Topic: Is Socialism losing against Capitalism? - page 3. (Read 2047 times)

The fact that the only evidence anyone has used to support their claim that socialism is bad... is...

"A lot of socialist countries have failed"...

Simply shows... you don't have a clue what you are talking about...

1) You ignore the socialist countries that are doing well

2) You wrongly assume that the reason the country failed is "because of socialism"

This simply shows you have not bothered to research the details of the collapse of any country ever... It is never "because of socialism", and always because of corruption in some form or another...

Do some bloody research before spreading false propaganda

Pure, hard capitalism without social touch, without any influence of socialism is the worst thing. It's so called "wild capitalism" that we can see in former socialist and comunist countries in eastern Europe. The healthy mixture of these two is what we need.

Who is a Liberal?

Why do you label people you disagree with, "Liberal"?

Have I made any points that are even "liberal" oriented?

Do you understand the liberal position at all?

Do you understand any position besides your own?

I could see you calling me a socialist, but liberal?!?

I have no idea why I haven't ignored you yet.

Every time ANYONE makes a post you disagree with, you can't respond with any facts. You literally say do research because you don't understand it.

No, bud, you don't get it! I know you love Bernie and think his plan is great, but why don't you visit Venezuela? Yeah, go live there for even a month and then come back and tell me socialism is good.

Seriously, read the whole text, respond with some good arguments or shut the fuck up. I am right, and you cannot prove me wrong, that socialism has NEVER NOT ONCE worked. If you believe so, PROVE IT.

The amount of bigotry, hypocrisy and double standards that exists inside of you Liberals is baffling.

Are you still defending your stance of, "I'm not making ad-hominem attacks", by talking about me and only me... in a 4th consecutive post?

Are you daft?

Did you even bother to look up ad-hominem?

Here's a link for you... please read it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

PS. I don't troll forums all day... sorry... I don't show up whenever you cry wolf... that's not how this works

You have that backwards...

Capitalism ran the planet for 70 years... it's done... it's over... capitalism failed

China... China is the new world leader... and China is... ... ... Socialist!

Do some research... simply do a little research before talking about things you don't understand... you look stupid when you make false claims like this as your opening sentence

Something is not true simply because you believe it to be true...

Something is not true simply because you refuse to look at the facts

Something is not true simply because you ignore the evidence

You do not define reality... sorry, you are wrong

It wasn't the banks alone... the banks did not have the power to destroy the economy, until the repeal of Glass-Steagall!

The banks bribed congress to repeal the legislation which prevented them from destroying the economy...

This means that congress is at fault... our capitalist system failed us once again... and once again, due to bribery and corruption...

You might want to do a little research into the economic crash before pretending you know anything about it

Socialism is a FAILED system that has never proven to work, not once.

But first, yes there is a difference between socialism and communism, but they revolve around a general principle. That is, socialism is more focused on the reorganization of wealth throughout a nation. Taking more money from the wealthiest and giving it to smaller income earners through various government benefits in return for a slight (not really) tax increase is a socialist principle. Communism is more focused on the redistribution of ALL things. It believes everyone should have an equal amount of everything.

Of course, all these are paper definitions. We've seen each and every time these systems fail. They cause governments to run high deficits, creating hyper inflation. Take a look at Cuba, as an example. Not a single private business to be found and the government controls all. It is a disaster. Then take a glance at Venezuela. That is all radical left, communism.

Right now, America is a capitalist society with increasing socialist parts. Take healthcare. Obamacare, which is WAY more expensive than just paying insurance, is a socialist idea. A capitalist plan would be to allow us to pay for our own healthcare by using insurance. The price of insurance would be determined by the free market, as it should, not the government.

I understand places like Sweden and other countries haven't turned into places like Venezuela. But that's no excuse to say something like "Democratic Socialism" is less shitty than Socialism. They have VERY high taxes and if we're talking about healthcare, try getting in line waiting. You'll be sitting there for HOURS just to see a doctor.

I understand people don't like capitalism. I get it. It seems like it would be easy if you just take money from rich people and use it. But ask yourself. How are those people rich? They worked! And, if they're richer than you, harder than you! America, and any other capitalist society, is a country with great potential. You need to work hard to survive, and that's what makes the country thrive. Nothing is handed out on a gold platter. Yet people want that because they may be going through debt which they want to forget. It won't work!

Yes capitalism only benefits the wealthiest, but it provides an opportunity for ALL people to become apart of the wealthiest. You just have to work. Each and every time capitalism has been implemented, it's worked much better than socialism. Just work for your money and stop bitching. It's not that damn hard.

Socialism is all looser. But capitalist system also doesn't give people happiness

Socialism already lost and its capitalism's turn

I am assuming you are being facetious here, so let me enumerate what the alternative is. Under socialism and communism, you have less or no property rights, and as all other rights stem from property rights (at least in the USA), the removal of your property rights, no matter how small they may be, is a removal of all of your other rights. So, which is better, having no rights and being completely dependent on the state but MAYBE being provided for if the state can afford and manage it, or being independent and responsible for your own well being via work and maintaining your rights?

