An Image From 1867

[Druidus]

Definately socialism. Remember what Jesus said, "It's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle."

 

[BUDDY]

Equality of opportunity my ***.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, and whether you believe it or not, everyone is created equally and has the same right under the economic principles of capitalism to succeed. There are literally thousands of success stories here in the states, of people who had a idea, worked hard on it and where able to be successful.

You still display a fundamental lack of understanding towards socialism. The government does not put a limit on personal wealth. You get what you need, not necessarily what you want (there's a lot of things I want right now but would never waste money on).

D, you just totally contradicted yourself. The socialist government does control what a person spends there money on, and therefore controls their wealth. If I can't purchase what I would like to and have the means to, because the government won't let me, what's the point of earning enough money to get the things I want to begin with?

For instance, food is a necessity. Water is a necessity. Clothing, housing, heating, these are necessities. A hummer is not a necessity. Neither is a big screen tv, or a top of the line stereo. Why should you have that and not others? Because you work harder? That is a falsity.

Because I can afford it and I want to spend MY money on it. It is a personal freedom to spend my earnings on whatever I choose to. Why should I work hard, earn a decent living and then watch my money be controlled by the government to the point where I am told what I am and what I am not allowed to buy?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

It seems you have a poor grasp of socialism....

Actually, no I do not. You have an extermely poor grasp on Capitalism as demonstrated such a negative attitude toward it and an unwillingness to consider any of its benefits. That's not very surprising considering your young age. As you grow and mature, like many young idealistic socialists, perhaps your views will mature as well.

...I believe in the saying: "From each, according to ability, to each, according to need."...

Well, that is the cornerstone of socialism. Unfortunately, in the long run, it does not work. People will only work hard so long when they are not rewarded for their labors. That is Socialism's failing.

...The government does not put a limit on personal wealth. You get what you need, not necessarily what you want ...

And how pray tell does the government get what you need? It takes it from other people. You talk about the working poor not having a chance to accumulate wealth in a Capitalist country, but you do not realize how much more impossible that would be in a Socialist country with an oppressive tax burden.

Really...you are young and idealistic, and while that is fine for now, one day you may have to grow up and live in the real world. When you do, you might realize that things don't just' happen'. Entrepreneurs and inventive people make them happen, and socialism is about taking those opportunities away from individuals for the 'benefit' of society. Never have I heard of a more idiotic and short sighted system.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Remember what Jesus said, "It's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle."

If you are offering Jesus' words to suggest that wealth is bad, then you have absolutely no understanding of this message. I suggest you read this post to clear up your confusion.

 

[Druidus]

Actually, no I do not. You have an extermely poor grasp on Capitalism as demonstrated such a negative attitude toward it and an unwillingness to consider any of its benefits. That's not very surprising considering your young age. As you grow and mature, like many young idealistic socialists, perhaps your views will mature as well.

Hmm? You think that because I am younger, my opinions are less viable? I know socialism has worked. Several times, even. The reason they failed was because of war. Being a small radical country against a large entrenched country is not good.

My views will adjust based on facts. For now, I cannot see suffering as good.

Well, that is the cornerstone of socialism. Unfortunately, in the long run, it does not work. People will only work hard so long when they are not rewarded for their labors. That is Socialism's failing.

In a libertarian society you only get what you labour for. You and your community could work together to get everyone good televisions, or stereos. But merely manipulating money to get richer? You haven't contributed to society at all in that manner.

And how pray tell does the government get what you need? It takes it from other people. You talk about the working poor not having a chance to accumulate wealth in a Capitalist country, but you do not realize how much more impossible that would be in a Socialist country with an oppressive tax burden.

Why does there need to be government? I said libertarian socialism, not mere socialism.

Really...you are young and idealistic, and while that is fine for now, one day you may have to grow up and live in the real world. When you do, you might realize that things don't just' happen'. Entrepreneurs and inventive people make them happen, and socialism is about taking those opportunities away from individuals for the 'benefit' of society. Never have I heard of a more idiotic and short sighted system.

