Socialism is BS. Don't be fooled.

There is nothing wrong with equality as the EFFECT of good policy and tied in with other good effects, but using it as the sole CAUSE of your policy decisions is ridiculously stupid.

If everyone is starving, everyone is equal. Does that mean you have a super wonderful perfect economic system? Of course fucking not.

The communists were tyrants before they even decided to be communist. They knew that if they chose a fallacious ideal like communism they could place "equality" above freedom of speech and human rights once they got into power.

"The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny. There is no much use complaining about how Stalin lives in opulent splendour whilst your children starve if you are living in a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The founding fathers of the US made Freedom of Speach their 1 priority from day 1, that is why we are a democracy, because not being executed for speaking your mind is a little more fundamental than whatever good would come from handing all your property over to the government.

Remember. With capitalism, EVERYONE WINS! It doesn't matter if some win more than others.

Yes it does, aiming low in creating a better society is against human nature.

How does everyone win? There can only be 1 winner, and in capitalism thats the greedy business owner that will fuck his employees over just to get a couple more dollars, in communism everyone is equal, and that means no one wins or loses. 

except for the millions who have been killed to make room for paradise. you're retarded if you think you can sell that shit anymore.

>>4
People argue that it wasn't true communism because it was forced and rapidly accelerated, Lenin himself remarked that Russia wasn't ready for the revolution.

>>5 I'm sure thats a great confort to the tens of millions who have been murdered by their own leaders because they wern't ready.

Keep in mind that Communism has only been attempted in dictatorships.  Dictatorships historically tend to be brutal and grossly incompetant/inefficient.

how can we trust someone who uses the name haliburton?

get out the soap box! Halliburton public advisor going to washington

the only socialism conservatives believe in is Lemon Socialism

>>8
Halliburton is the prime example of an anti-socialist argument. The government is what makes Halliburton bad not the free-market; Halliburton only abuses the power it receives from big-brother. Same goes for most monopolies/corrupt organizations. Hey lets give this company billions of dollars with no incentive to follow through! Brilliant idea! Then after they fuck up and steal/lie/abuse power, we can turn it into an example of anti-capitalism that will convince idiots that business is evil

>>5
>>7
You have been indoctrinated by liberal propoganda to ignore rational arguments when you see them. Please re-read this part of my original post.

"
"The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny. There is no much use complaining about how Stalin lives in opulent splendour whilst your children starve if you are living in a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The founding fathers of the US made Freedom of Speach their 1 priority from day 1, that is why we are a democracy, because not being executed for speaking your mind is a little more fundamental than whatever good would come from handing all your property over to the government.
"

>>3
Everyone wins because they are paid for the amount of valuable work they do and if that still isn't enough you can always vote in a government which taxes the rich to keep you out of poverty. There are of course other elements such as circumstance, inheritance, crime and corruption which cause people to earn more than they are worth, they can be ignored though as they are usually insignificant.

>>2
>>4
>>6
>>9
>>10
I am sorry. I do not quite understand your argument. Please elaborate and use layman's terms.

>>8
Halliburton is a company with over 100000 employees, compared with national rates of crime Halliburton employees are substantially more law abiding. I am not a Socialist, so I do not claim Halliburton to be infallible, however the facts prove you should be more concerned with employees from rival energy services.

>>11
>>12, last paragraph

The only good socialist is a dead socialist.

Communism =/= socialism. Communism doesn't work, Socialism can. For instance, the US could afford to be more socialist. IE, it could encourage small business instead of big business, it could close the ridiculous gap between what a CEO is paid and what the janitor at that building is paid (we have one of, if not the biggest gaps in this respect). We could start caring about the middle class instead of the top 1%, and start caring about American manufacturing before we are fucked. Socialism doesn't automatically mean "let's all hold hands together, turn in our stuff to the government and wait for our food rations". Outright Capitalism is stupid, as is outright Communism, it's the middle ground that is the sweet spot.

>>12
There are of course other elements such as circumstance, inheritance, crime and corruption which cause people to earn more than they are worth, they can be ignored though as they are usually insignificant.

You've gotta be fucking joking. George W. Bush grew up with a silver spoon up his ass and never worked on honest day in his life, and he is fucking PRESIDENT. Usually insignificant? Bullshit. Businessmen, lawyers, corporate managers, pro sports players, and countless other ridiculously high paying jobs aren't worth shit, yet the illegal mexican child making all our shit and running our economy gets paid a dollar a week. Face the fucking facts, we have become an Oligarchy, big business rules over the economy and takes every opportunity to exploit the middle and low class.

