Socialism brings people down - lowers quality of life

[dan_c00000]

It's ridiculous that so many intelligent people do not challenge or ask questions.

I don't think you know what socialism actually is. Let me give you a few examples: the roads you drive on in the US are "socialist" in that anyone can drive on them and they were paid for with public tax dollars. Public schools are also socialist in that they use people's tax dollars to educate children. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the police, the fire department, and the military are all examples of socialism.

There are very successful capitalist countries, Norway's Statoil for instance, that have stated owned companies.

Notice how not one of those things suggested a dictatorship which is what Stalin's USSR was or what Pol Pot's Cambodia was.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

has your mom ever taken you in for testing? clearly you are retarded

Has your mother ever... Admitted to being your mother? Clearly you are a new level of idiot they don't have a name or classification for yet.

 

[underguy1]

I have come to realize that trying to convince a socialist they are wrong is akin to pushing rope. All the facts in the world won't help. Once they are backed into a corner, they become hateful and start name-calling.

If you think about it, it becomes quite clear as to why this system has largely required implemention by force.

It's ridiculous that so many intelligent people do not challenge or ask questions. I don't think these people fully understand what they are asking for. No one is going to pay for them to sit around and smoke pot. They are the pawns that provide the means to an end. If they don't go to work, if they don't produce in a socialist society, they will be shot. The utopia is a mirage.

Has anyone shown them the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in Cambodia? Do they know what really happened in Tiananmen Square? How about the estimated 2,000,000 people Stalin starved to death in the Ukraine? No one has illustrated the disgusting similarities between National Socialism and Socialism for them? Has no one told them that those Scandinavian nations they hold as the epitome of Socialism are largely funded by oil and are hardly Socialist at all?

Do they care?

"Oh, this time it will be different. We put the word 'democratic' in front of the word Socialism." Said the idiot that will sell his liberty for a sandwich.

Wow. I wonder if you've ever questioned whether you're just swallowing capitalist propaganda whole.

It seems that you haven't and that you are.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Trying to discuss something with Underpants is pretty futile. It's like trying to talk with somebody who sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps saying "I can't hear you."

 

[John_Q_Public]

Wow. I wonder if you've ever questioned whether you're just swallowing capitalist propaganda whole.

It seems that you haven't and that you are.

Really? That's funny because I've taken the time to read and formulated my own opinion. Propaganda is only needed if you have something to hide or a weak minded to win. Propaganda is the constant socialist message the schools fed me and my children. It's the same propaganda that tells them excellence is selfish and they should feel guilt for who they are and where they come from. It's the same system that teaches them to follow and never question, then labels it ‘being open minded.”

You do know that in socialist countries the states control the media, you only hear what they want you to hear, right?

While I am more than prepared to provide you with evidence and facts that support my opinion, I don't think it would matter. You don't understand your enemy. I cannot help you because you don't want to know and you aren't willing to question your own beliefs. I wish I could allow myself to be that naive. I don't don't need the state to tell me what to believe.

“Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.’”
~Thomas Gray

 

[John_Q_Public]

I don't think you know what socialism actually is. Let me give you a few examples: the roads you drive on in the US are "socialist" in that anyone can drive on them and they were paid for with public tax dollars. Public schools are also socialist in that they use people's tax dollars to educate children. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the police, the fire department, and the military are all examples of socialism.

There are very successful capitalist countries, Norway's Statoil for instance, that have stated owned companies.

Notice how not one of those things suggested a dictatorship which is what Stalin's USSR was or what Pol Pot's Cambodia was.

No, I don't think you know the difference between social programs and socialism.

Edit: I thought I should give support to my argument(s).
Here's how Webster defines the word socialism.

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies LINK

 

[John_Q_Public]

Oh really?
How much oil does Finland have?
How much oil does Sweden have?
How much oil does Denmark have?

The only Scandinavian country that is oil rich is Noway and they don't have anywhere near as much as the USA.

Stop changing the argument. I never said they produced more than the US.

I don't have data on what these countries hold in reserves. You'll have to find that yourself. Since my statement was regarding output, below you'll find the amount of oil production that was imported to the US alone!

How much oil does Finland have?
3,591,000 barrels in 2015
How much oil does Sweden have?
1,629,000 barrels in 2015
How much oil does Denmark have?
358,000 barrels in 2015
Just for the hell of it, here's Norway’s:
21,253,000 barrels in 2015

These numbers are according to the US Energy Information Administration. There is other information out there to suggest that the US is only importing a fraction of the production from these countries, but it is the internet.

