of the people of Mericaville

-Mericaville Reserve bank
Gambled on this

foreclosed on a lot of home in Mericaville
After forcing all banks to make high risk loans

The smartest Politicians in the world again pointed to the economy and said Bad economy and sent it to the corner

They decided that to help this transition to print more money.
Memos found that they realized cant call it printing more money because we cant mange it
A bright boy that brought coffee to the smartest politicians said.. Lets call it quantitative Easing


At the end of the miracle of Mericaville
None of the shops that were not big enough or cared about by smartest politicians to be saved, they are still closed
None of the people got their homes back from the smartest politicians in the world
None of the currency in Mericaville is backed by anything other then faith
The Interest on the loans is still climbing

Law of Supply and demand has diminished the want of blue widgets

But the Smartest politicians in the world are still in office
The owners of Mericacorp still have their houses and have enjoyed their vacation with the smartest politicians in the world..

Of note .. The smartest politicians in the world have had a very important issue come up.. It appears a classic book in Mericaville is up to be banned.. The books contents have offended several important organizations.. So go out and buy you a copy of Animal Farm before its banned for cultural insensitivity.

This is Kent Walls with Freedom press
Mericaville-gate

Show me the money

Socialism = BAD

Allows corruption to run rampant

America is not a free market
is mixed market

thats why both manipulators math does not work


Socialism, Communism, Democracy, theocracy, and dictatorships all are about how power is divided

never about the benefit of the ruled


The Difference between Socialism and captialism in america.. Emotions and who holds the whip

How the whip holders get the whip not really different in any of the economic worlds.. just their spin doctors work is

ChuckNasty


I'm talking about socialistic program's, not crony anything.

Really?... Let's see...

ChuckNasty
Giving a family free food and housing has nothing to do with capitalism.

Is that why in true socialist and communist nations people are going hungry and their houses are literally becoming ruins? Is that why many poor people in socialist and communist countries live in metal or wood shacks that get easily destroyed by a storm?...

I have given some free food to some families and for sure I am not socialist, nor communist... There are literally millions of people who have given food to those in need and they are not socialists nor communist...

ChuckNasty
Giving free public education has nothing to do with capitalism.


Public libraries, nothing capitalism.

This is how much you know about the system... In order to have a good public education you need money from taxes which the people earn THROUGH CAPTALISM... Not to mention that public libraries not always depend on taxes but on public donations of money and also donations of books...

ChuckNasty
Crony or not.

News flash, Capitalism isn't about the free market. Free market is more socialism than capitalism...

Are you kidding?... Under a real socialist country the means of production is owned and controlled by the STATE, despite socialist wannabes claiming the contrary, you can't have a free market when the state owns all...

In socialist and communist countries people have to resort, if possible to the black market, a market they create themselves in order to try to get some basic essentials like food.

Take a look at India, a true socialist nation, which has most of it's population in very poor conditions, and despite claims of the contrary from the socialist wannabes there is a class structure and there are people who are richer than all the poor combined...

Take a look at what has been happening in Venezuela, people are fighting at supermarkets for the last items of food, and the government, since it owns the means of production which includes food, has been found to have stored tons, and tons of food which have gotten rotten...

That's socialism for you. But don't worry, if it continues like it is, Venezuela will soon become a full blown communist nation, which is what happens when socialism is truly embraced.

BTW, newsflash, social programs doesn't = socialism, just like being social doesn't = socialist....

ElectricUniverse

Are you kidding?... Under a real socialist country the means of production is owned and controlled by the STATE, despite socialist wannabes claiming the contrary, you can't have a free market when the state owns all...

Haha, same old same old. I clearly told you otherwise and linked you to information that could help, but nooo.

I think capitalism is basically more of a selfish system personally, but who cares about others when you're one of the lucky ones with tons of cash? Have fun, the propaganda against actual socialism won't keep up forever. Oh and controlled by the STATE! Don't be naive, it's already controlled by GovCorp anyway. We should be trying something different before the whole planet is raped by greedy sewage-minded morons.

People who actually research the meaning of socialism for even a few minutes can see that you're wrong, and that's a fact. Oh and again, there's never been a real socialist country that we know of, so there's another false statement.

I'm not replying again, so twist what you want. It's not worth the waste of energy.

Sorry, one more thing before I go, to try and help people genuinely interested in something other than crony corruption :

This is hilarious...

Everyone thinks what they KNOW is the truth..
When NO ONE has a clue.

Miccey
This is hilarious...

Everyone thinks what they KNOW is the truth..
When NO ONE has a clue.

Yup, I bet this guy hasn't got a clue either, then.

Chomsky on Socialism (and definitely worth the few minutes for those eager to learn.) :



I said I wasn't posting again, but instead I'll try adding links to a few videos and articles that I think can help, because so many people are so misguided on this subject that it's actually sickening. If someone wants to argue at me, etc, I'll say a few sentences at most if need be, not going into lengthy posts from here on out though if possible.

raymundoko
reply to post by NullVoid

 

But people want his bracelets... He should be allowed to sell them for food if there is a market.

