New class of posters

[Fletch]

Not in MY house, mister. Dictatorship is the name of the game 'round here.

Socialism and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. Dictatorship is a governmental style; socialism is an economic system. The economic system of most families is one of socialism: children contribute according to their ability, but are fed, clothed, and cared for according to their need.

 

[dross]

I was really looking for something on the slightly larger scale, as in countries, that are success stories of Socialism.

It works fantastically everywhere it's been tried. No joke. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, anywhere you name. Just depends on what you mean by "works."

If you are a politician, university professor, beaurocrat, adminstrator, union leader - there are a whole variety of folks for whom socialism works very well everywhere it's been tried.

 

[irishfan]

I don't like them or agree with them but an example of socialism working pretty well would be China. The chinese have done pretty well for themselves economically as they could clean our clock anytime they choose if they want to collect on our debt.

 

[Fletch]

It works fantastically everywhere it's been tried. No joke. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, anywhere you name. Just depends on what you mean by "works."

If you are a politician, university professor, beaurocrat, adminstrator, union leader - there are a whole variety of folks for whom socialism works very well everywhere it's been tried.

This goes back to my earlier point: if socialism is implemented without coercion, particularly against the producers, it works rather well. It's when the producers are forced to contribute that things go to hell. They tend to hide or reduce their production according to the amount which is being expropriated from them. The more heavily I am taxed, the less willing I am to work -- at least, in the areas of work where my labor can be taxed.

 

[Fletch]

I don't like them or agree with them but an example of socialism working pretty well would be China. The chinese have done pretty well for themselves economically as they could clean our clock anytime they choose if they want to collect on our debt.

China's not a good example because it exists as a parasite to a (pseudo-)capitalist economy. Without the United States or other analogous economy to purchase all of their products, they would collapse.

 

[Panama]

I was really looking for something on the slightly larger scale, as in countries, that are success stories of Socialism.

It works fantastically everywhere it's been tried. No joke. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, anywhere you name. Just depends on what you mean by "works."

If you are a politician, university professor, beaurocrat, adminstrator, union leader - there are a whole variety of folks for whom socialism works very well everywhere it's been tried.

This goes back to my earlier point: if socialism is implemented without coercion, particularly against the producers, it works rather well. It's when the producers are forced to contribute that things go to hell. They tend to hide or reduce their production according to the amount which is being expropriated from them. The more heavily I am taxed, the less willing I am to work -- at least, in the areas of work where my labor can be taxed.

I'll try this a different way.

Is there any Socialist country you would like to move to, as an average citizen just as you are now, only in country with a true Socialist system?

(to continue the total thread jack)

 

[Fletch]

I'll try this a different way.

Is there any Socialist country you would like to move to, as an average citizen just as you are now, only in country with a true Socialist system?

Define "true Socialist system". Most countries that we call "socialist" are in fact mixed economies. The Soviet Union proved rather definitively that "pure" socialism is unworkable... they attempted to do away with money entirely, and failed utterly, so they reintroduced money but still managed to kill themselves with a "mixed" (but extremely one-sided) system.

So once we arrive at the point of agreement that what is known colloquially as "socialism" is a mix between socialism and capitalism, the question becomes "what level of mixture suffices to call a country 'socialist'?" Is it 51% socialism? How is this measured? The level of taxation? If that's the case, then the socialist country that I'd most like to live in is the one in which I already live: the United States of America.

 

[irishfan]

China's not a good example because it exists as a parasite to a (pseudo-)capitalist economy. Without the United States or other analogous economy to purchase all of their products, they would collapse.

I agree with that but as long as the capitalist economy exhists then it will thrive with its socialist principles. The economy of China is linked greatly with our economy and with its decline you will see all of those around it sink as well.

 

[Panama]

Define "true Socialist system". Most countries that we call "socialist" are in fact mixed economies. The Soviet Union proved rather definitively that "pure" socialism is unworkable... they attempted to do away with money entirely, and failed utterly, so they reintroduced money but still managed to kill themselves with a "mixed" (but extremely one-sided) system.

So once we arrive at the point of agreement that what is known colloquially as "socialism" is a mix between socialism and capitalism, the question becomes "what level of mixture suffices to call a country 'socialist'?" Is it 51% socialism? How is this measured? The level of taxation? If that's the case, then the socialist country that I'd most like to live in is the one in which I already live: the United States of America.

To me at least, these are "true" Socialist countries.
None of which I would want to reside in, and I have honest sympathy for those that do.
If we are indeed heading down the road to become more like the list of countries below, which I believe we are, it more than saddens me deeply.
All represent EPIC FAIL in my eyes.

People's Republic of China
Cuba - Republic of Cuba
North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic
Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam

 

[Fletch]

To me at least, these are "true" Socialist countries.
None of which I would want to reside in, and I have honest sympathy for those that do.
If we are indeed heading down the road to become more like the list of countries below, which I believe we are, it more than saddens me deeply.
All represent EPIC FAIL in my eyes.