I find it so interesting that the self proclaimed socialists here are really Kenseyen capitalist. Maybe you already know that the type of social programs you want are best provided by a capitalism.

Yes. I know not all “socialist” countries are full blown communist totalitarian states. They all begin somewhere. Perhaps semantics is the problem. Using words in varying contexts does dilute the meaning.

 

[dan_c00000]

No, I don't think you know the difference between social programs and socialism.

Edit: I thought I should give support to my argument(s).
Here's how Webster defines the word socialism.

Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies LINK

Sadly, I do know the difference. You're just playing semantics because again I've pointed out capitalist societies where things are run by the government (like the health care of every country except the US).

Here's how the Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism:

1. The theory of social organization under the social contract (social contract n. 2). Cf. socialist n. 1. Obs.

2. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

Since you've chosen to do this at a 5th grade level I've bolded the import parts so you understand just how wrong you are.

 

[John_Q_Public]

Sadly, I do know the difference. You're just playing semantics because again I've pointed out capitalist societies where things are run by the government (like the health care of every country except the US).

Here's how the Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism:

1. The theory of social organization under the social contract (social contract n. 2). Cf. socialist n. 1. Obs.

2. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

Since you've chosen to do this at a 5th grade level I've bolded the import parts so you understand just how wrong you are.

Well then, I guess there's no use in continuing if you think that all things government would be classified as socialism. The only alternative is anarchy. I know I've hit a nerve because you have already begun the personal attacks. You've done a great job of highlighting all of the points that fit your bias. You then insulted my intelligence so that the rest of the definition, the part that supports my position, is overlooked. I have looked in every dictionary I can find and that is the only only definition I can find that gives the same “oh by the way…” definition of socialism. In fact, I found your definition as an example of how the right exacerbates socialism. Which I think may be more accurate. I suppose I'm not looking hard enough. I do have to work. As for semantics, they are necessary to cut through smoke and mirrors, but i do believe it was you who began this conversation on definitions.

A roads built by communities through tax revenue is not socialism. That's absurd. Centralized economic planning is socialism. Taking over private industry and replacing it with bureaucracy is socialism.

No one said there isn't a need for government assistance (social programs) or better infrastructure. I will even go so far as to say these programs are absolutely essential in times of war or disaster. The problem corruption. More specifically government corruption. Look into the Clinton Foundation if you'd like a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Now let's be honest with each other. The highlighted portion of your definition isn't the end game. Is it? The fundamental difference between us really comes down to who we trust. I believe I am most suited to make decisions for myself and prefer that government does so. I would like competition to drive prices You would prefer the government control or fix prices. I prefer fair laws that promote a more competitive market. You prefer that the government is the market. In a bureaucracy, only the big survive. In a free market, the little guy stands a chance. You can't see it because you see the world through bureaucratic lenses. You see people as needy and helpless . I see the world and it's people as amazing potential. I see people with dignity and pride. I see them motivated by more than just greed.

Your words lead to systems that are unsustainable. You deny it, but I ask you, what corporation (untainted by government and cronyism) has ever destroyed so much as the governments which followed your ideology? I believe absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

I believe absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

This is why there is absolutely no way to win in life.

People elect a President, but have already elected a Congress that has utilized one of many possible ways to make sure he (or she, it seems this time) can't do what they promised to do in their campaign.

Those things fail to get done, & people are angry at the President, so they elect the other party/holders of the opposite opinion when it is a Congress-&-not-Presidential election year, failing to realize that was the reason that President didn't accomplish what they had promised.

Finally, someone else gets a position/office where they can do something about it. Unfortunately, that person is well aware by that time that one vote does not honestly make a difference (as many of us were told growing up), & they also believe "absolute power corrupts absolutely,. Believing both of these things, they feel their doing the right thing with their power will not change the way the majority of figures act when given such power, so they instead act corruptly (let cops off for murder, let Hinckley back in the public, etc.), & Harry Chapin's famous "Circle" proves to instead be a never-ending line of dead-ringer (appearing-to-be-) stupid people committing similarly-seemingly- stupid acts.

