Topic: Socialism is so bad that it allows poor people to live. Horrible true story - page 4. (Read 10346 times)

The result speak for itself and at the end of the day, they're what matters. People flee from socialist states to capitalist ones and not the other way around. No one can convince me to move from my shithole to Havana, nah nah nah.

you are wrong national socialism means a socialism based on a nation
there is also tribal socialism, religious socialism corporate socialism etc.

I don't even know how to respond to that broken argument.... other than to correct you again:

national socialism is literally defined as "the polotical doctrine of the nazi party of germany"... which has been gone for some time now.... which I have already pointed out.

Again,  I will repeat:  check your facts bud.... I said it to you initially because you are making completely incorrect/illogical statements.

You do not know how to discuss things if you do not know the basic definitions of what you are speaking about.  You replies are clearly indicative of that.

national socialism means there is a banking cartel that runs an agenda.

even if its a "democratic" national socialism its still somehow like that. nation states have to run a socialism or they wont have support.

Germany has been a republic for some time....  Check your facts before you vomit them everywhere please.

gold standard is worthless junk, germany is on the national socialism standard

I have had more bad than good come from socialism in my life.

what do you mean people don't mention problems that arise with capitalism?   The numerous stock market crashes, the homeless problem, the increased spreading of things like STD's, etc are heavily talked about in this day and age.


Speaking of "socialist" Germany earlier;  also didn't even brush on the fact that they haven't been a socialist nation for some time.... and they still declined.    Some can say its because of capitalism (using short thinking, I can understand how they come to this position) Germany had its steady downfall, but nobody stops to think that its a real possibility the mindset of the people and application of their government with socialist agendas and programs have caused things to follow that path?


Listen;   You can all try and argue until you are blue in the face on how one is greater than the other.



I have been on both sides of the coin;  had both systems effect my life in a serious way.


I chose capitalism.   I have a better chance, especially because if I work hard, I can earn that batter chance.  Being limited;  takes away that chance at a better life.


And "Better life" is subjective.    
For one person it could be something as simple as having running water in your house.
For some others, it's could be ability to pass the blame to someone else and continue being ignorant by simply enjoying what has been handed to you.

This statement pretty much sums up the mentality of Socialists and Communists. It is not really about improving the quality of life for themselves or others, it is about coveting what others have and wanting to take it from them to create some sort of perverted sense of "equality" where everyone is equally impoverished and enslaved. This is why Socialism and Communism are inherently totalitarian, because they can not exist without taking from people what they have, earned or received by chance of birth.

You talk about a paper not being comprehensive enough but the rest of this post and this entire thread are complete anecdotes.  You conclude that your perceived experience of socialism is what socialism is and that a failed economy like Venezuela is somehow proof that socialism does not work.  Despite the obvious fact that a privileged person in capitalism will be personally better off than they would in socialism without their privilege.

The paper is somehow not comprehensive enough in showing that socialism produced better outcomes 93% of the time but somehow a few pictures and mentions of Venezuela is. 

People mention famines and economic crashes but never mention any that occurred under capitalism.  The problem you guys have with the paper is that it provides a side-by-side apples to apples comparison and you are interested in only focusing on bad things that have happened under alleged socialism.

There's obvious historical reasons why germany is not on the gold standard.......  and in the ~50+ years of their currency before adopting the euro; its value diminished by over 70%.   
Stable;  yea;  but stably on a downward trend... I don't consider that strong.  More of predictable and reliable.

thats not true, societies can have successful economies, because they dont have a gold standard, like for example germany, it is a ressource poor country and would have the strongest currency in europe and ressource rich countries cant have strong currencies.

I 100% agree.

One of the major issues I have is the fact we are not on any sort of "standard" when it comes to the value of "money".   You are literally cherishing "money" thinking that it is not worthless; simply based on the fact that you are told it is not and believe it.   This thinking is perpetuated through society; making it harder and harder to correct as time goes on.  

Lack of a "gold standard" or something of the like;  is the single biggest problem with the capitalist system of today that I can think of... aside from the fractional reserve system....

ok then do capitalism, but dont create a currency realm, and enforce it upon others, and block others from spending a different currency there.

liberty and capitalism are also going to split as will be democracy and capitalism.

Yes, You cite a paper that knitpicks certain aspects forgoing the rest of the data and historical facts that show otherwise in many other respects beyond those few.  The aspects that arise from the systems of each are vast and complicated;  and you have to be ignorant to believe that all of them can be referenced and compared at once like that.

I have lived in, and had my life effected by both systems.

I chose capitalism because I have seen its effect in my life and others is greater and better than socialism.   Your bashing of me for retaining this principal based on my real life experiences,  changes nothing.

You say things are bought and not earned.

In Venezuela;  their food is bought just like ours.... except somehow our shelves are stocked.   Your short-sided analogies are extremely flawed.


I don't blame socialism alone for the downfall of socialist societies (as you imply);  I use it in evidence of commonalities across history to make my judgments;  on top of what I have been through first-hand.




It's kind of a double-edge sword of a analytical approach though....  because most people who truly believe in socialism to their core;  say one socialist society/scheme or the other does't "have it right" or  "isn't as it should be".....  

IMHO;  no singular perspective  will ever have it "right";  there is no equality when individual opinions are vast and unique.

Yep, you cant argue with results.

Haven't see one single valid point.

Seems like no one can argue with results.

The most ideal situation is to at least have a base floor of life for people.  Let people continue to make large amounts of wealth but I still believe the basics of life should not be in the free market.  Healthcare, shelter, education, food, these things become a nightmare when only left to the free market.

Its not right for someone to own 20 houses and let them all sit vacant, that is a major flaw in the system.

Why would companies cure illness when they can make more profit by treating the symptoms?

look at usa, without socialism you cant keep a society together,

and look at crypto without trusted socialism they cant even run a currency, why else are they begging for regulation?

they want to fool money earning cattle.

regards