Does Socialism hurt more people than it helps?

bradleybadly · Post by **bradleybadly** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:12 pm

I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

soundout9 · Post by **soundout9** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:13 pm

America has some socialism in it! so no.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:13 pm

bradleybadly wrote:I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

Socialism has only ever been,and can only ever be a primitive response to an almost equally bad system somewhere between capitalism and feudalism in specific conditions such as the European Industrial Revolution.

radiojake · Post by **radiojake** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:23 pm

bradleybadly wrote:I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

Obviously, growing up in the USA you would be the most qualified person here to ask this question. You wouldn't even know the first thing about socialism besides the rhetoric that would be fed to you from the 'red mongers'

disclaimer - I'm not saying that I do know any substantial amount about socialism, and I don't consider myself a socialist in the slightest, but I just don't see how someone born and bred in a capitalist society that is the US can have any knowledge of how many people socialism hurts or helps

bradleybadly · Post by **bradleybadly** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:25 pm

do you think socialism is good or bad, just answer the question?

radiojake wrote:Obviously, growing up in the USA you would be the most qualified person here to ask this question. You wouldn't even know the first thing about socialism besides the rhetoric that would be fed to you from the 'red mongers'

Hear that everyone! If you grew up in the USA you are not qualified to even ask the question. LMFAO

By the way, that's what I'm talking about by socialist sympathizers judging other people.

radiojake · Post by **radiojake** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:36 pm

bradleybadly wrote:do you think socialism is good or bad?

Well I've never had any personal experience with socialism. I've only lived in a capitalist society. (any we all know the many faults to capitalism)

The only comment I can make on socialism with any weight behind it is the fact that for 5 years I worked with two guys who used to live in the former Yugoslavia, both inscripted to the war and then both immigrated over to Australia about 8 to 10 years ago.

From what they told me before the war they had somewhat of a socialist government, and according to them, it wasn't perfect (but what government is?) But they both did say it was a hell of a lot better back then before capitalism was pushed onto them from outside forces, which they said fucked the whole region -

Like I said before, I'm not a socialist, but I do think that in some parts of the world, different forms of government and economic polices work better than in other areas. Spreading 'democracy' at it's current state is not the answer to making the planet a safer place. I think there are plenty of other things that we should be worried about rather than if a country has a socialist government

radiojake · Post by **radiojake** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:38 pm

you edited your post after I started replying to it.

I gotta leave now so will reply later

bradleybadly · Post by **bradleybadly** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:40 pm

radiojake wrote:you edited your post after I started replying to it.

I gotta leave now so will reply later

Yeah, I did. At first I thought I would just ask a question but then wanted to point out just how right I was about being judged.

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:43 pm

Yet, ironically, rj, socialism probably flouts every "liberal" principle you like to espouse. Socialism is very troubling as a political ideology due to its inherent nature : assuming that collective majority can appoint a grand overlording structure to regulate every aspect (directly or indirectly) of your life,is just extremely...well, wrong. Individuals cannot be made subservient to any state superstructure : they are entlitled to their govern their own life, liberty, and property.

bedub1 · Post by **bedub1** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:44 pm

Democrats believe in Socialism. It's just steal from the successful and give to the lazy in order to create equality. Why should everybody be equal? I say reward hard work and punish the lazy. Survival of the fittest baby!

Napoleon Ier · Post by **Napoleon Ier** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:48 pm

bedub1 wrote:Democrats believe in Socialism. It's just steal from the successful and give to the lazy in order to create equality. Why should everybody be equal? I say reward hard work and punish the lazy. Survival of the fittest baby!

