Sorry if this is the 3rd socialist thread or something, but seriously. It's such a stupid fucking idea I just cannot understand why anyone would agree with it. I'm not one of this 100% capitalist nuts, 100% of anything is usually stupid. I generally agree with Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, who said that capitalism should be taxed to fund the democracy and security services needed to preserve justice and the nation. Welfare is ok if it solves a problem, if someone needs food and shelter to keep them healthy whilst they rehabilitate or if children need to be immunised against polio and tetanus. That's fine. I can imagine a government which ran the economy democratically and people could only start their own business by gaining public support first, but where's the incentive in that? We are individuals, through and throughout. If we were all ants and gained pleasure from the negligible increase in the nation's economy we added, then maybe socialism would work. But this is not the case. No one would pioneer computer science or mechanized industry if their only prospect is more work.
I'm posting this in response to some troll in the pick your society thread.
After citing several examples of how socialism doesn't work if it is implemented by a despotism and that liberty is the defining factor concerning true egalitarianism his reply was as ignorant and apathetic as it could get. I don't think this troll was stupid, I think he was a typical socialist and intelligent, who knew very well that liberty is a good thing, but doesn't care. Much like a rapist might know what he is doing is wrong, but not care.
If anything despotism goes against every value socialists seem to preach, about equality. But things are not going to be very equal if a military dictatorship taxes everyone into slavery and shoots anyone who disagrees, is it?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-13 0:51 (sage)
Fuck Adam Smith, Keynes FTW
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-13 1:04
It's kind of hard to discuss socialism with people whose ideas are informed by American propaganda. Towing the propaganda line, they equate the totalitarian system of the USSR with socialism.
The trolls are the people who have some fixed idea of what "socialism" is and who make specious claims about it being against individuality. They set up a false dichotomy between equality and liberty, seemingly unaware that thinkers through the ages have affirmed that the two are inextricably linked.
Sort of like socialists railing on and on and on and on and on and on about the "evils" of capitalism right? Oh wait that must be different.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-13 2:44
Evils of capitalism? How about inequality by design.
"When the number of landholders shall be comparatively small ... will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? ... If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
James Madison, Fourth President of the United States of America, Father of the Constitution
5 is right. Your only argument "for" socialism is the argument against pure capitalism, which isn't an argument for socialism. There are other ways of preventing poverty, such as having a democracy which chooses how much to tax the economy in order to support free education for children and lay the foundations for equal opportunity. Most small democracies end up as welfare states, but with strong opportunities for succesful entrepeneurs and professionals to succeed and incentives for people to get an education and improve their abilities concerning what is needed in the economy.
History has proven these methods to be more effective, because democracies prevent the government from taxing the economy to subsistence and because democracies represent the will of the people who are not willing to sacrifice their well being for some petty system of government which only ever seems to lead to despotism.
The only argument I can think of to support socialism is for some form of democratically elected economy, whereby people are elected to run businesses based on merit and how they would use the business to benefit their voters. Though for some reason no socialist has ever thought of this or brought it up. You are all trolls.
Name:
zeppy!ztExNd0kzA2005-12-13 15:50 (sage)
This Thread itself is meta-trolling
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-13 16:37
On another website, I posted a thread about how socialists tend to play unfair in debates. All I got in return were socialists calling me names, accusing me of calling them Nazis and going on about Godwin's law -- despite me never even calling them names or accusing them of being Nazis.
The sad part was I made a point about how socialists tend to call people who disagree names and generally just insult the other side instead of actually trying to backup their own -- which their immature behaviour ended up proving right.
LISTEN, I know there is at least one guy here who's a socialist. He's the one who first mopped the floor with john back in the libertarian debate thread. He's a smart guy, I don't know why he isn't responding.
He's the one who brought up Finland.
Anyway, socialism is fucking awesome because most of the socialist nations I've seen look like fucking paradises. NK ETC... aren't truly socialism, they're communism. Finanaland and Switzerland for example... I could come from absolutely nothing, my parents could be dead, and yet I'd still have an education and health care. And this system PROMOTES THE ECONOMY TO THE POINT OF BEING AS GOOD AS THE US EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T HAVE THE INSANE ADVANTAGES THAT THE US HAS (e.g., a huge economic boost after WWII, A huge land area with tons of resauces). It eliminates poverty, increases the fucking economic output to crazy high levels, and promotes a truly just and egalatarian society. It's been PROVEN. You can take all your feudal theories and shove them up your ass if you don't believe it, you really can't refute this.
So just shut the fuck up, you are probably a racist who wants black people to be your slaves again.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-13 22:55
>>11
Wow... Just wow. I take back that whole troll thing.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-14 8:59
>>11
Idiot. The cuntries you reference do not have a shitload of disgusting wetbacks and niggers. Get real, assmunch! If we could line up all the muds and open fire, we might start looking at your model. Otherwise, please fuck off and eat shit.
