OK, tell me again why socialism is a bad thing

[LuckyTheDog]

I keep forgetting why capitalism is superior.

Anybody?

[valerief]

1. Capitalism makes rich people richer and that's the most important thing in the world.

Anything that threatens that is bad. That's about it. No rhyme or reason, just more, more, more for the rich, rich, rich. Everyone else be damned.

[rucky]

2. Because it's socialism!

or something

[FarCenter]

3. Socialism attempts to maximize the well being of the population, not to maximize total wealth

Only by maximizing total wealth can you maximize military expenditures and maintain status as the world's sole superpower.

[banned from Kos]

4. Ask Russia and China - they abandoned it.

Capitalism (owning your own company) is an American dream.

Socialism is political suicide. Germans have the right blend of Capitalism and Social Democracy as East Germany will tell you.

[socialshockwave]

8. They abandoned it allright.

Not until millions were in poverty while the elite owned the majority of the wealth, and people lacked the ability to buy and sell goods on a market.

[banned from Kos]

11. Yep - I doubt any advocate of Socialism here would want to live in

1960-1990 Russia/China compared to the USA.

[Fool Count]

74. Doubt all you want, but having lived in both I would take

the USSR in 1980th over the present day USA in a heartbeat. I am not going to go into extended discussions of comparative merits of the two
system here. Much of it would be a matter of personal preference anyhow. Just saying that it is not so cut and dry as capitalist apologists led
most people to believe. I sincerely enjoyed my life in the USSR much better than in the US. Just a personal opinion of one person, make what
you want of it.

[Cats Against Frist]

79. I would be interested to know more about this

and not in terms of the comparative merits -- but why would you rather be in the USSR in the 1980s than say, a middle-class American. I'm not being sarcastic or baiting, either. I'm interested to know if it was a matter of morality, intellectualism, simplicity, etc.

[Fool Count]

83. In one sentence, it was a matter of living a good fulfilling life

in a society totally devoid of the profit motive. It is amazing how that one little thing distorts and corrupts human character
and relationships. In my mind, USSR, even with all its shortcomings, was a practical proof that an advanced industrial society
with all modern conveniences and comforts could, in principle, exist without private ownership of means of production.
It have shown that Marx's solution to the main contradiction of capitalism was not utopian, but indeed practicable. The fact
that it was eventually destroyed by various forces from within and from without does not, in my opinion, diminish the
importance of that practical proof. Once we know that it is possible, we can tweak and improve the system. After we overcome
the implanted belief that nothing beside global corporatist capitalism can satisfy human needs, of course.
BTW: What's so great about the "middle-class life in the US"?

[banned from Kos]

93. I felt much that way at Hedonism in Jamaica

but it cost me $3000/week for my date and I.

good times!

[FarCenter]

20. Russia and China didn't have socialism -- they had Stalinist and Maoist communism

Actually the Soviets started out with Leninist communism, which he evolved from Marxist communism. This was greatly modified by Stalin.

Mao started from Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, but Mao adapted communism to the situation in China. In particular, since China was even less industrialized than the Soviet Union, Maoism introduced new ideas about the organization and the role of the agricultural peasantry in revolutionary theory.

[banned from Kos]

30. You have proved only that power corrupts no matter which form of government

(H/T to Acton)

[girl gone mad]

34. You are confusing political systems with economic systems.

[GliderGuider]

38. They are different?

Where does the money come from to buy the politicians? Who passes the laws that protect property over people?

From where I sit the two look pretty much indistinguishable.

[girl gone mad]

64. Of course they are different.

You can have a democracy with socialistic business structures rather than corporatist structures. Our fiat currency system could remain in place with worker-owned organizations and it would function no differently than it does now with corporations in place.

Politicians should not be bought and the fact that they are so easily bought under our capitalistic economic system is a big strike against capitalism.

[Cats Against Frist]

70. I agree -- and I support people bonding together to have cooperatives and

worker-owned organizations. I also support corporations -- but not to where they are humans and can give unlimited campaign donations. In Washington State, we have a healthcare cooperative and our prices are much less than other companies. It's genius and it's pretty cool. I encourage stuff like that. That's not really socialism, though. It's just people bonding together to form a non-governmental organization. That could as easily be done in a capitalist system as a socialist one.

[bluestate10]

61. You can't separate the two. Socialism requires that a small group of

people make decisions while the general population ratify them. The problem is that the very power the small group of people gain ultimately corrupts some, if not all of them. Eventually one side of the power elite eliminates the other side of the power elite and seize total control. If capitalism a good idea that is protected is a powerful wedge that rips gaps in established entities such as businesses.