To me, the capitalist system seems far more short-sighted, idiotic, and idealistic. You can attribute my beliefs to my age if you want, but then I am forced to attribute yours to your age-hardened cycicism.

 

[Druidus]

If you are offering Jesus' words to suggest that wealth is bad, then you have absolutely no understanding of this message.

IMHO, it's one of the most powerful and most misunderstood parables in the Bible. The camel like the rich man can get in, but he's got remove his earthly burdens and get on his knees(humble himself) to make it through.

You say it yourself. He's got to remove his earthly burdens and humble himself.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Hmm? You think that because I am younger, my opinions are less viable?..

Not less viable...just not as well-informed. You haven't had to live in the real world and work to earn your way yet, so your views are not as well rounded.

..I know socialism has worked. Several times, even. The reason they failed was because of war. Being a small radical country against a large entrenched country is not good...

Like you said, ultimately it failed.

...For now, I cannot see suffering as good...

I don't either. I just don't see Socialism as eradicating suffering.

...Why does there need to be government?...

LIke I said, thing do not just 'magically happen'. Your lack of government model may work in a small community of a few dozen people, just it just isn't realistic in a larger nation.

...To me, the capitalist system seems far more short-sighted, idiotic,...

Such a narrow-minded view that is based on little more than reading soclialist propaganda off the internet. Maybe you will grow up one day.

...You can attribute my beliefs to my age if you want, but then I am forced to attribute yours to your age-hardened cycicism.

:biglaugh: You crack me up! I assume you meant cynicism. If you gleaned that I am cynical, then you truly have no clue about economic systems or the worl in general.

Belief that a Capitalistic system is best requires a belief that people are good by nature and most often wish to do the right thing. Why else would I trust them instead of having government enslave them in some kind of command economy?

...You say it yourself. He's got to remove his earthly burdens and humble himself...

Right, that is what I said. If you can find in that passage where Jesus said that wealth is bad, I'll give you a cookie.

I leave you with this one question. If Socialism is so great, tell me why people were and still willing to risk their lives to leave countries like Cuba and the USSR? Capitalism, baby! It represents the best chance to better your life based on your own efforts.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There seems to be confusion here, first socialism is not communism,but can be corrupted by it.
secondly capitalism uncontrolled, is usually able to overpower weaker competitors.
Our criminal brethren have worked out how to control and corrupt both systems.

Terry

 

[Druidus]

There seems to be confusion here, first socialism is not communism,but can be corrupted by it.
secondly capitalism uncontrolled, is usually able to overpower weaker competitors.
Our criminal brethren have worked out how to control and corrupt both systems.

Indeed.

Not less viable...just not as well-informed. You haven't had to live in the real world and work to earn your way yet, so your views are not as well rounded.

Not as experienced, yes, I agree.

Like you said, ultimately it failed.

Not all of them did. The way they failed could be applied to any small country, capitalist or socialist.

I don't either. I just don't see Socialism as eradicating suffering.

And you see capitalism as eradicating suffering? I'm willing to admit that no economic system is perfect, but I merely think socialism is better.

Such a narrow-minded view that is based on little more than reading soclialist propaganda off the internet. Maybe you will grow up one day.

So when you say it, it's obviously intelligent debate, but if I say it, it's narrow-minded? Ok...

LIke I said, thing do not just 'magically happen'. Your lack of government model may work in a small community of a few dozen people, just it just isn't realistic in a larger nation.

Funny how it actually did work...

You crack me up! I assume you meant cynicism.

Ever heard of "typo"?

If you gleaned that I am cynical, then you truly have no clue about economic systems or the worl in general.

Either that, or I merely have a differing opinion. Far more likely, it is the latter.

Belief that a Capitalistic system is best requires a belief that people are good by nature and most often wish to do the right thing. Why else would I trust them instead of having government enslave them in some kind of command economy?

