Be a Supporter!

Why Socialism > Capitalism

  • 6,919 Views
  • 128 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Nintharmed
Nintharmed
  • Member since: Jan. 18, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Audiophile
Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 8th, 2012 @ 01:00 PM Reply

Socialism is imperative to the reaching of true political equality for man-kind. Allow me to make my case.

Capitalism is crippling towards everyone, be they poor, white, black, rich, middle-class, whatever. The economic masters of our current time have promised us success, but what have they delivered? Housing bubbles, credit crunches, Global Warming and delivery of our companies into the hands of China, leaving America and others hangers-on to economic ruin. The company cannot care for it's workers. It can only care for the wealth, which inevitably finds itself in the hands of grotesque Communist-dictator states such as China. Lets face it, trickle-down economics is bootless.

The money will always speak instead of the investor. Nobody can gain from capitalism except the capitalist beaurocracy it caters to. The markets, in control of the worker, makes them their slaves. There is no escape from this: America, Europe, even the Middle East are regularly left broken by financial stupidity on behalf of the capitalists, co-opted by money and greed only. Markets cannot regulate themselves.

The only way to eliminate the egotistical nature of Capitalism is to socialise the marketplace, and to ensure that moral values take precedence over the demand to suit young people for work in our educational establishments. Wake up, Americans, the American Dream is an illusion. Social economies with a planned worker base, assisting the spread of this money in favor of The People, and the moral education of youth to assist in spending economic capitol wisely, is the only way to save America/ Europe/ The World.

Socialism is the only chance we have to survive socioeconomically. Otherwise our systems will collapse in on themselves out of their own greed.

Discuss.


BBS Signature
putzpie
putzpie
  • Member since: Nov. 25, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 8th, 2012 @ 06:01 PM Reply

At 4 hours ago, Nintharmed wrote: Discuss.

Actually it's out of the said collapse that socialism will be born.

But I agree, the workers need to take over the means of production to be shared in common and operated democratically by the workers, carry out production based for use-vale and distribute goods based on need instead of pretending the "free" market is the best way to get people what they need.


BBS Signature
adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 8th, 2012 @ 07:49 PM Reply

At 6 hours ago, Nintharmed wrote:
Capitalism is crippling towards everyone, be they poor, white, black, rich, middle-class, whatever.

Not by any objective standard.

The economic masters of our current time have promised us success, but what have they delivered? Housing bubbles, credit crunches, Global Warming and delivery of our companies into the hands of China, leaving America and others hangers-on to economic ruin.

A recession is not the same as economic ruin. The vast majority of people are doing just fine.

The company cannot care for it's workers. It can only care for the wealth, which inevitably finds itself in the hands of grotesque Communist-dictator states such as China. Lets face it, trickle-down economics is bootless.

Except for China, which embodies extreme capitalism at the expense of the individual.

The money will always speak instead of the investor.

The money is the voice of the investor. He puts his money where he thinks it will do the best.

There is no escape from this: America, Europe, even the Middle East are regularly left broken

We aren't broken; you're just being dramatic to make your argument appear more important than it actually is.

The only way to eliminate the egotistical nature of Capitalism is to socialise the marketplace, and to ensure that moral values take precedence

Whose moral values? Yours? How far will you go to ensure them? Forced re-education? Censorship? Gulags? Purges?
Every time a government has tried to forcibly instill a new culture and values upon people it has lead to oppression and violence. Societies change through grassroots movements, not mandates from politicians.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 8th, 2012 @ 08:56 PM Reply

In countries where "the people" own the means of production, the citizens are more often than not dirt poor with no chance of becoming anything but a servant of "the people". "the people" meaning autocratic government that comes in, pretends to champion the causes of the masses, takes out the government, installs their own and says "to hell with the citizenry, I own everything now!" Example, Venezuela. "the people" own everything, sadly, the people (no quotations) are oppressed by a egotistical prick who uses his power for his own enrichment at the expense of everyone else.

sure, there are "elections" in Venezuela, but remember the time it looked like Chavez was about to lose a city to the opposition party? tanks rolled into the city to "maintain control" Not to mention in many of these countries, opposition leaders end up in prison for things like "treason" for simply having the balls to oppose the autocratic government that is in place.

