Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
It's wonderful. We get to flash our Monopoly cash when we're playing the game.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Problem With Socialism
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Oh. You guys got the rejected commies, then?
We got the old guard.Oh. You guys got the rejected commies, then?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
I know you meant to say 'crony capitalist country,' right?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Yep, which is why blind capitalism is a huge mistake. It must be tempered with a degree of socialism.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
It's when the government gives billions in subsidies to oil companies or airlines, that's corporate socialism. It's when a city gives a corporation a deal where they don't have to pay the same property taxes as everyone else so they'll build a new factory. Every time a city passes a bond to fund a new stadium for the local football franchise, that's corporate socialism. When congress spends billions on new tanks that the military says they don't need, that's corporate socialism.
Apart from the Queen there isn't enough wealth in England to tax enough to create a functioning society. Once they started losing poor nations to exploit their wealth evaporated, and then what? When your society has little money to transfer amongst themselves their will be no economic growth.
To which I say fiddle faddle.
Yeah. Damn mistyping fingers
Ahh yeah. I sort of thought so. But I just wanted to be sure
And yet socialism has resulted in the biggest famine in history.
Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia
They even beat out the Soviet famine of 1932-33.
kaninchen
Member
While Mao's famine was the largest in absolute terms, others have been proportionally higher - the Irish Famine killed off many more in percentage terms.
It has been said that it is quite normal to be left-wing when young but eventually any right-thinking (or just thinking) person would eventually change to the other side when older and more experienced. Not so here, given that I have always been more towards the left than right, and I only have to occasionally look at those who tend to be right-wing to keep me on track.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I love Margaret. So to the point
To which I say fiddle faddle.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Fiat economy. Gotta love it.But if you run out of money just print more money!
Famines can happen in any economy. But some
are created by the government, eg, the Soviet famine,
The Chinese famine cited, The Iranian famine (by the
Brits), N Korean famine.
So the claim that socialism is about more "men"
getting to eat is not borne out by history. It's
record is worse than capitalism.
As has oft been said...
The 4 problems of Soviet agriculture are
spring, summer, fall, & winter.
I don't deny that famines happened under socialism, but you can't say that their record is worse than capitalism. That would be a false statement.
List of famines - Wikipedia
According to this, there were at least 7 capitalist famines which were worse than the socialist famine you linked.
The difference.
Famines can happen under any system, including capitalism.
Socialism directly causes famines. And it still holds the
world's record for death.
What can beat the private farmer, who has the most interest
in the land they know best? Certainly not a collective that's
controlled by a remote central government with the power
to actually deny people food.
Wrongo pongo. Remember this post a while back: The answer is a communist party | Page 7 | Religious Forums
Capitalist death count nearly five times higher than communists. Read it and weep.
I never said that Communists were innocent, but if you're going to make claims about who is worse or who holds the world's record for death, at least look at the world's facts first.
Actually, in many ways, I agree that the Soviet Union made some bad mistakes when it came to agriculture. They should have been more pragmatic about it, but they seemed to go on some kind of vendetta against the kulaks. The kulaks didn't want to give up their produce at state prices, so they ate everything they could and disposed of the rest - just to keep it from falling into state hands. That's how the famine happened. It wasn't that the government intentionally caused it, but their policies led to the self-destructive reaction by the kulaks. They even ate their seed grain.
But apart from that (which was more of an exceptional post-revolutionary event, not the norm), the main problem with Soviet agriculture wasn't that they couldn't produce enough food. They certainly knew how to plant seeds in the ground and make stuff grow. The harvests were usually good. The problem was more related to the transportation system. Typically, a third of their yearly harvest was wasted while sitting in warehouses awaiting transport.
It was also discovered that the farmers were putting far more effort into their own personal plots, which they were allowed to have and grow whatever they wanted. They were allowed to sell it and keep the money. While it was only a small percentage of land, it accounted for a third of Soviet food production.
I think a socialist government could probably more amenable to the needs of family farmers. They could be free to have their farms, grow whatever they want, and profit from the fruits of their labor. In a socialist society, I would see the state's role as protecting their interests and keeping the bankers and corporations off the farmers' backs.