 

[JayPierce95]

Many Americans look at the system we have as capitalism and that any other way in "anti-American." Firstly, we are the only western democracy in which the term "anti-'name of nationality'" is used as an insult. That insult has only historically been used in dictatorships and regimes such as the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is a good indication that we have a system that is designed to prevent and socially enforced to prevent people from asking questions and seeking alternatives. Secondly, we do not have capitalism. We have various forms of capitalism and socialism. We have state-controlled and privately-controlled economic facets. When people say we should stick with "American capitalism" it is not actually capitalism. For example, when Wall Street was bailed out in 2008, that wasn't capitalism. There are no bailouts in capitalism. You start a business, if it fails then you're finished. There is no bankruptcy protection, there is no bailout, and the taxpayers do not have to pay for your business. If America actually applied capitalist principals to Wall Street then the banks wouldn't take unnecessary risks and they'd be more careful with what they did with their money because they'd know there wouldn't be a bailout. And if a bank did fail, then that would open up space in the market for new banks to do things differently due to the lessons learned from the failed bank's mistakes. "American capitalism" as it is, tries to give people the idea that it's fair and a meritocracy, but in actuality we have a corporate welfare system that has caused mass inequality.

 

[John_Q_Public]

This is why there is absolutely no way to win in life.

People elect a President, but have already elected a Congress that has utilized one of many possible ways to make sure he (or she, it seems this time) can't do what they promised to do in their campaign.

Those things fail to get done, & people are angry at the President, so they elect the other party/holders of the opposite opinion when it is a Congress-&-not-Presidential election year, failing to realize that was the reason that President didn't accomplish what they had promised.

Finally, someone else gets a position/office where they can do something about it. Unfortunately, that person is well aware by that time that one vote does not honestly make a difference (as many of us were told growing up), & they also believe "absolute power corrupts absolutely,. Believing both of these things, they feel their doing the right thing with their power will not change the way the majority of figures act when given such power, so they instead act corruptly (let cops off for murder, let Hinckley back in the public, etc.), & Harry Chapin's famous "Circle" proves to instead be a never-ending line of dead-ringer (appearing-to-be-) stupid people committing similarly-seemingly- stupid acts.

I'm very sorry you feel that way. It is a very daunting task to remain positive about anything these days. I think there's an element of truth to what you say, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think this clip sums up the reason one vote matters. It also demonstrate what those in power fear most. They want you to feel the way you do now. Anyway, it's just a clip from a children's movie. No political slants, just pure ah-ha.

https://youtu.be/VLbWnJGlyMU

 

[John_Q_Public]

Many Americans look at the system we have as capitalism and that any other way in "anti-American." Firstly, we are the only western democracy in which the term "anti-'name of nationality'" is used as an insult. That insult has only historically been used in dictatorships and regimes such as the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is a good indication that we have a system that is designed to prevent and socially enforced to prevent people from asking questions and seeking alternatives. Secondly, we do not have capitalism. We have various forms of capitalism and socialism. We have state-controlled and privately-controlled economic facets. When people say we should stick with "American capitalism" it is not actually capitalism. For example, when Wall Street was bailed out in 2008, that wasn't capitalism. There are no bailouts in capitalism. You start a business, if it fails then you're finished. There is no bankruptcy protection, there is no bailout, and the taxpayers do not have to pay for your business. If America actually applied capitalist principals to Wall Street then the banks wouldn't take unnecessary risks and they'd be more careful with what they did with their money because they'd know there wouldn't be a bailout. And if a bank did fail, then that would open up space in the market for new banks to do things differently due to the lessons learned from the failed bank's mistakes. "American capitalism" as it is, tries to give people the idea that it's fair and a meritocracy, but in actuality we have a corporate welfare system that has caused mass inequality.

This is spot on!

 

[The_Trouvere]

lets face reality, I know you obama people hate that. The reality is that socialism is this. Socialism brings everyone down to a lower quality of life. period.

you obama people are lazy and I understand why you want socialism..so that you don't have to do anything.

attention obama slaves: time to pay your fair share!

get a job

Said the preposterous nonentity who has never worked a day in its life.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

I'm very sorry you feel that way. It is a very daunting task to remain positive about anything these days. I think there's an element of truth to what you say, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think this clip sums up the reason one vote matters. It also demonstrate what those in power fear most. They want you to feel the way you do now. Anyway, it's just a clip from a children's movie. No political slants, just pure ah-ha.

https://youtu.be/VLbWnJGlyMU

Not watching the clip, as you said it "sums up the reason..." why something is true that I know is not.

On the other hand, I also disagree (maybe not "other hand" after all) with your claim it's hard to feel positive. When things are good, smile & laugh b/c they are. When things are at the other extreme, think that it can only get better.