[white_wolf]

63. You are mistaken.

Socialism vests power in the working class. Everyone who works would have access to the full fruit of their labors and not have the majority of it stolen by a small class of parasites. Research the history of the Paris Commune. That was the first socialist revolution and Engels said it was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Cats Against Frist]

73. Seriously?

That could only be predicated up on the condition that everyone agreed that we all want to be poor-ish and bohemian and austere and average.

And most people of the United States of America do not want that, thank jeebus.

[white_wolf]

77. No. Socialism would allow more people to reach their full potential than capitalism can.

Under Capitalism the vast majority are forced into wage slavery in order to prop up a small class of parasites. The only reason the capitalists excel as you put it, is because they are the only ones who have time to do anything other than work to meet the basic necessities of life. To quote Engels at the grave of Marx:

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.

[Cats Against Frist]

78. There is no "potential" in a socialist society

Everyone is equal. There is nothing to strive for. Being better at something is shameful. Having more than someone else, earning more by being excellent is shameful. There's no self, no excellence -- there's only the collective and the prevailing level of the collective.

And, if you trot on over to my first post, I suggested that humans have meager shelter, basic food and clothing and health care. But nothing more. It's up to each of us to pursue the path beyond that.

[white_wolf]

81. I'm done with this. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Go read a few books then come back. Here's a couple of suggestions: The Communist Manifesto, Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton, The Principles of Communism by Frederick Engels.

[Cats Against Frist]

82. I've read Engels, I've read Marx, I've read Parenti, Chomsky, Keynes, Kant,

Rousseau, Plato, Niemeyer, Spooner, Faludi, Wolfe, Wollstencraft, Voltaire, Locke, Hobbes, Adorno, Friedman, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Smith, Rand, Takaki, Dawkins, Freakenomics and just about everybody in between. I have a degree in Political Science and a masters in lit theory.

Now that we cleared that up -- we COULD get back to the merits of the conversation, as opposed to ad hominem logical fallacies. I mean, if you wanted.

[white_wolf]

84. Your views on socialism are the same things I've heard on right-wing hate radio.

So clearly you don't know very much about that topic.

[Cats Against Frist]

90. Well,

Since I used to BE a socialist, and a report for the Socialistik Forum and a volunteer for Landsorganisation, the largest trade union in Sweden, and my political science degree specialization is in socialism in Latin America, I'm going to say you're wrong about that, too.

What you would be right about, however, is that, like a former smoker, I am vehemently opposed to what I used to be. You also have to understand -- I provide for basic shelter, clothing, food and healthcare in my worldview. Is that wrong? I also believe in a vigilant government watchdog on egregious abuses of wealth (corporate personhood) and creeping fascism.

We probably have more in common than you think.

[Stardust]

132. You've lived in Sweden and can actually say, "There's no self, no excellence?"

That's not the impression I got from Swedes at all.

[banned from Kos]

85. No Popper? I am Open Society myself.

A vibrant form of liberalism, markets, and democracy.

(Redundant, I know)

[Cats Against Frist]

86. In fact, I'm particularly interested in

why you believe that humans are owed more than meager shelter, clothing and food. What about Camembert? It's delicious, it exists, and good Camembert is scarce, which is why it is expensive. In the US, it's particularly scarce because of nanny-state regulations that say I can't choose to eat a raw-milk product. The knowledge of how to make good Camembert from fucking fantastic raw milk is scarce and very French. It is a delicacy that is particularly fantastic with Champagne.

Now, both of these things exist in nature, and because of my distance from it, it costs a lot. Are you saying that because it's good, and it exists, that we should all have raw-milk Camembert? Or if we all can't have it, none of us should have it? How would you solve this problem in a socialist state? Should we divvy it up, so we can all have three grams of excellent cheese? Or should we have a Camembert lottery? Or should we just scrap it and make cheese food because it feeds the masses? We could call it "The Great Melt Forward." The central planners should have a little bit of Camembert, surely.

[white_wolf]

91. I'll admit I have no clue what Camebert is, but I'll try and answer this.

From your post I'm assuming it's a type of cheese. It sounds like the only reason it is hard to make is because the process to make it is a secret and those who make it can sell it for a high price. Why not teach other people how to make it and we can provide enough for everyone who wants it.

[RZM]

115. You can get camembert at your local grocery store

Though I'm sure the poster you replied to would argue that it's not the REAL camembert :). And it probably isn't compared to what you could get in France. But it's still good. I prefer it on wheat crackers myself.

[blindpig]

128. Capitalism took 6 or 8 hundred years to develop and dominate...

the previous system of social organization, applied socialism has been with us less than 100.