Before going off and touting the virtues of socialism, perhaps you should go to one of these socialist countries and try living there for a while. you'll most likely come back a capitalist... if you come back at all. you might end up in prison under suspicion of espionage for the big evil mean capitalist governments.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Trerro
Trerro
  • Member since: Oct. 5, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 8th, 2012 @ 09:38 PM Reply

Socialism and Capitalism are not competing baseball teams, they are 2 sides of a spectrum.

There are at this time, zero purely capitalistic countries, and zero purely socialistic ones. Everyone is somewhere on the spectrum. This is because everyone recognizes that both systems have value, and makes at least some effort to use both.

A lot of people say the US is pure capitalism for instance, but what do you call Social Security? Hint: The "social" in the name is not decorative. Likewise, Medicare, Medicaid, the various programs to help pay for college, welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance... all of these are socialist programs, because we recognize that pure capitalism actually sucks, and we need elements of both systems.

Let's take a look at each "pure" system, and you'll see why either would quickly make a society collapse.

Capitalism:
Main pros
-Competition breeds innovation
-Citizens are encouraged to contribute to society - do more = earn more = be rewarded more
-Citizens can respond to corruption in a direct manner - refuse to do business with evil entities, driving them out and forcing an ethical standard.
-Greed can, in theory, be re-channeled into positive output.
-Democracy through controlled spending - you choose what you want to support with your money

Main cons:
-There is no safety net. One run of bad luck and you're on the streets for good.
-There is no sense of providing basic needs. Can't afford medicine? Go die.
-Many are forced to become wage slaves, creating a power elite and a horrible standard of living for most
-Greed is encouraged.
-People are encouraged to pursue what they can extract the most money from, not what they're actually good at

Socialism:
Main pros:
-Basic needs are sacred, and provided for, period.
-Emphasis is placed on pursuing what you want to do, not just what you'd make the most profit from.
-Greed is not rewarded.
-No one is ever screwed by a lack of education (unless they simply refuse to learn) or health care.
-Everyone is given the time to find their path in life.

Main cons:
-There is zero reward for doing extra work, and therefore little motivation to do so. This limits how much actually gets done.
-With no reason to compete, there's a drive to simply make "good enough" products, not actually find ways to one-up the competition. This greatly slows tech advancement across the board.
-Citizens lose the power of boycott - an evil company will make the same profit with 0 customers as with many.
-With so much less being earned and generated (relative to capitalist countries), the total wealth of the nation plummets. Everyone may be equal, but it's a pretty low standard that they're equal at, likely just barely enough to even provide the basics... and possibly not even that.

The solution, rather than blanket-embracing one of these systems and ignoring the glaring flaws, is to try to intelligently combine the two, creating a system that maximizes the benefits and negates the drawbacks from each as much as possible.

Hypothetical perfect blend of the 2:
-Food, clothing, health care, shelter, education, etc, are considered basic rights, and provided without question. HOWEVER, everything else must be purchased with money which you must earn. You will always have what you need, but you must compete for what you want. Result: everyone is free to live as they choose, but there is a strong incentive to put extra effort in and actually do something of value.

-Companies must profit to stay in business - if your product fails at life or is made unethically, you will be driven out of business by the competition or the people. However, your basic needs are always covered, so feel free to fail a couple of times before you nail it. You'll eventually produce something of great value to society, and you'll be rewarded accordingly. Result: All the benefits of competitive innovation, with not of the usual side effects

Do it right, and we have an awesome society with the best of both worlds, and very, VERY few drawbacks.

Of course, it's very easy to point this out in a forum post. Actually making this work in a real country would be much harder, as we'd have to get people all over the political grid to be willing to give a shot.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 8th, 2012 @ 09:48 PM Reply

It ain't as easy as you think.

A better dichotomy, and one the puts two important values at odds, is freedom v. community.

Capitalism is the epitomy of economic freedom. Under that people are free to set prices for selling and buying at whatever they can get away with.

Socialism on the other hand is all about the community. Under this the will of the people is placed paramount, well over the will, benefit, or skill of any single individual.

They are both rife for abuse, and both have severe downsides.

Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 12:15 AM Reply

Socialsim is the destruction of individual achievment amd crippliing of the human soul. Part of being human is to strive to excell at what you do in your life. To be told from birth that you will never be better than anyone else is to be stripped of the reason for existing. Capitalism isn't perfect(no form of social economics ever will be), but it's only a few billion times better than the robotic tourniquet that is socialism.