Sort of...but real socialism is far worse than the watered down version of the democrats. The democrats just have idiotic attitudes to the market, socialism takes society as a whole, and denies the individual, literally, seeing humans as just numbered blocks in apramid pointing toward a destiny determined by a quasi-omnipotent, detached, impersonal, superstructural entity.

jiminski · Post by **jiminski** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:08 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
bedub1 wrote:Democrats believe in Socialism. It's just steal from the successful and give to the lazy in order to create equality. Why should everybody be equal? I say reward hard work and punish the lazy. Survival of the fittest baby!
Sort of...but real socialism is far worse than the watered down version of the democrats. The democrats just have idiotic attitudes to the market, socialism takes society as a whole, and denies the individual, literally, seeing humans as just numbered blocks in apramid pointing toward a destiny determined by a quasi-omnipotent, detached, impersonal, superstructural entity.

no it's not Nap; practically it does not work.. but philosophies generally deal with absolutes. In essence there is something quite beautiful in beleiving that all humanity could work entirely together and for everyone equally, whether you know them or not.

What has happened is that we found as an absolute social answer we are too fallible to initiate it but it's legacy is all around us and is integral to all political landscapes.

F1fth · Post by **F1fth** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:10 pm

Well, given that there are quite a few elements of socialism in most governing bodies, I'd say that it does more good overall.

No government is completely socialist or democratic, so it does no good to look at socialism as one sole doctrine because it does not exist in the real world. One would do better to look at the pieces of socialism in each government and from that judge whether it is beneficial.

And to bedub1, I'm behind you 110% Screw welfare! Let all those lazy, low-paid factory workers whose job was outsourced to another country starve! How dare they demand that the hard-working rich who have inherited money or gained it through the exploitation of others give anything in return?

A bit extreme as there are poor people who are lazy, and rich who have legitimately gained their wealth through their own hard work, but the point is try not to make blanket statements like that.

riggable · Post by **riggable** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:17 pm

bedub1 wrote:Democrats believe in Socialism. It's just steal from the successful and give to the lazy in order to create equality. Why should everybody be equal? I say reward hard work and punish the lazy. Survival of the fittest baby!

I hope your joking, cause otherwise your not that smart, bud.

There is an overwhelmingly and depressingly large amount of people(you can see them all around you) who get money without doing all this 'hard work' you speak of. The age of the 'american dream', where you start low and, through hard work, get rich, is OVER. Too many people nowadays can live off inheritence or rich parents, or rich relatives and whatnot. These people are more 'lazy' than your so called 'lazy' lower-middle-class which are stuck in their routine with no way of improving their lifestyle and getting more income when they are slaving away their life in a dead-end job. And these poor 'lazy' people have to work their asses off 60 hours a week while your 'succesful' rich people spend their days in their rich homes with their pools and whatnot.
Perhaps you are one of those 'succesful' people, and thats why you feel that way, but its not the case. not at all. If you really want to start equality, then perhaps there should be more taxes on large somes of money that are exchanged due to inheritence.
Because those snobby people with inherited riches? In no way are they the fittest.

bedub1 · Post by **bedub1** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:35 pm

riggable wrote:If you really want to start equality, then perhaps there should be more taxes on large somes of money that are exchanged due to inheritence.
Because those snobby people with inherited riches? In no way are they the fittest.

What entitlement do you or anybody else have to their parents money?

I'm 27 and still have lots of college student loans to pay off, so am not wealthy at all. I live in an Apt and would love to have a house.

Personally, I believe you should make lots and lots of money, and when you have enough, you should give it all away. Warren Buffett is my idle, giving away $37 billion. But it should be VOLUNTARY to give away your money, NOT COMPULSORY.

riggable · Post by **riggable** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:47 pm

bedub1 wrote:
riggable wrote:If you really want to start equality, then perhaps there should be more taxes on large somes of money that are exchanged due to inheritence.
Because those snobby people with inherited riches? In no way are they the fittest.
What entitlement do you or anybody else have to their parents money?

I'm 27 and still have lots of college student loans to pay off, so am not wealthy at all. I live in an Apt and would love to have a house.

Personally, I believe you should make lots and lots of money, and when you have enough, you should give it all away. Warren Buffett is my idle, giving away $37 billion. But it should be VOLUNTARY to give away your money, NOT COMPULSORY.