We're already ahead of the curve, and being scientific recognize and rectify mistakes unlike capitalism which does the same self destructive bullshit over and over again, getting the same results. Which suits the ruling class, they can ride it out but bring great hardship to the majority.

You fail to mention the tremendous advances in human wellbeing achieved by these revolutionary societies, advances which capitalism is incapable of making because human wellbeing is not it's priority, profit is.

[defendandprotect]

101. As J. Edgar Hoover always specifically stated .... "totalitarian communism" .... not socialism ...!!

The term "socialism" has always been looked upon with favor around the world --

that's why dictators like Stalin and Hitler like to co-opt the term --

but NO DICTATORSHIP OR TOTALITARIAN RULE has anything to do with socialism!!


:hi:

Thank you for your post!!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[banned from Kos]

40. So did you prefer the Soviet system or Maoism?

I missed that part of your (non) answer.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[banned from Kos]

47. No, I am just a realist who admires Canada/Germany and other market economies

with national health care.

The market/private model has won even in all the former satellite states of the Soviet Union.

[fascisthunter]

49. um... their healthcare is socialized

[hack89]

52. Capitalism generates the wealth to pay for it. nt

[girl gone mad]

66. Capitalism doesn't generate wealth.

Labor generates wealth.

I think you are confused about where it is that money comes from. It may accumulate with wealthy individuals, but they don't create it.

[fascisthunter]

72. This is the End Game answer... it's a winner

[banned from Kos]

75. They both do and should be taxed at the same rate.

Capital that sits in an interest bearing account accumulates wealth all on its own. Capital that is invested in bonds or equities can as well.

Yes, I support raising the capital gains tax to that of your wages - that is how "right-wing" you mistake me for.

[hack89]

121. It would certainly be a boon for tax free investments.

municipal bonds will be real popular.

[hack89]

96. The German system would fail without capitalism

Same for Sweden, Norway and any other country with a strong social safety network.

[defendandprotect]

99. K/R ---

35% increase in productivity in last decades -- STAGNANT WAGES FOR WORKERS!!


Capitalism is an evil -- and you can't regulate an evil -- !!

[defendandprotect]

98. Socialism is respected all over the world ... that's why Hitler co-opted the NAZI party ....

which was originally a truly socialist party -- labor rights, women's rights, unions --

health care, abortion, on and on --

And, Hitler then turned it upside down --


RW always like to demonize labels -- like LIBERAL and WELFARE -- SOCIAL SECURITY --


Meanwhile, what we have is a riduclous "King-of-the-Hill" system --


Capitalism is intended to move the wealth and natural resources of nations from the

many to the few -- an it does that job quite successfully --


Capitalism is based on exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal-life -- and

even other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority."


Capialism isn't about competitition -- it's about killing the competition --


Capitalism is dead in America though it has yet to be buried -- !!

[defendandprotect]

102. Why would anyone prefer "totalitarian communism" which is not socialism ... ????

[DireStrike]

35. The worldwide revolution failed

And earlier on than many would admit. The shambling near-corpses of deformed workers' states continued on for decades, but the revolution was moribund before that.

Why did it fail? For the same reason any side loses a war or revolution. Might does not make right; victory is not a moral standpoint.

It took Capitalism hundreds of years to overthrow Feudalism. Socialism hasn't even had 100 yet and people already write it off.

[roody]

71. Universal health care is socialist.

[defendandprotect]

100. Capitalism is simply exploitation --- of nature, natural resources and labor -- humanity -- planet -

And the reward for the industrial revolution in just over 100 years -- !!!

The reality is had we never engaged in "bus-i-ness" in order to provide profits for

the few, we'd still have our planet!!

[Puregonzo1188]

111. Soviet Union and China also claimed to be democratic, as do the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Stalin's constitution even guaranteed freedom of speech.

Should we abandon the idea of democracy based on those experiences?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Why is it you believe capitalism is superior?

I don't understand your starting point.

[Warpy]

6. Pure socialism tends to end up

with party insiders becoming a de facto aristocracy with their children inheriting the position through family, name and connections.

However, socialism seems to be the superior way to deliver human services like health insurance, old age pensions, day care, and the like.

Capitalism seems to be the better way to deliver things, innovation and entrepreneurship occurring constantly if the system is regulated well enough that monopoly and wealth concentration are prevented and workers share in the fruits of their labor instead of being expected to live on bare subsistence wages.

I prefer a messy, mixed system in which things can move from the socialist sphere to the capitalist sphere and back again as needs dictate. Such a system can be both humane and competitive.