I said that to demonstrate a point. Certainly, from your post, I do not really see you as cynical. However, if you call me idealistic, and you believe what you just wrote, I must commend you. You far outshine me in idealism. I do believe that people often want and try to do the "right thing", but power, as they say, corrupts, and often, the right thing can be offset by personal profit. Besides this, who defines the "right thing"?

Right, that is what I said. If you can find in that passage where Jesus said that wealth is bad, I'll give you a cookie.

Oatmeal right? I don't want no crappy chocalate chip... I don't believe wealth is immoral. But wealth amongst poverty is immoral (if you do nothing or little to help).

I leave you with this one question. If Socialism is so great, tell me why people were and still willing to risk their lives to leave countries like Cuba and the USSR? Capitalism, baby! It represents the best chance to better your life based on your own efforts.

Those countries are not true socialisms. Communism and socialism are not synonyms. In these scenarios, the good of the people is not being looked out for.

 

[Loki]

It's a good poster.

Capitalism has its faults, and i think they should be explored. All too many people will just say "Capitalism is good, if you don't agree, that makes you a communist!" I'm no communist. To me, capitalism is quite a nifty little system which can get things done, but it's not without its faults.

 

[Yerda]

There will be poor people and slums no matter what economic system a nation adopts.My understanding is that communist nations have historically had greater divisions between the rich and the poor than we do.

I didn't know this. When the Soviet Union collapsed Russia quickly gained a few oil (robber) barons who developed wealth in the billions by selling (stolen) Russian oil. I think some were amongst the richest people on the planet. Interesting point though.

Anyway, concerning the topic, capitalism is good for many people. It is wonderful for a select few and unfortunately (and a result of that select few) disastrous for billions elsewhere. Free-market fundamentalism is something I would bet results in more deaths every year than the monotheists managed at their prime.

Socialism as practised previously is clearly not the answer though, and I cannot see anarchy as viable in our current situation. Neither do I propose a middle way, there is too much to risk from environmental destruction.

I like the market (as a socialist I'm not allowed to say that so keep schtum), I think it is a wonderful tool and resource. It's nice to be able to buy from the baker up the street because the rolls are softer or whatever.

But I see capitalism (in the extreme - as it is) as a threat to this and similar niceties. Supermarkets, for instance, while yabbering on about choice are in the business of removing it, mass media will talk freely til yours ears bleed but are in the business of stifling free speech, the drug companies have an unhealthy interest in disease etcetera.

For me, the only way forward, is not communal ownership of every business and its dog, but in strict (very strict) regulation of the powerful and vibrant promotion of the small businesses.

I personally believe the wealthy should subsidise the poor, that people should have services like health, education, transport, power, financed by general taxation (not to say private alternatives should not be available). I cannot justify the removal of a privately owned enterprise's right to exist, but I do contend the right to screw everyone else over in their own private interests be removed. Environmental restraints and strong civil liberties should be central to national and international policy.

For me, the only way to achieve this is a healthy and highly educated democracy, a world parliment, and democratic international institutions (UN, IMF, WTO). Capitalism is the biggest threat that I can percieve to this ideal.

 

[Crystallas]

I just think its wrong for someone that looks good to sing a song written by someone who will never get credit for it and then become filthy rich. I dont think its wrong for people to dedicate their life to a career and capitalize off that. How is that fair tho? Someone makes something to revolutionize life or they cure a disease... well they dont get what they deserve, but someone that can hit .300 for a career in baseball is given luxuries that a majority of people will never experience.
So what happens then? If someone does cure a disease... they definately arent going to make sure everyone gets cured(unless everyone can afford the outrageous price to pay for it or have good insurance.)
Then what happens when someone has to make a career change? Into a field where they can do better. Well they are either to old, or to late. Their life dreams go from being fufilled to living an empty life.

I don't really see how promoting greed can be the best choice for an economical standard. But I also think we can ballance capitalism and set people up for a safe level of success to suite their wants and needs. It needs change, but Im not in favor of drastic changes.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Well, let me start off by saying I like capitalism. Now I will critisize it a little.