>>11
Socialism is not a complete system of government. The natural state of human government is might is right, whoever has the gun tells others what to do. Whether the despot decides to be capitalist or socialist doesn't matter, it's still a despotism. A 100% socialist state and a 100% capitalist state will end up as despotisms no matter what. Even Chairman Mao, a complete socialist fanatic, had the sense to name China a socialist republi and not just a socialist state. You come across as worse than Mao who's flawed policies made life even worse for a decade than when it was ruled by warlords and imperialists (all of them assholes).
Switzerland and Finland are democracies which have chosen a few welfare policies, they are not socialist and if they were to nationalise their industries it would play havoc with the economy, which is why the people of these countries do not choose to get rid of free market policies for the majority of their economy. If they are socialist, they are pretty capitalist for socialists.
You have been asses so far so I'm going to test you to see how much of a troll (or completely batshit fucking loco) you are.
Within democratic countries, give me examples of where nationalised sectors of the economy (healthcare, education) have surpassed privatised markets in similiar socio-economic conditions.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-14 22:07
Uh, power, phone, communication.
Before privatization, those industries rocked along without a problem. Then they got all hopped up on idealism, and now we have rolling blackouts in california and that huge as fucking blackout in the northeast. That is inexcusable, and the free market is supposed to prevent this sort of thing, but BING, it doesn't. Also, healthcare, but I don't need to get into how fucking unjust the system in america is.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-14 22:10
Listen, socialism consistently wins out against your faggotry. Socialism is the governmental system of the future, I'm not saying we need to go 100% socialist, but a good 50 to even 75% would be completely fucking awesome.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 2:42
Socialism does not always imply state socialism. Libertarian socialism, for example, involves self-management. In this kind of system, healthcare could be operated and administered collectively without the need of a state. It's possible to be 100% socialist without having a government.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 11:05
>>20
Only thats a bad idea. Democratic socialism FTW.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 12:02
I laugh at all you greedy capitalist assholes. America needs to die.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 12:17
>>21
Why's it a bad idea? It's like democratic socialism without the big government. It's socialism with MORE democracy, where EVERYTHING is directly decided. I guess it seems counterintuitive; we've been living with heirarchical ideas about society for so long.
Imagine standing on the sidewalk with your friends, deciding what to do with your evening.
* A capitalist decision would have one person holding all the cash, and he decides what everyone will do.
* A democratic socialist system provides some buffers to the capitalist system. A couple more people would decide what to do for everyone (representatives), although the one capitalist who holds the money can influence the decision makers (he can bribe them to make the decision he wants, he can threaten to take his money and go home). However, they'll be a list of good things to choose from (rights to social services).
* A libertarian socialist decision would be the natural one, I would argue, where you and your friends agree on what to do with your pool of cash and the evening ahead of you.
It's probably too much of a leap from capitalism to libertarian socialism, so I agree that strong democratic socialism is a worthwhile goal. But it's by no means clear that it's the final stop. Indeed, social democrats have traditionally viewed democratic socialism as a stop-gap towards a more complete socialism.
Name:
zeppy!GuxAK3zcH.2005-12-15 14:46
Socialism is too "perfect" for us to handle. The most effective form of government is a benevolent dictator, similar to what plato reccomended
Socialist countries are in the #2 stage right now.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 17:57
>>23
I've got a better way of looking at reality. Imagine 3 escaped convicts on an island. They know if they work together they can find food, build a raft and get off the island and possibly to freedom, but that they can try and kill/subjugate each other and get away with it without consequences.
* A capitalist decision would be an uneasy alliance, they would only get angry when one guy wasn't doing his fair share to get food or help build a raft, but not risk their health by getting angry for no reason.
* A democratic socialist system provides some buffers to the capitalist system. They would sit down and discuss what they are going to do as they would do anyway, except they wouldn't bother getting angry for any reason whatsoever. At first they would do some jobs, but eventually after seeing the others slow down they would aswell. Eventually they would "grow up" and evolve into the capitalist system or get pissed off and revert to the libertarian socialist system...
* A libertarian socialist decision would be the natural one, one night when they are all around the fire, one guy will start a fight with another and beat the crap out of him to assert himself as the alpha. The other 2 would step in line and compete so as not to be the beta. The alpha will order the other 2 to build a raft, only pitching in due to the fact that he constitutes 1/3 of the labour force, but will not over exert himself and will injure the beta in order to assert his dominance. There is a strong possiblity that they will just fight and risk injury, then die of infection in the heat or become divided, take too much time to build a raft, get picked up by the coast guard and sent back to jail.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 18:53
>>28
Your libertarian socialist idea sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-15 19:00
>>28
That's a puritanical way of looking at reality. You know, the original sin, total depravity, gotta work your ass off and suffer to get into heaven mentality. Your choice of metaphors is revealing. "Convicts trapped on an island" is almost a direct transposing of puritanical thinking. Puritanism glorifies in the suffering of the sinful flesh, and the vestiges of this attitude remain in those that see the wage slavery and heirarchical control in capitalism as desirable.
I don't know about you, but the cooperative relations in my life have been mostly pleasurable and memorable (and no less productive, BTW). It's the heirarchic relations that make you wanna beat the crap outta people. If you drop the convict/original sin bit, the libertarian socialist decision would be to work together because you want to get off the island; you're in the same boat, literally.