[lunatica]

7. I'm a Democratic Socialist so I can tell you how it's a good thing

[Enrique]

9. it's in the Bible

;-)

[Cats Against Frist]

10. That depens on what kind of socialism you mean

There are any number of ways to manipulate, balance, regulate and engineer our economy into various degrees of socialism, depending on the amount of the progressive tax. I lived in Sweden when the SAP was in charge, and it was a good way to get a feel of the tension between the haves and have nots in a country that had a cradle-to-grave socialist system.

I can tell you this much -- the largely homogenous Swedes are very good at upholding that culture because they mostly have a shared culture and a shared sense of vision and duty. Swedes live by something called "lagom," which kind of means "in the middle."

I dated social democrats who were kind, hypocritical and largely boring, and I dated and was friends with a couple of Centerpartiet guys who wanted horn-rimmed glasses from Hungary and fast cars.

I like social stratification. I believe that we should keep people from suffering, and go easy on the environment. I believe in unions that gather their solidarity and strength from impassioned workers. I believe in responsible consumerism and real personal responsibility. I believe that humans all have very different purposes in life and the world, and, therefore different paths and different destinies. I don't believe that someone is noble because they're poor or moral because they're not American.

I don't believe in shaping society to what one gray authoritarian fist wants it to be. I don't believe people have a right to much more than very basic needs -- plain food, basic shelter, basic clothing and health care.

So, some socialism is good. I don't like the kind of socialism that takes away humanity. That is so modern and authoritarian that it discounts the spectrum of the human condition, that it doesn't believe in natural ability, that it doesn't root for excellence or inspire technological advance, and yes -- individualism. We each have our own destiny on the planet and have to make it. We don't start off equal, nor should we.

Our government should exist to make sure our basic human rights are in place and none of us suffer. Beyond that, I don't think anyone has a right to a nice life.

Most socialists in the typical sense believe that everyone should have a nice life. But everyone can't. Not everyone is smart or clean or productive or efficient - those who can naturally excel at living should. The gene pool will be the better for it in the long run.

Socialism shouldn't engineer anything but those things I mentioned -- past that, it's a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and I don't want that for anyone, left or right of the political spectrum.

[banned from Kos]

13. Damn - that may be the best post I have ever read here.

Informed and your composition is perfect.

[fascisthunter]

29. you should try a right wing site

you have a lot in common with their members.

[leftstreet]

15. omg 'The gene pool will be the better for it in the long run.' I did NOT just read that on DU ?!

Most socialists in the typical sense believe that everyone should have a nice life. But everyone can't. Not everyone is smart or clean or productive or efficient - those who can naturally excel at living should. The gene pool will be the better for it in the long run.

:wow: :wow: :wow:

[Starry Messenger]

18. Boiled down to its essence, capitalism is eugenics.

It's why Marx took the trouble to refute Malthus with such vehemence. Guess who gets to decide who is "worthless"?

[Cats Against Frist]

19. I thought we liked science here instead of messianic bullshit

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

22. How is 'smart or clean' science?

:shrug:

[Cats Against Frist]

28. I suppose that's debatable

but the ability of the environment to weed out those lesser prepared to survive, and thankfully, excel and reproduce has been going on for some time. At least if you believe in evolution. You do believe in evolution, don't you?

[white_wolf]

24. Care to explain what he said that was "messianic bullshit?"

[Cats Against Frist]

25. what part wasn't? n/t

[fascisthunter]

31. not an answer

fail

[Cats Against Frist]

33. Well, why don't you take a stab at it, genius? It's pretty frickin' simple. n/t

[fascisthunter]

36. no that's your problem, know-it-all... it isn't simple. Answer the question above

nah... we won't wait.

[Cats Against Frist]

41. It's absolutely simple

the deference of the self to others -- the idea that one should capitulate to a group of others or that somehow humans have inherent value -- especially to the ridiculously backward point where you value weakness above the evolution of humanity -- sounds pretty messianic to me.

Keep in mind -- I did say that I did not want humans to suffer, and I am a staunch supporter of human rights. I just want them to selectively breed. And yet, I would never want any authoritarian government to tell us who and who could not breed.

Am I blowing your mind, yet, with my ideological purity?

[fascisthunter]

46. well then, you have all the answers

why even talk about it if you are so right to begin with. Weaknesses... hmmmmm. Selective breeding... hmmm... I don't know, but on the surface your opinion is quite creepy actually. And yet you speak of ideological purity... hmmm. Do you not see the irony in your post?

[Cats Against Frist]

50. No, I don't see the irony. n/t

[fascisthunter]

51. lol... alrighty then! (nt)

[DireStrike]

37. Yeah, I was preparing a courteous response, but that sentence convinced me it would be a waste of

time.