And that is what "Freedom to Choose" is all about, also, that is socialism weakness - "I want that too".

reply to post by ChuckNasty


Yea, but who decides the rules in socialism?? Oh yea the corrupt politician. Do u really think they will do what's best for u or themselves?

Humanity is not ready for such a thing. If angels were the rulers I would give it a 2nd thought. But as long as a few men decide the rules hell no! Socialism only gives the government more capabilities to control the country. U would need righteous people to run the government. Right now we don't have them, and even if we did they would eventually get replaced with something worst.

Also, one thing socialist never likes to talk about is where will we get the funding for all these social programs.

If we can get rid of the Private Federal Reserve and give the ability to print the dollar back to the treasury then we would have no debt and can fund all the social programs. But socialists never want to talk about this issue. This is the one thing the left can align with the Tea Party and fight for instead they refused to bring up the issue.

NullVoid

raymundoko
reply to post by NullVoid

 

But people want his bracelets... He should be allowed to sell them for food if there is a market.

And that is what "Freedom to Choose" is all about, also, that is socialism weakness - "I want that too".

And this is why pure socialism will never work, because people are not ants.

reply to post by NavyDoc


www.youtube.com...=0

amfirst1
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Yea, but who decides the rules in socialism?? Oh yea the corrupt politician. Do u really think they will do what's best for u or themselves?

See this is why I quit last time. I can post in here for a week and people will still just make out like state socialism is the only thing. Well that's what they wanted folks, and they've done a great job. If the workers own their places of work, temporary elected people from each sector can take up temporary roles in government. They could get voted in for say, 6 months or a year at a time, to represent their sector, community, and so on.

NavyDoc
And this is why pure socialism will never work, because people are not ants.

Let's have a quick look at this. Capitalism is basically slavery to the upper class, socialism is workers owning their places of work and having more power and money, as the upper class imbalance is removed. So let's try your sentence again with what socialism actually means :

And this is why the workers owning their places of work will never work, because people are not ants.

Doesn't really make as much sense, does it? I'm not trying to wind anyone up, just saying.

Actually, this might wind people up, but honestly, it's just the way I see it :

If we evolve, if we truly evolve, as a species, we'll probably head towards communism. And many advanced races, if they're out there, probably do the same thing. Why? Well just look at the basic definition from wikipedia for a clue :

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order.

en.wikipedia.org...

So the workers owning their own places of work and the class divisions dissolved, then a world where we no longer need money and the problems it brings, and we no longer have states and their borders separating us.

Oh yeah, that sounds real bad doesn't it? Well it does for the elite and their greedy, psychopathic and divisive machinations, that's for sure. No wonder they're so hard at work with their mass propaganda. Sorry to tell you folks, but it sounds more like evolution.

The elite want us stuck in the dark ages while they have all the fun. Well guess what? They'll never manage it. The way of things is change, not stasis.

Hail Communism indeed. You'll all wake up one day, don't worry. I'm out of here now, at least I tried.

NavyDoc

NullVoid

raymundoko
reply to post by NullVoid

 

But people want his bracelets... He should be allowed to sell them for food if there is a market.

And that is what "Freedom to Choose" is all about, also, that is socialism weakness - "I want that too".

And this is why pure socialism will never work, because people are not ants.

Yes, you got that right, its the greed that make it doesnt work. But its not the greed about money like everyone here talk about, its about power. In comparison to capitalism, the greed is more about money and power. That is what I'm trying to point out. With socialism, its never about money, its about staying in power.

Socialism/communist is actually better than capitalism, but the power have to be in constant check, the one in power intend to stay in power - see North Korea.
Capitalism is actually worse than socialism, you can ALWAYS "buy" the power, because people are not ants. (there is no check at all) - See any "democratically elected" country.

Again
Capitalism -

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Socialism -

"Give me control of a nation's laws and I care not how much money we have."

robhines

Haha, same old same old. I clearly told you otherwise and linked you to information that could help, but nooo.

Linked to what information?... from old geezers who have lived their entire lives in capitalist, or now corporatist nations, and young impressionable youths willing to believe in unicorns and that socialism is great?...

robhines
I think capitalism is basically more of a selfish system personally, but who cares about others when you're one of the lucky ones with tons of cash? Have fun, the propaganda against actual socialism won't keep up forever. Oh and controlled by the STATE! Don't be naive, it's already controlled by GovCorp anyway. We should be trying something different before the whole planet is raped by greedy sewage-minded morons.

Unfortunately true capitalism hasn't existed for a while thanks to leftwingers, Democrats gave power to the world bankers in 1913 by signing the Federal Reserve Act, giving power over the U.S. economy to these world bankers. Perhaps you should inform yourself a little better if you want to try to discuss a topic.

robhines
People who actually research the meaning of socialism for even a few minutes can see that you're wrong, and that's a fact. Oh and again, there's never been a real socialist country that we know of, so there's another false statement.