Because people who inherit large sums of money can live well without having to do lots of work, and you yourself said "punish the lazy"

Sure, theres always outliers to every example, but that doesn't make my previous statments untrue. In general, people with a smaller income and with less possibilities, get stuck in low-paying, dead end jobs, which they have to desperately cling on to because of the cost of living mixed with the lack of hi paying jobs. This is while those rich familys can pass their money down from parent to offspring, allowing those offspring, who really have done jackshit, an easy lifestyle.
Even if those rich offspring want to pursue a career, they have the money and the funds to get expensive education, which is imperative if you want a succseful career. Whereas, in general, those from a poorer family may not get these benefits.

Basically, if you inherite a lot, you are getting lots of money without having to do all this 'hard work' that you previously associated with being rich. If you want to punish the lazy, like you previously said, then taxing their inheritence is an EXAMPLE of a POSSIBLE way to do this.

bradleybadly · Post by **bradleybadly** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:57 pm

bedub1 wrote:I'm 27 and still have lots of college student loans to pay off, so am not wealthy at all. I live in an Apt and would love to have a house.

You should be viewing yourself as a victim. What's your problem?

bedub1 · Post by **bedub1** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:59 pm

I don't want anything given to me...i want to earn it. If I work hard and do make lots of money, I don't want it taken from me. If I have children and still have lots of money, I'd like to provide for them and give them my money, not have it taken away in taxes....

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:21 pm

bedub1 wrote:I don't want anything given to me...i want to earn it. If I work hard and do make lots of money, I don't want it taken from me. If I have children and still have lots of money, I'd like to provide for them and give them my money, not have it taken away in taxes....

So do you want to provide for your kids or ensure lazy people stay down? Which is more important?

mybike_yourface · Post by **mybike_yourface** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:06 am

socialism is a broad term. i'm an anarchist and don't consider myself a socialist (some anarchist people do identify with the term). i like to think we've left the nest of (libertarian) socialism that we came out of. as far as socialism hurting more people than it helps, i think the finger should be pointed towards capitalism and government. you can compare the problems with communism, fascism and capitalism but the thing they all have in common is government.

bedub1 · Post by **bedub1** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:08 am

I want to have enough to provide for the kids, and leave some for them to help out, but not enough that they don't ever have to work. Once that is accomplished I'd love to give away money, setup scholarships....help people help themselves.

mybike_yourface · Post by **mybike_yourface** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:15 am

bedub1 wrote:Democrats believe in Socialism. It's just steal from the successful and give to the lazy in order to create equality. Why should everybody be equal? I say reward hard work and punish the lazy. Survival of the fittest baby!

democrats and republicans both represent big business. as my dad always said, Democrats feel guilty about being rich and Republicans feel proud of it and entitled. none of them have anything to with regular working american people.

that social darwinism stuff sounds good untill you look at how people get rich and/or stay rich in america. not to mention that saying "survival of the fitest" in that context shows that the people saying it have no actually understanding of darwinism and what the term survival of the fittest means. americans make less money than they have since the 50's and income inequallity/class stratefication rises perenially. we have something much closer to a caste system here than a class system, although you'll never here it said in the media.

bradleybadly · Post by **bradleybadly** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:21 am

bedub1 wrote:I want to have enough to provide for the kids, and leave some for them to help out, but not enough that they don't ever have to work.

selfish, selfish, selfish

mybike_yourface · Post by **mybike_yourface** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:33 am

bedub1 wrote:I want to have enough to provide for the kids, and leave some for them to help out, but not enough that they don't ever have to work. Once that is accomplished I'd love to give away money, setup scholarships....help people help themselves.

good luck with that strategy.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:57 am

Napoleon Ier wrote:
bradleybadly wrote:I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

Socialism has only ever been,and can only ever be a primitive response to an almost equally bad system somewhere between capitalism and feudalism in specific conditions such as the European Industrial Revolution.

although as you may realize napoleon im a bit reticent to post in threads about socialism because i dont really think you will play fair so to speak. i question if you see the irony in claiming a primitive response when your politically libertarian views are seemingly an equally primitive response to the increasingly integreated global economy.

Just because you do not like the ways the current economy leads to social activism does not mean you can take your ball and go home.