[Cats Against Frist]

44. I can be very courteous, and quite logical and reasonable, if you care to rethink that.

[TBF]

53. Along with "I like social stratification" -

but I am not surprised to read it here. The red-baiting threads usually draw the fascists out of the woodwork. They can't resist.

[Cats Against Frist]

54. How am I a fascist because I like social stratification?

I am decidedly anti-fascist, anti-corporatist. I like all kinds of diversity and the spectrum of the human condition. Why do you hate excellence? Why do you want to wear unisex bodysuits?

[white_wolf]

56. You don't sound Fascist, though you do sound like a Randain.

Your quote "Why do you hate excellence?" is especially telling.

[Cats Against Frist]

58. Do you not like it either? I mean -- excellence? Why do I have to be Randian to aspire to anything?

And hopes that others will aspire to the same? Morals, industry, personal responsibility, charity -- you have to be Randian to believe in those things? That reminds me of how the Republicans say you're a communist if you want nationalized health care.

[white_wolf]

60. That's what all capitalists say.

What they don't admit is the fact that their system keeps billions in the chains of economic slavery.

[Cats Against Frist]

65. I didn't say anything about capitalism specifically

I'm talking about excellence -- good grades, making great pies, exceptional batting averages, personal fitness, exceptional parenting, being a great lover, real estate tycoon, kid goes to Columbia, you have really cool boots on, queen of the Toastmasters, topiary genius, can say the prologue to the Canterbury Tales backward, sweet house, Teacher of the Year, promoted to lead, 4-H blue ribbon in beef cattle, invented the Bedazzler, house on the lake, started Facebook, thanks doctor you saved my life, Michael Phelps, my kid got into Philips Exeter, those are some awesome hand-forged earrings, you guys have the best donuts in town, most efficient subcontractor, World Series of Baking, recycling bin is full, nice Volvo, nice ass, he was making wine in his closet now he owns a vineyard, etc. etc.

I don't want to do what you want me to do.

[Fool Count]

95. Just taking one particular faucet of excellence,

one just have to compare total medal counts in Olympic Games for USSR/Socialist countries vs USA/Capitalist to appreciate that
capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on excellence. And there are others - like chess, ballet, classical music, science, cinema,
literature - just to name a few which socialism didn't totally suppress. Not to mention that Russian vodka and Cuban cigars
maintained the highest quality standards even while being produced by people-owned socialist enterprises.

[Cats Against Frist]

114. Don't forget Zaum :)

[Fool Count]

122. I am impressed. But with this movement originating in 1913

before the October Revolution, I can't credit it fully to Socialism. It did though went on strong for few years after 1917.

[banned from Kos]

76. I am VERY prejudiced toward excellence when I buy music!

Call me crazy!

[Cats Against Frist]

80. :) n/t

[exelwood]

17. Yes, horned rim glasses and fast cars...

...I could get behind that.

[Joe Fields]

130. I am fine with a socialist/democracy, like FDR put into place, and I

have no problem with capitalism, as long as it is well regulated, with corporate money out of politics.

The key is WELL REGULATED!

[Old Troop]

12. Multiple millions of people exterminated by their own governments

comes to mind.

[defendandprotect]

104. You mean totalitarian communism ....

and that has nothing to do with socialism ---

Neither did Hitler's NAZI party - based on a very valid socialist organization which

Hitler co-opted. Why? Because socialism is highly respected around the globe --


Needless to say, Hitler turned the party upside down --

It had originally stood for health care, women's rights, labor -- unions, abortion --


Dictatorships aren't socialism --

[Romulox]

14. Socialism for corporations = "stimulus". Socialism for human beings = ZOMG WELFARE1!!!1! nt

[Kennah]

16. There are many flavors of capitalism, and not all are inconsistent with socialism

Aside from the lunatic adherents to anarcho-capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism, Military Industrialized capitalism, and much of the whole of the Republican Party, I suspect most would agree that the U.S. practices a form of Social Market Economy--as do many of the self described Social Democracies and Democratic Socialists of Europe.

I don't subscribe to Marxism, but if more Socialism isn't injected into our Capitalism pushing us towards Democratic Socialism--which is where I stand--then I suspect in time I'm going to give up on the idea of Democratic Socialism and embrace Marxism.

[defendandprotect]

105. Capitalism is over -- it's an evil -- and you can't regulate an evil -- we tried -- !!

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- and that's what we've living

with right now ---

Capitalism is based on exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal-life --

and even other human beings accoridng to various myths of "inferiority."

