so what is exactly wrong with socialism?

[Savannahmann]

75. There are good points, and bad points to every political system.

Capitalism has many flaws, and I agree with the problems, but the advantage is that it does lead to faster development of technology than the other systems. No Government would have funded Apple, or Microsoft, the conventional wisdom of the time was that there was perhaps a need for three or four computers, and nobody would want one in their homes. So getting funding for development would have required a foresight not often seen in Government.

The negatives is that once the development happens, they go hog wild in the greed category.

Socialism on the other hand is more equal for the people, but development of new technology is not exactly a big priority. Infrastructure is usually funded better, but it just keeps things going at the status quo. Perhaps we should properly define socialist. Socialist is defined in my mind as the Government owning the companies, and the salaries and prices are set by the same Government. Everyone is in essence a government worker no matter where they work.

There is the problem of the implementation. Socialist Governments tend to be right on the verge of dictatorships. In Venezuela right now, they are preparing to give the President unilateral power to run the country. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24951590

But one thing caught my eye reading that news story.

The approval of the first reading of the bill comes after a member of parliament, Maria Aranguren, who defected to the opposition was stripped of her parliamentary immunity on Tuesday, being replaced by a government loyalist.

So everything was set to give the President unilateral power, and one member of parliament who had promised to support it, got cold feet, and backed out. She was stripped of her position, tossed out, and replaced with a loyalist who was willing to vote the "right" way.

Socialism ends up being either on the verge of dictatorship, or a thinly disgusted dictatorship, or one without the disguise. Time will tell where Venezuela ends up, but it looks like they're tossing the disguise overboard.

Sure they will be a Socialist Government, with the people owning the means of production through the Government, but like all modern implementations of this form of Government, it appears as though it is being corrupted to a Dictatorship.

What I prefer is a Liberal Democracy. Where people are given as much freedom of expression and absolute civil rights. However, each right is balanced in an understanding of the equality of the populace. We can have a fair taxation plan, without socialist owning of the business, because as we've seen, Washington DC is too corrupted by corporate influence to run things the way it ought to be. Even within our own party.

Perhaps if there was a more socialist government that had not devolved into hunting of the opponents at the drop of a hat or the publishing of an editorial, I would be more willing to toss my hat into that ring. But I speak out for what I believe in, and in most of those countries, I would be labeled as an enemy for not giving 100% full throated support for whomever holds the top office. Enemies in those nations usually end up in jail on some trumped up charges.

Amnesty International information on Venezuela. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/venezuela

Human Rights Watch on Venezuela. http://www.hrw.org/en/americas/venezuela

Again, if there was a nation that had implemented this form of political governance more fairly without the suppression of dissent, I might be more onboard, but the truth is that the reason Socialism has a stigma attached is not because the people are opposed to fairness and equality, but because they are naturally distrustful of a system of government that has been so abused so often in our history. Many voices may be a shouting match, but one voice is not always the best way to go. Well, perhaps if it was my voice, but probably not even then.