People's Republic of China
Cuba - Republic of Cuba
North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic
Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam

North Korea I would accept as a potentially "pure" socialist country. The rest probably represent a 90+% socialist threshold on the socialism-capitalism spectrum, though China is probably more free than you think it is. I will readily agree that none of these are desirable places to live when compared to the United States, but since my threshold is rather lower than yours, I consider the USA to have already fallen over the edge into socialism -- the only question is how much further will it go.

 

[Panama]

My fear is, we have only started sliding down the socialist slope.
It is going to be rather difficult climb back up from where we already find ourselves, and if we go much deeper, who knows if in our lifetimes the climb can be completed.

Thread jack over for me.

 

[SavageEagle]

So how about them trolling liberals causing fights, eh? Pretty annoying huh?

 

[Joe Williams]

China's not a good example because it exists as a parasite to a (pseudo-)capitalist economy. Without the United States or other analogous economy to purchase all of their products, they would collapse.

Further, they were failing, until they implemented at least limited capitalism. Since then, they've begun to flourish.

 

[bigus_D]

My question is how can any amount of Socialism be even slightly good for the system as some claim it to be?

But don't we already have some level of socialism in our system today (even before Health Care Reform)?

Unemployment, Food Stamps, HUD, medicaid, social security

fire department, public library, parks, roads, bridges, sidewalks

I've never benefited from the first line of items directly (whilst I've definitely PAID for it!), but have benefited from all of the remaining items.

Surely you aren't suggesting that none of these items present any good to the system...?

 

[Tryin']

But don't we already have some level of socialism in our system today (even before Health Care Reform)?

Unemployment, Food Stamps, HUD, medicaid, social security All of these could disappear tomorrow and I would be happy for it. But that is only my opinion; MANY would be cast into *worse* ruin if the programs were terminated. These systems have been nothing but a drain on America since their conception.

fire department, public library, parks, roads, bridges, sidewalks All of these should be handled at the state (or less) level, and no higher! Only because I have yet to read or hear a convincing argument for the for-profit privatization of public services. Now, privatization through charitable trusts, whole 'nother matter. . .

I've never benefited from the first line of items directly (whilst I've definitely PAID for it!), but have benefited from all of the remaining items.

Surely you aren't suggesting that none of these items present any good to the system...?

 

[Captain Bligh]

Actually, his average is 9.11 posts per day.

Also you fail.

"Hyperbole" -- look it up.

I am full of WIN

 

[SavageEagle]

But don't we already have some level of socialism in our system today (even before Health Care Reform)?

Unemployment, Food Stamps, HUD, medicaid, social security

fire department, public library, parks, roads, bridges, sidewalks

I've never benefited from the first line of items directly (whilst I've definitely PAID for it!), but have benefited from all of the remaining items.

Surely you aren't suggesting that none of these items present any good to the system...?

Unemployment, until recently was an employer/employee paid system. Government had nothing to do with it until the Stimulus plan. Which they are debating on extending. However, the rest, you're right. Those are socialist plans. They are killing America and making American's rely more and more on the system to live. If they were scrubbed tomorrow, America as a whole would be SO much better off.

The second list, like Tryin' said, could be handled at the local and state level. Hell, even things like the Fire Dept., Police Department, Public Library, Sewer/Water could all be privatized and all run more efficiently. Nobody becomes a Fire fighter to get rich. Your house burns down or you get into a car accident, that's why you buy insurance. Sure rates would go up, but taxes would go down. Insurance is optional anyway. It's a smart thing to have, but still optional.

And like has been said in another thread, I don't mind parks being run by the state and local governments. Parks would be protected from development and people trashing them and everyone would still have access to them without fear of a private individual closing, say, Yellowstone off to the public. I'm against the Fed. Gov. owning and running parks, but see no reason states and localities shouldn't have the authority to run parks.

 

[Johnny C]

I dont have ANY faith that the system will get any better...It has been in a slow downward slide that seems to be picking up speed.

Slugs WONT EVER say to themselves "I should get off welfare and get a job because it is good for the country"

Medicare, medicade and social security folks will ALWAYS vote for the poly-tician that will promise to keep or expand their benefits.

States are hooked on the Federal dollars, and the feds keep the states in line by threatening to cut off the funds. The feds WILL NEVER allow a state to suceed from the union, they have so many ways to punish that state that it wont happen...at least for long.

At this point I believe that we are fighting a losing battle, because most of the citizens (subjects) are sheeple and have drank the "free stuff" cool-aid, and they dont realize it isnt really free...or they simply dont care.

Bread and circuses folks

On a side note:

If the states OWNED all the parks, all it would take was 1 bad state administration to sell them off to developers to pay off the states debts, and we dont want that. At least with the parks being federal, it is obvious that all the people of the US own them...or at least they let us believe so

 

[CarmelHP]

Unemployment, until recently was an employer/employee paid system. Government had nothing to do with it until the Stimulus plan.

What? It's a federal mandate on employer's to pay.

 

[Fletch]

If the states OWNED all the parks, all it would take was 1 bad state administration to sell them off to developers to pay off the states debts, and we dont want that.

Speak for yourself.