>>16
Yeah, We ought to have a revolution so you could be in charge and kill all of us. Fuck the facing facts, you're are all twobit little dictators who want take over the world so you can remake it over in your own image. And if that little mexican child doesn't serve your purpose he'll go into the mass graves just like everyone else.

>>12
Everyone wins because they are paid for the amount of valuable work they do and if that still isn't enough you can always vote in a government which taxes the rich to keep you out of poverty.


... fuck you've got to be blind.. if everyone were to be paid for "the amount of valuable work" they do then how on earth would the capitalists earn money?
in early days of capitalsim a worker got paid for half of his day's work. now perhaps 3/4 of a day. your argument is so fucking wrong in every single way. please
if you want to claim someting is bad then you might would want to look at your own alternative. Reading a bit of Marx wouldn't destroy your brain.

oh and by the way. Soviet wasn't a communist state after Stalin became the leader. Stalin's politics were clearly those of a fascist.

Socialism/Communism have very little to do with the former Soviet Union, the only thing was that they called themself communists. In the same way Saddam Hussien had free and democratic elections..

Anyway, I don't understand why a economic order where we, thoose that produce, control our own work instead of someone else. Instead of a few getting unnecessary rich, so much money they simply can not spend them, then why not use that for the good of us all? There sure is enough money, food, water and whatever to make sure everyone is living a good life. But instead a few people lives upon the masses. Sounds very stupid to me.

Socialism is social justice, capitalism is not. Simple as that.

>>19
It's that line of thinking that has resulted in the deaths of millions, and possibly billions (if you include all statist regimes and governments)

>>20

Socialism have killed very few people, dictatorships that called themself socialists may have killed a lot of people sure.

But in the end capitalism have killed quite a lot of more people. Forgot that someone is starving to death every second? At the same time we're buring crops in Europe & US because we're overproducing. Oh, I can feel the irony.

I don't understd why oridnary people reject the tought of getting a better life.

>>21
""The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny."

>>22
communism IS tyranny, socialists just think its a good tyranny

>>22
So we put in a safeguard against tyranny. Hey, we already have one! It's called separation of powers, dipshit.

>>23
so·cial·ism Pronunciation (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


com·mu·nism Pronunciation (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.


NOT THE SAME THING YOU FUCKING MORON.

>>21
"I don't understd why oridnary people reject the tought of getting a better life."

Socialism is the wedge used by dictators to seize power. Why don't we ask Eastern Europe if they'd like one of you budding mass murderers to give them a better life. Purely out of the goodness of your hearts of course. We know how dearly you love the working man.

>>25
shut the fuck up, troll. No one is buying your "mass murderer" bullshit. Just because some Socialist dictators used it to seize power does not mean that is what all Socialists want. That's a fallacy of logic, "One, therefore all". Now get a decent argument instead of repeating the same stupid shit or gtfo.

>>15
This can be done entirely without resorting to socialism. Socialism is an ideal not a logical thought out concept, if you wish to utilise one concept which socialists support you do not have to support socialism and drag along their baggage aswell. All you need to do is to support that concept by itself.

>>16
>>18
Of the top 1% only 10% are millionaires and less than 10% of millionaires inherited their wealth. If this still bothers you have you ever given thought to other possibilities? The real problem may lie in taxation. The government wastes money on people who could easily work or earn more for a living but don't due to the disincentive the government gives them through welfare. It also taxes incomes and savings instead of property. People should pay for the services they use because it is fairer on the little man and adds market forces to taxation.


>>18
>>19
>>21
>>24
Assuming you begin with a stable democracy, how can you expect people not to vote socialism out eventually? At most you will get a welfare state like Finland with the diverse economy run by property owners through free enterprise, more likely though you would end up with a political party that keeps people out of poverty for populist reasons but leaves the rest of the economy alone like the UK and Canada.

On a personal note I am going to be firm with you, ladies, gentlemen, as I feel you are refusing to address an obvious and important point I am teaching you. Have you not yet asked why tyrants prefer socialism to libertarianism? Perhaps the heated rhetoric of the minutemen "LIBERTY OR DEATH" compared to the propoganda of marxist thugs "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" will clue you in.

Capitalism under tyranny is always going to end badly, just like socialism under tyranny. Though I don't see any tyrants using "capitalism" to get into power. I see democracies preferring capitalism to control the majority of their economy and only using state regulation to control sectors of the economy that can only be a monopoly.