What we have for 100 years and more of "bus-i-ness" creating profits for the few

is Global Warming breathing down our necks.

Capitalism is over -- we just need to put it in the dumpster!!


Agree -- if we want democracy, we need economic democracy -- and that sure ain't capitalism!!



:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

21. Socialism is a good thing.

The good news is that capitalism carries the seeds for its own destruction in its contradictions. In the end, socialism will eventually prevail. It's either that, or extinction. Capitalism was good for eliminating feudalism over time, another social form that eventually died out. It unleashed powerful productive forces that would never have been possible under feudalism. But we're past ready for the next stage. I think humanity will achieve even more in a socialistic society.

[Cid_B]

87. Question...

"I think humanity will achieve even more in a socialistic society."

Why would they? What is the motivation exactly? A warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment?

[white_wolf]

23. Capitalism is not superior, but I can tell you why people think it is superior.

What else does the history of ideas prove, The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class

[defendandprotect]

106. Because they were taught in their classrooms that capitalism = democracy ....

but the truth is capitalism is anti-democracy --

[Fuzz]

26. Because Hitler was a socialist. Duh!

[defendandprotect]

107. No -- Hitler was a dictator who co-opted the NAZI party and turned it upside down ... !!!

NAZI Party was an organization which supported women's rights, abortion,

labor, unions, medical care, preventive medicine -- on and on --


And Hitler did that because socialism is respected all over the world -- !!



As for USSR -- no totalitarian system is socialism !!!

You can refer to J. Edgar Hoover who always went out of his way to make clear

that it was "totalitarian communism" -- !!

[RZM]

117. They were also very nationalist and rabidly anti-Semitic even before Hitler

Hitler encountered them while spying on political groups for the army; he was sent there in part because they had a left-sounding name (German Worker's Party). But he saw some potential in them and potential for himself, since they were tiny and disorganized. He added the 'national socialist' part later to give them broader appeal, but it's not like they were choir boys before he showed up. They were bitter anti-Semites, which was one reason why Hitler was willing to cast his lot with them.

[defendandprotect]

125. All of Western Europe was "rabidly anti-Semitic" thanks to the Vatican/Christianity -- !!

Post the WWI Armistice -- would agree on nationalism rising --


Originally ...

Drexler proposed that the party be named the German Socialist Worker's Party, but Harrer objected to using the term "socialist" in the name; the issue was settled by removing the term from the name, and it was agreed that the party be named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP).<24> To ease concerns among potential middle-class nationalist supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported middle-class citizens, and that the party's socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race.<22> They became one of many völkisch movements that existed in Germany at the time. Like other völkisch groups, the DAP advocated the belief that through profit-sharing instead of socialisation Germany should become a unified "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines.<25> This ideology was explicitly anti-Semitic as it declared that the "national community" must be judenfrei ("free of Jews").


and ...

On 24 February 1920, the party also added "National Socialist" to its official name, in order to appeal to both nationalists and socialists, becoming the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) (or Nazis for short), although Hitler earlier suggested the party to be renamed the "Social Revolutionary Party"; it was Rudolf Jung who persuaded Hitler to follow the NSDAP naming.

Apologies -- lost the link to this wiki --



Nonetheless the point is that either there were no TRUE socialist values involved with the

party -- or they were overturned by Hitler --


Think the discussion here is to try to straighten out thinking re "socialism" -- which at times

is as confusing as what people think "communism" is -- when in reality most would say there

has never been any true practice of communism -- only "totalitarian communism."

[RZM]

129. That is incorrect

'All of Western Europe' was most definitely NOT anti-Semitic. Lots of people were, but certainly not everybody. Anti-Semitism was more prevalent in the East but still, not everybody there was anti-Semitic either (although a hell of a lot of people were). The DAP stood out for their anti-Semitism, which was one reason that Hitler was happy to join them. There were lots of people in Germany who were more than willing to engage political parties without an explicit anti-Semitic character.

My point isn't to discuss anti-Semitism at large, but to point out that the DAP was far from a bunch of socialist saints that Hitler corrupted. They had socialist ideas, but they were also a bunch of anti-Semitic louts at the same time.

[Fuzz]

119. Honestly I didn't think I needed a /sarc tag

[defendandprotect]

124. Duh ... !! .... and then I came along .... !!!

Always better to flash a "just in case" ---

Just in case D&P comes along!! :evilgrin:


:hi:

[fascisthunter]

32. I prefer a mixed economy

and no, socialism theoretically is not a bad thing... it all depends on who is in power. I like the concept though...

Socialist Democrat here...