No. Capitalism loves you. Capitalism will let you work for whatever type of thing you desire. There's no way to fight capitalism when it's so unbelievably glamorized with all the lovely and talented famous rich people bragging about their big homes, their shiny cars, fabulous clothes and the great food they get to eat. Great loving capitalism allows you to work for your worth.

Please quote any alleged personal attacks. As far as I can tell you aren't providing any evidence yourself, you are just producing more rhetoric. Why don't you try debating me instead of arguing with those guys? I noticed you haven't bothered to respond to anything I have said. Are you afraid you can't hang?

Edit: He sure got quiet pretty fast didn't he?

I say this because it's true...

You are still going on and on about me, rather than the argument which I presented


The differences between the systems are minor, and no country is just one or the other, all countries are a mixture of socialism and capitalism

Furthermore, the countries which are better or worse have little to do with economic policy and everything to do with corruption

The problems tend to lie with individual people, rather than any problem inherent in either system of governance

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely


The downfall of EU has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with countries like Greece and religion...

The countries which do the best are the most secular (non-religious)... America just happens to be in that category... it's success has more to do with secularism than capitalism

He's trying to claim we're somehow 'personally' attacking him, this is a stupid and standard tactic people like him use to play the victim and derail the conversation because they don't like what's being said and being criticised. You can act like this all you want, I've studied these tricks the regressive left in particular like to use for awhile now, the best way to respond to this is to simply either walk away or just take the piss, because he's run out of arguments so now he's trying for emotional manipulation instead.

You are absolutely right The private central bank known as The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed the economy. You know who was a big proponent of central banks? Karl Marx. You don't even know the basis of your own ideologies.

P.S. That wasn't a personal attack, he pointed out your flawed arguments and lack of knowledge. Also I noticed you didn't even attempt to refute any evidence I brought forward in my first post. Are you afraid that I might actually know what I am talking about?

I am simply pointing out the differences between the two systems...

You are attacking me personally (ad-hominem) rather than attacking my argument

What's with the personal attacks?  Are you 12?

If you believe capitalism is better... bring some facts and evidence, not insults

Don't bother arguing with Moloch, he doesn't listen and only reads from very specific sources, thus his knowledge base is akin to swiss cheese.  He's still asserting mixed-economy nations are socialist even after I corrected him (and he only asserts this because he's parroting the aforementioned sources, not because he's actually given it any thought.)  He's also saying Sweden--that place where Muslims are literally overrunning the nation and breaking their welfare system--is doing "well", along with the rest of Europe.  Yeah, apparently Europe is doing well, according to Moloch and his very specific sources; bet you can't guess which ones *cough Forbes The Guardian Huffington Post CNN cough*.

I wouldn't say socialism is losing against capitalism exactly; socialism is self-defeating in the sense that, while capitalism allows us to build up prosperity rapidly, socialism allows us to burn prosperity rapidly (usually for ideological reasons like "feed and house the needy" and whatnot.)  Thus, socialism only ever follows capitalism and only works until there's nothing left to "burn", in which case you either collapse as a nation or go back to being capitalist.  In this sense, socialism always loses against capitalism, socialism is made possible only because of capitalism, and a socialist system which rejects its capitalist counterpart will inevitably fail as it always has and always will, in the same way that someone who spends more than they earn will inevitably go broke and, in the case of having nobody to help them, die.  In the sense that supporters of socialism are losing against supporters of capitalism, I think this was the general case up until recently, as far as the highest-functioning nations went.  It's mostly just the lower-intelligence people who don't like capitalism, because they know they can't compete; lower-intelligence people always prefer socialism in the presence of higher-intelligence people because it's perceived as an easy way to even the playing field: just steal from the higher-intelligence people.  What's in it for the higher-intelligence person to accept socialism?--ultimately they just lose.  There is a real incentive for this individual to reject socialism, just as there's a real incentive for the other individual to accept socialism: the socialist has something to gain, because the socialist is worse off in the presence of someone who is better off.

In other words, socialism prevails when you have a great disparity of intelligence, which can be translated as a great disparity of wealth since higher-intelligence people fare better in their careers.  In a nation where everyone's stupid, or in a nation where everyone's smart, socialism would be pointless because there's either nobody to steal ("redistribute") from (in the case where everyone's stupid) or there's no incentive to steal (in the case where everyone's smart.)  To say that socialism is losing against capitalism (as far as supporters of either go), is to say that there's a small or shrinking gap in intelligence differences.  In nations which low-intelligence people are flooding (e.g. much of Islam) in high-intelligence nations (e.g. much of Europe), socialism is ramping up (until the point that there's nothing left to pillage, which is happening soon for many countries.)

So in this sense, socialism has been winning as of late, particularly considering the west.  But as more and more high-intelligence people grow tired of these low-intelligence people, things are bound to swing in the other direction, or bound to head down the path of the Soviet Union and Cambodia etc.

You're attacking Capitalism purely to cover up Socialisms flaws and it's pretty obvious the more desperate you get about it.