I have a friend whos father passed away. This put their family scrambling to get money for funerals...etc. Now, my friend has to get a root canal because her gums are infected with something, it will cost her $1700, something her mom cannot afford. She appeal to Masshealth to get subsidized medical costs, and was denied. I was pissed, to say the least. I am 100% for the government helping people with medical costs. I don't believe in giving the homeless gigantic mansions and free things for the rest of their lives, I think we should help them, reasonably, and when they can, allow them to make payments to us in monthly increments.

That's all my friend needs, for Masshealth to pick up the tab...she would pay them maybe a hundred a month until it was done. Massachusetts loses nothing, and in the process, a girl's health is secured. I think subsidized healthcare and drugs are a great idea (being a loan, not free healthcare for everyone, but if someone is unable to pay back the loan, I think it's alright, it should be build in to the budget, we just need to get the damn liberals to stop pumping in money to the "big dig"). Of course, let private companies handle things differently, but offer a government subsidized health plan.

Rant over.

 

[Crystallas]

hmm, thats a great point. Capitalist Economy, Scialist Legal system... now if that would be possible
Of course I doubt that it is since the 2 rely on themselves so much.

 

[Sunstone]

In the old days, tribes and extended families took care of the less fortunate among them as best they could. That seems to be a natural human instinct. One of the problems with pure capitalism, or at least Spencerism, is that it denies this natural instinct to take care of the less fortunate, and substitutes for it an idealistic individualism and a doctrine of "survival of the fittest." But that's not how we evolved to work together as a community.

 

[Saw11_2000]

hmm, thats a great point. Capitalist Economy, Scialist Legal system... now if that would be possible
Of course I doubt that it is since the 2 rely on themselves so much.

Were you talking to me? Or was I being stoopidz again?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Really though, I believe in the saying: "From each, according to ability, to each, according to need."

It is inarguably a wonderful ideal; the question is whether or not it works in practice. Humans are greedy and lazy.....I just don't see people working their full ability if they are promised that their needs will be met anyway. I hate to sound materialistic, but I find the prospect of having my needs met--and no more--for the rest of my life no matter how hard I work or how talented I am to be very dismal.

 

[Crystallas]

Were you talking to me? Or was I being stoopidz again?

Sorry, yes to you, for some reason what you said made me think about having a capitalist economy and socialist legal system... strange enough it seems like a pretty good idea, and I cant think of why it wouldnt work after we worked out all of the bugs. This is just more fantasy than reality tho =/ Economy and Law go hand in hand... it would be pretty crazy to make laws based on potential, but enforce them with equality. That would open up some crazy loopholes, and it would be hard fill them since one side would have to dominate the other which may create even more loopholes. But as a Fantasy perfect world, I would love to have a capitalist economy with a socialist judicial system. Am I just tired? dunno, if so, ignore me..

 

[Druidus]

It is inarguably a wonderful ideal; the question is whether or not it works in practice. Humans are greedy and lazy.....I just don't see people working their full ability if they are promised that their needs will be met anyway. I hate to sound materialistic, but I find the prospect of having my needs met--and no more--for the rest of my life no matter how hard I work or how talented I am to be very dismal.

I'm not against personal possessions. I just think the needs of other people are more important than the wants of one. After the needs of others in your community are granted, sure, collect whatever personal possessions you want.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm not against personal possessions. I just think the needs of other people are more important than the wants of one. After the needs of others in your community are granted, sure, collect whatever personal possessions you want.

And just how would I go about attaining more personal possessions in a communist system? Would I simply ask for a raise? I've heard that many people in communist countries resorted to having lots of children in order to get better housing, etc.

At any rate, my point was that "From each, according to ability, to each, according to need" is impossible to achieve; there is no way to gaurantee that each citizen will work according to their ability, and since the citizens can expect zero rewards for hard work, no reason to expect them to do so. Without a productive populace, services become of lower quality and goods become more scarce, and it becomes more and more difficult for the government to provide for the needs of its citizens.

It seems to me that people in places like the U.S. and Britain are more productive and have their needs better met than people in places like the former Soviet Union or North Korea.