[AverageJoe90]

43. Don't call myself Socialist...........

but 'Social Democrat' is just fine with me. Free enterprise + good regulations + unions + quality protections = win. =)

[fascisthunter]

48. Agreed!

:toast:

I'd buy ya a beer or two, or three. It all depends sometimes when I drink.

[Cats Against Frist]

55. I lived in a social democratic state

Did you know that they wouldn't allow certain people to go to college, because of their family background? You're tracked into a "class" and that's basically where you stay. Upward mobility is nearly unheard of. Intellectualism outside the party line is verboten. They don't give children grades. They don't believe in rewarding anyone for natural ability, talent or merit. There's a difference between advocating for some regulations, unionizing and consumer protection and full-on social democracy. I think that means something much bigger and much more authoritarian, central-planning kind of society. I think that's the center position in the U.S.

[white_wolf]

59. Wow. You do realize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the strongest examples of social-democracy

have much more upward mobility than the U.S. You really do sound like a Randain.

[Cats Against Frist]

67. I lived in Sweden

My boyfriend did not get to go to college because his family wasn't on the college track. All of those things I wrote about are the dirty little secrets that they don't want you to know about. Besides, they're all hypocrites, too. All the social justice stuff and they're a bunch of first-world pigs like the rest of us...

[Cats Against Frist]

68. And they cannot stand the Muslims n/t

[PragmaticLiberal]

39. How would you define socialism?

[Scuba]

45. "If folks like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh ...

"If folks like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh make their careers off of using the word socialism as a slur, how bad could it be?" asks 35-year-old Shane Johnson of Corryville, a union electrician who helped revive Cincinnati's International Socialist Organization chapter this year, which has about a dozen members.

[bluestate10]

57. Capitalism is not superior to Socialism, if true Socialism ever happens.

The issue with socialism is not whether is is superior, but whether people that will be responsible for making it work, aka all of us, can put aside their self interests and accept the sharing of wealth and resources that is required by socialist principles.

[fascisthunter]

62. great post

[roody]

69. I can't because socialism is a good thing. eom

[Hippo_Tron]

88. If we dropped the labels of "capitalism" and "socialism" for just a moment...

I think we would all pretty much agree that the basic problem we're trying to combat is too much wealth and power being placed in the hands of too few. We won't agree on how much is "too much" or how few is "too few" but we will almost inevitably agree that the status quo in the US is too much in the hands of too few.

[defendandprotect]

108. You can't have democracy without economic democracy -- capitalism ain't it -- !!!

[Hippo_Tron]

131. As I said, lets move beyond the labels for just a sec

Without using the terms capitalism or socialism, what's the first thing you would do to even out the wealth/power gap in this country. Then what's the second thing you would do. What's the third thing? The fourth, the fifth, etc. etc...

If you don't attach the labels, I bet a lot of self-described capitalists will agree with you farther down that list than you think.

[socialshockwave]

89. My problem

is that history shows socialism leads to a lack of freedom on the parts of the people. It leads to no technological innovation(let's face it you NEED To let private business have at least their own control without nationalizing anything) thus creating rising unemployment, and the lack of a market economy results in sub-par goods and queues.

[white_wolf]

92. The USSR launched the first satellite I'd say that's a techinoglai achievement.

[socialshockwave]

94. Yes, but:

"The central governmental control had difficulties in balancing the consumer market, and some goods from time to time simply disappeared from the shops. The population either spent a lot of time in queues looking for goods, or they traveled to find where the needed goods were still available. Accumulating and reselling goods was a profitable but illegal business. In many cases lack of some goods is difficult to explain by low economic potential or governmental decisions. The unexpected shortage of various goods was recognized by the government and called "deficit". The official view was that it was a transient problem, one that could be solved in the near future."

"As the circulation of the work force could not be balanced by salaries, there was a lack of workers in some areas, largely in the agricultural sector. This was attempted to be solved by forcing older pupils, students and in some cases even soldiers to work for some limited time as agricultural workers (the practice has been informally called 'наряды на картошку' (naryady na kartoshku, "assignments to potato fields"))."

"On top of that was cor­rup­tion, bad poli­cies and poor plan­ning, the rigid, iso­lated sys­tem of Soviet power with restricted move­ment and incred­i­ble lev­els of bureau­cracy, as well as wide­spread resent­ment towards such a state — a side effect of Gorbachev’s glasnost."

The saying "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work" applied to the USSR.

True Socialism creates a government so big it would make a Libertarian's head fall off.

[RZM]

112. Those kinds of achievements are all well and good

Don't forget that they carried out the first spacewalk too.

Those kinds of things do matter, but they aren't things that affect the average person's life very much. Consumer goods and especially agriculture were the real achilles heels in the system.