I was watching a scripted show about 2 hours ago, & a character made a comment about how the world/society happens. It reminded me of another scripted exchange I Googled & still could not place...

"That's not the way the world works!"
"So change the world."

(Not exact, but best I can recall.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not watching the clip, as you said it "sums up the reason..." why something is true that I know is not.

On the other hand, I also disagree (maybe not "other hand" after all) with your claim it's hard to feel positive. When things are good, smile & laugh b/c they are. When things are at the other extreme, think that it can only get better.

I was watching a scripted show about 2 hours ago, & a character made a comment about how the world/society happens. It reminded me of another scripted exchange I Googled & still could not place...

"That's not the way the world works!"
"So change the world."

(Not exact, but best I can recall.)

I think that's from a commercial for a stock brokerage firm.

 

[underguy1]

Really? That's funny because I've taken the time to read and formulated my own opinion. Propaganda is only needed if you have something to hide or a weak minded to win. Propaganda is the constant socialist message the schools fed me and my children. It's the same propaganda that tells them excellence is selfish and they should feel guilt for who they are and where they come from. It's the same system that teaches them to follow and never question, then labels it ‘being open minded.”

You do know that in socialist countries the states control the media, you only hear what they want you to hear, right?

While I am more than prepared to provide you with evidence and facts that support my opinion, I don't think it would matter. You don't understand your enemy. I cannot help you because you don't want to know and you aren't willing to question your own beliefs. I wish I could allow myself to be that naive. I don't don't need the state to tell me what to believe.

“Where ignorance is bliss, ‘Tis folly to be wise.’”
~Thomas Gray

That's just one big series of strawmen mixed with a fair amount of bullshit.

Any fool can 'win' an argument in their own mind doing that.

It takes a bit of knowledge and intellect to really win an argument.

You don't appear to have any of either.

The irony is that you've clearly swallowed American state/corporate propaganda whole. All you've read is propaganda.

 

[underguy1]

Really? That's funny because I've taken the time to read and formulated my own opinion.

Every libertoonian I've ever encountered said exactly that. And then proceeded to prove that they had actually done exactly the opposite.

 

[underguy1]

Many Americans look at the system we have as capitalism and that any other way in "anti-American." Firstly, we are the only western democracy in which the term "anti-'name of nationality'" is used as an insult. That insult has only historically been used in dictatorships and regimes such as the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is a good indication that we have a system that is designed to prevent and socially enforced to prevent people from asking questions and seeking alternatives. Secondly, we do not have capitalism. We have various forms of capitalism and socialism. We have state-controlled and privately-controlled economic facets. When people say we should stick with "American capitalism" it is not actually capitalism. For example, when Wall Street was bailed out in 2008, that wasn't capitalism. There are no bailouts in capitalism. You start a business, if it fails then you're finished. There is no bankruptcy protection, there is no bailout, and the taxpayers do not have to pay for your business. If America actually applied capitalist principals to Wall Street then the banks wouldn't take unnecessary risks and they'd be more careful with what they did with their money because they'd know there wouldn't be a bailout. And if a bank did fail, then that would open up space in the market for new banks to do things differently due to the lessons learned from the failed bank's mistakes. "American capitalism" as it is, tries to give people the idea that it's fair and a meritocracy, but in actuality we have a corporate welfare system that has caused mass inequality.

No. You're confusing actual capitalism with the PR version.

The bail outs are a perfect example of capitalism in action.

The corporate welfare system is capitalism in action.

All that stuff they teach you about capitalism is bullshit. There's no such thing as a free market.

The capitalists just laugh themselves to sleep at night over how easy it is to hoodwink the average westerner.

 

[underguy1]

Trying to discuss something with Underpants is pretty futile. It's like trying to talk with somebody who sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps saying "I can't hear you."

You couldn't argue you're way out of a wet paper bag, you know nothing.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You couldn't argue you're way out of a wet paper bag, you know nothing.

I know the difference between "your" and "you're." I also know the difference among periods, semicolons and commas.

I don't usually argue. I just cite facts and/or present opinions and I identify the latter as such.

 

[underguy1]

I know the difference between "your" and "you're." I also know the difference among periods, semicolons and commas.

I don't usually argue. I just cite facts and/or present opinions and I identify the latter as such.

Oh look at the clever typo spotter.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the arse.

 

[DeYaKen]

Stop changing the argument. I never said they produced more than the US.