Now some socialist programs are just and fine. Medicine and education among them.

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 12:39 AM Reply

At 20 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: Socialsim is the destruction of individual achievment amd crippliing of the human soul. Part of being human is to strive to excell at what you do in your life. To be told from birth that you will never be better than anyone else is to be stripped of the reason for existing. Capitalism isn't perfect(no form of social economics ever will be), but it's only a few billion times better than the robotic tourniquet that is socialism.

Now some socialist programs are just and fine. Medicine and education among them.

Socialism never tells you that you can't follow your dreams and become all that you want to be. You can be anything you want to be under socialism, and with free college education that a modern socialist country would provide you would be even more likely. The only thing socialism hinders anyone from doing is economically dominating others and operating other human beings are "wage slaves". Under socialism a person would still be free to invent and let their imagination take them wherever it wants.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 05:43 AM Reply

At 4 hours ago, Cootie wrote.


Socialism never tells you that you can't follow your dreams and become all that you want to be. You can be anything you want to be under socialism, and with free college education that a modern socialist country would provide you would be even more likely. The only thing socialism hinders anyone from doing is economically dominating others and operating other human beings are "wage slaves". Under socialism a person would still be free to invent and let their imagination take them wherever it wants.

If there's no economic insentive then what is the point of succeeding? No one is saying that the poor have to be left to die and no one is saying there has to be massive tax breaks for the rich(not here any way). All I'm saying is that socialism puts a ceiling on what an individual can accomplish economically. I believe that to be wrong.

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 07:53 AM Reply

At 2 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:
If there's no economic insentive then what is the point of succeeding? No one is saying that the poor have to be left to die and no one is saying there has to be massive tax breaks for the rich(not here any way). All I'm saying is that socialism puts a ceiling on what an individual can accomplish economically. I believe that to be wrong.

Too many people can't be trusted with it. Too many men use their wealth and assets to try to enslave other men.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 09:03 AM Reply

At 3 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: If there's no economic insentive then what is the point of succeeding? No one is saying that the poor have to be left to die and no one is saying there has to be massive tax breaks for the rich(not here any way). All I'm saying is that socialism puts a ceiling on what an individual can accomplish economically. I believe that to be wrong.

While clearly you're being obstinently melodramatic, this is a drawback of socialism. Under true socialism the individual benefits of kicking ass are heavily muted. That is not to say they don't exist at all. Then again, under true capitalism the benefits of helping one's community are extremely muted. This is why most countries have picked something in between, balancing the incentive on the indivisual whilst still realizing we are a communal species.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 09:34 AM Reply

At 11 hours ago, Trerro wrote:
Of course, it's very easy to point this out in a forum post. Actually making this work in a real country would be much harder, as we'd have to get people all over the political grid to be willing to give a shot.

I think the Scandinavian countries are arguably the closest anybody has got to this, they still have the benefits of capitalism but everyone is accounted for in terms of basic needs. On top of that money is spread out more making it more efficient (working/middle class people spend a far greater proportion of their money than the super rich who hoarde most of it taking it out of the economy without the ancillary deflation which taking large amounts of money out of the economy thereby making everyone else poorer by default). Further the GDP/capita is much higher than the US or UK despite far higher taxes.
Funny how despite that the UK government picked one of the few glaring errors theyd made with this free schools crap which is considered a failed experiment there.

Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 10:55 AM Reply

At 2 hours ago, Cootie wrote:
At 2 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:
If there's no economic insentive then what is the point of succeeding? No one is saying that the poor have to be left to die and no one is saying there has to be massive tax breaks for the rich(not here any way). All I'm saying is that socialism puts a ceiling on what an individual can accomplish economically. I believe that to be wrong.
Too many people can't be trusted with it. Too many men use their wealth and assets to try to enslave other men.

..and Governments can be trusted? History has showed us time and time again that power in the hands of the wrong men can lead to millions dead and starving. Not saying that a socialist America would lead to a Pol Pot vision of rule, but the fundamental ideals are related. When you let the government tell you what you can achieve you don't usually end up achieving a whole lot.

Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 10:57 AM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 3 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: If there's no economic insentive then what is the point of succeeding? No one is saying that the poor have to be left to die and no one is saying there has to be massive tax breaks for the rich(not here any way). All I'm saying is that socialism puts a ceiling on what an individual can accomplish economically. I believe that to be wrong.
While clearly you're being obstinently melodramatic, this is a drawback of socialism. Under true socialism the individual benefits of kicking ass are heavily muted. That is not to say they don't exist at all. Then again, under true capitalism the benefits of helping one's community are extremely muted. This is why most countries have picked something in between, balancing the incentive on the indivisual whilst still realizing we are a communal species.

I was indeed.

I absolutely agree. I'm not campaigning for capitalism as a perfect answer. There has to be regulations and how many and to what degree is and always will be (and should be) argued.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 03:20 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Travis wrote: Have fun being better at something than someone else, but ALWAYS being on the same level as them.

Have fun being better at something that someone else, but ALWAYS being lower than them because they have more money.

MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 04:33 PM Reply

surely a mix of the two would be better.

but hell, all countries really have all their own form of goverment that i doubt there really are any true capitalist or socialist/communist countries.


BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 05:50 PM Reply

The irony of the topic starter is that we haven't had Capitalism in years...

Unless he thinks Government subsidies, military and Corporate welfare, Bank and Auto bail outs, having a central bank that prints money while setting interest rates (effectively taking money from the middle class and poor to give to politically connected wealthy), by some bizzaro standard somehow amounts to Capitalism.

Everything I just listed, we've been doing for decades, could not occur in a real Capitalist nation.

But it's just like a socialist to inject Socialism into Capitalism, and then when it fails, blame Capitalism.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 07:29 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Memorize wrote: But it's just like a socialist to inject Socialism into Capitalism, and then when it fails, blame Capitalism.

Please do give an example of this bold statement.

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 09:08 PM Reply

At 10 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:
Too many people can't be trusted with it. Too many men use their wealth and assets to try to enslave other men.
..and Governments can be trusted? History has showed us time and time again that power in the hands of the wrong men can lead to millions dead and starving. Not saying that a socialist America would lead to a Pol Pot vision of rule, but the fundamental ideals are related. When you let the government tell you what you can achieve you don't usually end up achieving a whole lot.

The true goal of socialism is a dictatorship of the people. Meaning that the government is set up to only serve the people and any leader who tries to bring back greed and oppression should be damn well worried about his life if he tries it.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 10:37 PM Reply

At 1 hour ago, Cootie wrote:
The true goal of socialism is a dictatorship of the people. Meaning that the government is set up to only serve the people and any leader who tries to bring back greed and oppression should be damn well worried about his life if he tries it.

Dictatorship and Serve the people are mutually exclusive.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 11:00 PM Reply

We are not technically under the ideal capitalism that you think we are. If anything we are under crummy capitalism because of laws that have passed in recent years.

The new health care law which will take effect sometime in the next few years, makes it mandatory for all of us to buy some sort of health insurance or else you will have to pay a fine. It might sound like socialism, but technically it isn't because the government is not providing them. In other words, if you don't have health insurance now, you better buy some from Athenaor some other insurance provider.

There are some socialism programs as medicare, medicaid, social security and financial aid to name a few, but I'm only pointing out that we are not under a true form of capitalism.


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 11:27 PM Reply

At 1 day ago, Nintharmed wrote: Socialism is imperative to the reaching of true political equality for man-kind. Allow me to make my case.

Capitalism is crippling towards everyone, be they poor, white, black, rich, middle-class, whatever. The economic masters of our current time have promised us success, but what have they delivered? Housing bubbles, credit crunches, Global Warming and delivery of our companies into the hands of China, leaving America and others hangers-on to economic ruin. The company cannot care for it's workers. It can only care for the wealth, which inevitably finds itself in the hands of grotesque Communist-dictator states such as China. Lets face it, trickle-down economics is bootless.

Communism is a form of socialism, shouldn't you be praising Communist dictator states like China? The fault isn't capitalism; it's plain stupidity on many people's parts. Yes, there should have been more regulation but that's not the only reason why.

The money will always speak instead of the investor. Nobody can gain from capitalism except the capitalist beaurocracy it caters to. The markets, in control of the worker, makes them their slaves. There is no escape from this: America, Europe, even the Middle East are regularly left broken by financial stupidity on behalf of the capitalists, co-opted by money and greed only. Markets cannot regulate themselves.

You have a lot of grandiose statements. Where's the proof? Where's the specifics where you can say "this country did X, so Y happened"?