>>26
fuck off Trotsky. The logic is "all therefore one" and socialism is the same stupid arguement made over and over. Why don't you try the French. They're dumb enough to laugh at mimes.

>>28
Actually all therefore one is a separate fallacy. Try actually saying something in your argument next time.

>>27
"This can be done entirely without resorting to socialism."

Uh, that's what I was saying. I mentioned the ways we could move more left on the economic scale. You seem to think there is some sort of 3-setting switch with Capitalism at the top, Socialism in the middle, and Communism at the bottom. Not the case, it is a gradient.

This post seems to operate under the presumption that Socialism only exists as authoritative.  Certainly I would agree with the op that authoritarian socialism (i.e. state socialism) is corrupt and a negative force for maintaining social harmony, but alternative variations of socialism remain.  Libertarian socialism, or Anarchy, for example.

but not-state socialism generally requires people to care about other people, which people generally don't, unless it's their friends/family.

>>22
Well, I'm quite sure that history have proven Marxism-Leninism to be quite stupid, and that revolutions tend to end up concentrating power to a few. Democratic Socialism is all about bringing social justice without replacing the liberal democracy.

>>25
You know when someone is running out of arguments when he/she refers to the Soviet Union dispite that I already said they had nothing to do with socialism.
USSR and the eastern block had some sort of state-capitalism, ie the explotation of workers did continue however there where only one buyer, the state.

We should follow the example of the nordic countrys. They have mangaged to build a regulated capitalist economy. Now it's time to also begin to work on economic democracy there.

Just so you know, illegal aliens aren't the backbone of america. Especially mexicans... If that were true thered be no America before the 50s.

>>33
immigrants have always been the backbone

Capitalism is equally or even more the genocidal murderer of peoples. Remember the native americans whos had to go to make room ? Remember all the children that died in Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc? They were not killed because they were the enemy, or even as retaliation (as you could argue that the millions killed in communist and socialist were).
And dictators labeling themselves liberals and marketfriendly has been abundant, mostly in south america i guess though (pinochet was manloved by friedman for example).
And do you remember when the soviets invaded afganistan? There were one brave journalist who defied the government and said that they were actually invading and not helping or whatever. He  was killed of course. There were no brave journalists when vietnam was invaded, when laos was invaded, when panama was invaded, when iraq was invaded.

typical liberal socialist trolling bullshit.

>>33
The economy changes, you know. America has always needed cheap or forced labor for its capitalist economy to function. First slavery, then free blacks and poor Irish immigrants, then more immigrants, now illegal aliens and outsourced labor.

>>29
There is no left-right or capitalist-communist scale. There is reality's immense complexity, science, morality and the law, then there are idiots who think reality's immense complexity can be explained by abstract mediums like the class system or people's relationship with their mother.

>>30
>>35
Capitalism under tyranny is always going to end badly, just like socialism under tyranny. I don't see any tyrants using "capitalism" to get into power, capitalism is just an economic system and does not deny it's flaws or claim to be a political system that allows power to the people. I see democracies preferring capitalism to control the majority of their economy and only using state regulation to control sectors of the economy that can only be a monopoly. I see tyrants using socialism and it's fallacies as a replacement for rational concepts such as human rights, so they don't have to bend to the will of the people.

>>37
So why then do countries with a lot of cheap labour suffer so badly? Cheap labour alone is not enough. A people need a strong sense of national determination, they need a libertarian government, they need an efficient economic system, they need well educated scientists, inventors, entrepeneurs and stock brokers to discover new ways of generating resources, increasing their value through manufacture, educating people as to their value so they buy them and ensuring the system works to a high degree of efficiency through directing their nation's wealth to various industries through intensive research into the economy. America is succesful because those immigrants wanted more than to sweep floors, not because they swept floors for less than people who could get a better job.

Poor Norway, eh? They're just doing terribly with all those socialist policies, aren't they?

oh wait

Well, norway, sweden, finland, france, spain, italy, holland, japan, UK etc. I mean, laws regulating labor should be considered socialist since before the socialist parties and unions of old demanded them, they did not exist. Laws like how long the work day is, how old you have to be to be allowed to work, minimum wages, social security like pensions and unemployment insurance etc.
And about capitalism and democracy, under one definition capitalism can be said to have been invented in the UK in the in the end of 18th century, and then spread around the world. A majority of the capitalist countries did not become democracies (women and all races allowed to vote) until the 20th century. So how was this more then 100 years of harsh dictatorship possible under this miraculous freedomloving capitalism?