If you're interested, I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Empires-History-Soviet-1945-1991/dp/0192803190/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317695585&sr=8-1

It's kind of dry and has lots of stats, but it's got some real interesting stuff on the postwar Soviet economy.

Just for fun I dug up some numbers on this (I believe they come from that book). A very small portion of the Soviet agriculture was in private hands - about three percent. That three percent accounted for 25 percent of dairy, 29 percent of meat, 28 percent of eggs, and 42 percent of fruit that actually reached Soviet consumers (I suspect that the high numbers for fruit are partially due to the fact that many private producers were in the Caucasus region, which has a better climate for fruit). Note I said 'actually reached.' The much larger state sector produced far more, but so much of it was wasted because there was no incentive for its products to reach consumers in a timely fashion or in good order. Once these producers weighed their stuff (that was how they were paid), it was no longer their problem.

And even with non-consumer goods, there were problems. This was demonstrated over and over in the Arab-Israeli wars, especially in the 1982 war in Lebanon, when the Israelis shot down over 80 Syrian planes without losing any themselves.

[defendandprotect]

109. No dictatorship is socialism .... USSR was "totalitarian communism" per J. Edgar Hoover --!!

If you need a reference on that -- !!

[reformist2]

97. Forget both "isms" - lets just work together to create a new system that works.

[cynatnite]

103. I think capitalism can be a fine thing...

as long as it's not allowed to run amok as it has been in this country. People should be able to become wealthy if they earned it, but not at the expense of the little guy which has become the norm.

Superior though? No, I think not.

[defendandprotect]

110. Capitalism is an evil -- you can't regulate an evil --NEW DEAL did that ....

and elite used the power of their wealth to corrupt and buy elected officials --

It's over --

[cynatnite]

113. It's not a living thing that you can ascribe a term like evil to...

It's an economic system that requires control in order for it to work properly. People should be allowed to own businesses and be able to profit, but not at the expense of the working class. Proper regulation can contain capitalism, but it shouldn't stifle someone to the point where they can't have their own business and make money from their own hard work.

[defendandprotect]

123. Rape is a tool of war -- is it an evil? Of course capitalism is an evil system -- !!

Systems and patterns are evil -- from warmongering to political agendas --


Capitalism is exploitation of nature, natural resourceds, animal-life -- and even

other human beings according to various myths of "inferiority" --

Color, creed, gender, sexual orientation -- all means of exploitation by discrimination.



It's an economic system that requires control in order for it to work properly. People should be allowed to own businesses and be able to profit, but not at the expense of the working class. Proper regulation can contain capitalism, but it shouldn't stifle someone to the point where they can't have their own business and make money from their own hard work.

We've had NEW DEAL controls/regulations after immense criminal activity by capitalists/capitalism --

and those NEW DEAL regulations were overturned by elites using their wealth to bribe dishonest

candidates/elected officials and to corrupt government.

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- it's over --


"Congress is controlled by oil and coal industries" -- Al Gore/Rolling Stone this summer


Our corporate press is controlled by the same families and corporations who gave us Hitler

and the Nazis --

[saras]

116. Capitalism = those who post on the internet in ALL CAPS make the rules.

Socialism = those who post on the internet in social networks make the rules.

[RZM]

118. +1. Nice ;)

[Festivito]

120. Because it validates the marginally intelligent inheritor class as worthy.

Socialism tells them they may not deserve the money they found themselves holding.

The oldest falicy in life is finding moral justification for greed. So, they project themselves into things such as only whites deserve money, only the inheritors deserve money, only I deserve the money I earned in my business, God gave me this money, et. al..

It's like a religion with them. They believe they deserve the money. They develope a system of beliefs that validate that belief.

Socialism challenges that belief system, that religion, their religion. Therfore, it must be wrong, or as you call it -- a bad thing. And, they'll buy a PR firm to repeat it until they believe it themselves.

[FreeJoe]

126. I prefer a blend

I look around the world and see what appears to work best. It looks like a blend works best to me. The Scandinavian countries seemd to be doing well. Canada looks good. I think that the keys are having a primarily market driven economy and having a good safety net.

If you can point me to a predominantly socialist country that functions well, I'll be more sympathetic.

[moondust]

127. Stiglitz at OWS: "[Banks] are supposed to allocate capital and manage risk,

but they misallocated capital and created risk."

Even if they properly "allocate capital and manage risk," they do it for whose benefit? Can anyone expect big banks to do those things "for the greater good?" I don't think so. Not in a corporate world where they, too, are trying to maximize their profits and boost their stock prices.