The only way to eliminate the egotistical nature of Capitalism is to socialise the marketplace, and to ensure that moral values take precedence over the demand to suit young people for work in our educational establishments. Wake up, Americans, the American Dream is an illusion. Social economies with a planned worker base, assisting the spread of this money in favor of The People, and the moral education of youth to assist in spending economic capitol wisely, is the only way to save America/ Europe/ The World.

Socialize the marketplace? Who says the government knows what's right for the market? If you blame bad spending choices like the Iraq War why would you ever be for socialism if it's more of the same thing? Socialism goes against human nature. People are greedy. Greed can be good, as long as it's controlled. You're talking utopianism and that failed in 1991 (although it was a wreck even when it started)

Socialism is the only chance we have to survive socioeconomically. Otherwise our systems will collapse in on themselves out of their own greed.

Discuss.

This doesn't even sound like it's your own voice. I think you copy-pasted or just barely reworded a couple paragraphs in some socialist newsletter.

Society-of-Guardians
Society-of-Guardians
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 11:57 PM Reply

Socialism is impractical. Many states have attempted to use it. Most of them are fallen. Socialism is a great ideal, but humanity is not ready for it. We lack the unity and peace of mind to thrive under socialism.

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 12:22 AM Reply

At 52 minutes ago, Ranger2 wrote:
Communism is a form of socialism, shouldn't you be praising Communist dictator states like China? The fault isn't capitalism; it's plain stupidity on many people's parts. Yes, there should have been more regulation but that's not the only reason why.

Communist hate dictators. And Socialist hate China for having a shitty and backwards system that brought shame to socialism and regard Mao as a man of many fuck ups. Also, China is revisioned as hell.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 01:13 AM Reply

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 hour ago, Memorize wrote: But it's just like a socialist to inject Socialism into Capitalism, and then when it fails, blame Capitalism.
Please do give an example of this bold statement.

Do I need to repeat myself?

The Government gets involved in housing by pushing loans through regulations, setting low interest rates, and guaranteeing those loans through Government created entities (SOCIALISM)

When this fails (ie. the housing crash of '08), which eventually leads to the Government bailing out favored industries (SOCIALISM), then what form of Government receives blame?

Oh right, Capitalism gets blamed.

Unless you're under this delusion that an economic system which provides almost no Government interference (CAPITALISM) is somehow responsible for Government Bailouts, a central bank, and Government secured Mortgages...

In which case, you'd be an idiot.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 03:56 AM Reply

socialism is the biggest lie of the 20th century why do you think it would work in the 21st?

joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 05:47 AM Reply

In Australia and Europe we have a thing called a mixed economy. It is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, with welfare being based on the income you receive. And universal health care.

But entrepreneurship dies with socialism.


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 08:51 AM Reply

At 11 hours ago, Cootie wrote:
The true goal of socialism is a dictatorship of the people. Meaning that the government is set up to only serve the people and any leader who tries to bring back greed and oppression should be damn well worried about his life if he tries it.

Because corrupt socialist governments have always been very short lived. Of course you're right. For god's sake Pol Pot lived 30 years AFTER he left office, Stalin died from a stroke and Mao died from a heart attack. But that's all completely besides the point. Of course.

Any government, on paper, is set up to serve the people. The point is they never do. Therefore, the least amount of power you can give a government over it's citizen's everyday lives you should.

Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 09:03 AM Reply

At 8 hours ago, Cootie wrote:
Communist hate dictators. And Socialist hate China for having a shitty and backwards system that brought shame to socialism and regard Mao as a man of many fuck ups. Also, China is revisioned as hell.

Absolutely true. The fact is that Maoism IS a form of socialism. At it's very core it is simply anti-revisionist Marxism. The current Chinese rule is, as you mentioned, quite revisionist, but is also responsible for massive pollution, unbelievable corruption and government sponsored slaughters of it's people. Great country China.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Socialism > Capitalism Feb. 10th, 2012 @ 10:07 AM Reply

Pure versions of either system are crap, when we had what you would consider "pure" capitalism life was horrendous unless you were born with a trust fund and there was severe malnutrition in the working class leading to an increase in disease. Additionally under an entirely free market system slavery is allowed because your allowed to do whatever your able without restriction.
In terms of socialism a lot of people apparently dont actually know what it is and reading a bit might help there though that is unfortunately rare on the right due to the stock anti-intellectual position of its main movements.