I don't have data on what these countries hold in reserves. You'll have to find that yourself. Since my statement was regarding output, below you'll find the amount of oil production that was imported to the US alone!

How much oil does Finland have?
3,591,000 barrels in 2015
How much oil does Sweden have?
1,629,000 barrels in 2015
How much oil does Denmark have?
358,000 barrels in 2015
Just for the hell of it, here's Norway’s:
21,253,000 barrels in 2015

These numbers are according to the US Energy Information Administration. There is other information out there to suggest that the US is only importing a fraction of the production from these countries, but it is the internet.

I find it so interesting that the self proclaimed socialists here are really Kenseyen capitalist. Maybe you already know that the type of social programs you want are best provided by a capitalism.

Yes. I know not all “socialist” countries are full blown communist totalitarian states. They all begin somewhere. Perhaps semantics is the problem. Using words in varying contexts does dilute the meaning.

I never changed the argument I responded to something that you stated as fact which isn't, namely that the economies of the Scandinavian countries are based on oil. If you don't want people to pick you up on it, you shouldn't include it in your arguments.

The question you need to answer is what has unbridled capitalism given the world apart from War, huge prison populations, ever increasing crime, shorter life expectancy, lower living standards for the many. the list goes on. When you consider that a newborn baby has a greater chance of reaching pensionable age in Japan than in the richest country in the world, it should make you ask why.

The problem is that the defenders of the status quo insist that capitalism and socialism cannot exist side by side. The Scandinavian countries prove that to be untrue which is why you try to denigrate them.

I will leave you with a quote from Hugh Scanlon, one time general secretary of the Engineering, Electrical and Plumbing Trades Union. "I'm not against profits, I love profits. You show me a company that makes a healthy profit and I'll show you a company that can afford to pay my members a fair rate for producing those profits."

 

[DeYaKen]

Many Americans look at the system we have as capitalism and that any other way in "anti-American." Firstly, we are the only western democracy in which the term "anti-'name of nationality'" is used as an insult. That insult has only historically been used in dictatorships and regimes such as the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is a good indication that we have a system that is designed to prevent and socially enforced to prevent people from asking questions and seeking alternatives. Secondly, we do not have capitalism. We have various forms of capitalism and socialism. We have state-controlled and privately-controlled economic facets. When people say we should stick with "American capitalism" it is not actually capitalism. For example, when Wall Street was bailed out in 2008, that wasn't capitalism. There are no bailouts in capitalism. You start a business, if it fails then you're finished. There is no bankruptcy protection, there is no bailout, and the taxpayers do not have to pay for your business. If America actually applied capitalist principals to Wall Street then the banks wouldn't take unnecessary risks and they'd be more careful with what they did with their money because they'd know there wouldn't be a bailout. And if a bank did fail, then that would open up space in the market for new banks to do things differently due to the lessons learned from the failed bank's mistakes. "American capitalism" as it is, tries to give people the idea that it's fair and a meritocracy, but in actuality we have a corporate welfare system that has caused mass inequality.

I would say they were a classic case of capitalism. They were the result of corporate bullying by unrestricted companies that became so big they could bully the government. In effect, they said to government
"You can't let us fail, if you do the whole of your economy will collapse. We fail and our creditors will foreclose on all the loans we've made. Companies you thought had no connection with banking will go under because they can't repay us. You, the government, will be responsible because you allowed us to get ourselves into this position by taking away all the regulations, in the name of capitalism."

Where I agree with you is to say that the ultimate capitalist argument would have been "We don't care." But the resulting crash would have made the great depression look like a tea party and would have proved to the world that capitalism doesn't work. That was a risk that no government was prepared to take. You could say that the financial instutions gambled and won. A victory for capitalism?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I would say they were a classic case of capitalism. They were the result of corporate bullying by unrestricted companies that became so big they could bully the government. In effect, they said to government
"You can't let us fail, if you do the whole of your economy will collapse. We fail and our creditors will foreclose on all the loans we've made. Companies you thought had no connection with banking will go under because they can't repay us. You, the government, will be responsible because you allowed us to get ourselves into this position by taking away all the regulations, in the name of capitalism."

Where I agree with you is to say that the ultimate capitalist argument would have been "We don't care." But the resulting crash would have made the great depression look like a tea party and would have proved to the world that capitalism doesn't work. That was a risk that no government was prepared to take. You could say that the financial instutions gambled and won. A victory for capitalism?

Besides that, the bailouts were loans, rather than grants. And they seem to have done what they were intended to do.