Yeah, research written by leftwing professors who have never lived under a socialist state... Great advice....

robhines
I'm not replying again, so twist what you want. It's not worth the waste of energy.

Of course you aren't, people like you are too brainwashed and prefer to believe fairy tales that the REAL WORLD has shown never works and only brings misery, suffering, and even murders/death.

Look as another example the "Red Terror" in Spain in the summer of 1936. Socialists and communists took over and in the course of a summer murdered from 38,000 - 72,344 people for being capitalists, and for being priests.... All of them unarmed...

These socialists/communists burned down cathedrals and churches, and abolished the teaching of religion during their oppressive regime, which thankfully didn't last long, as Franco was put in power and set for to kill every single socialist and sympathizer who had given information about where clergy and capitalists lived.

The Red Terror[3] in Spain (Spanish: Terror Rojo en España) is the name given by historians to various acts committed "by sections of nearly all the leftist groups"[4][5] such as the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832[6] members of the Catholic clergy, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military rising), as well as attacks on landowners, industrialists, and politicians, and the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.[6] News of the military coup unleashed a social revolutionary response and no republican region escaped revolutionary and anticlerical violence - though in the Basque Country this was minimal.[7]

A process of political polarisation had characterised the Spanish Second Republic – party divisions became increasingly embittered and questions of religious identity came to assume a major political significance. Electorally, the Church had identified itself with the Right, which had set itself against social reform.[8]

The failed pronunciamiento of 1936 set loose a violent onslaught on those that revolutionaries in the Republican zone identified as enemies - " where the rebellion failed, for several months afterwards merely to be identified as a priest, a religious or simply a militant Christian or member of some apostolic or pious organization, was enough for a person to be executed without trial".[9]

In recent years the Catholic Church has beatified hundreds of the victims, 498 of them on 28 October 2007 in a spectacular ceremony, the largest single number of beatifications in the church's history.[10]

Some estimates of the Red Terror range from 38,000[11] to 72,344 lives.[12] Paul Preston, speaking in 2012 at the time of the publication of his book The Spanish Holocaust, put the figure at a little under 50,000.

Historian Julio de la Cueva has written that, "despite the fact that the Church... suffer[ed] appalling persecution" in the Loyalist rearguard, the events have so far met not only with "the embarrassing partiality of ecclesiastical scholars, but also with the embarrassed silence or attempts at justification of a large number of historians and memoirists".[6] Analysts such as Helen Graham have linked the Red and White Terrors, pointing out that it was the military coup that allowed the culture of brutal violence to flourish. Graham wrote of the coup, "...its original act of violence was that it killed off the possibility of other forms of peaceful political evolution".[13] Others see the persecution and violence as predating the coup and found in what they see as a "radical and antidemocratic" anticlericalism of the Republic and its constitution, including dissolution of the Jesuits 1932, nationalization of virtually all church property in 1933, prohibition on teaching religion in schools, prohibition on teaching by clergy, and violent persecution proper beginning in 1934 in Asturias with the murder of 37 priests, religious and seminarians and burning of 58 churches

en.wikipedia.org...(Spain)

There are similar "Red Terrors' in many different countries, and they all ended up the same way, with oppressive leftwing regimes, same with socialist and communist dictatorships...

But of course today's socialists, who have never lived such economic and political system, want to claim that "no socialist regime has ever existed"... Despite history showing the contrary...

Blathering on about a load of murdering fascists can't tarnish the idea of socialism, nice try though.

ElectricUniverse
But of course today's socialists, who have never lived such economic and political system, want to claim that "no socialist regime has ever existed"... Despite history showing the contrary...

Socialism : workers owning the means of production.

Every example you give will fail unless it shows how workers owned the means of production. So I'm just going to guess your capitalism-huggling (and Franco-loving, nice touch there. Really showing your true colours now.) propaganda will just have to simply fail. Again.

Workers owning their places of work and no longer being slaves to the upper classes : not evil. That's why your propaganda will always fail in the end.

ElectricUniverse
Unfortunately true capitalism hasn't existed for a while thanks to leftwingers, Democrats gave power to the world bankers in 1913 by signing the Federal Reserve Act, giving power over the U.S. economy to these world bankers. Perhaps you should inform yourself a little better if you want to try to discuss a topic.

Had to come back to this, because I find it amazing. Can you please tell me how these world bankers would've had the power to take over the US economy if the banks were ran properly? As in, all of the employees co-owning and running them? The banks above almost everything else prove the insanity of crony capitalism.

I freely admit I'm talking about crony capitalism too. I'm not saying "pure" capitalism is the problem because I don't think we've had that either, thanks to the machinations of the few again. I do think it sounds like an insane idea though! But at least I'm not savagely attacking it, because I realize we've not really had it. You on the other hand seem to insist we've had genuine socialism repeatedly though, when we clearly haven't.

Anyway I give up saying I'm leaving the thread now. It looks like what happened last time is repeating itself, fair enough. If you'd have left me instead of responding in the way you did I guess I'd be done, but maybe adding communism into my last post seemed too much like baiting to you or something! Apologies if so.