I really don't like the socialist economic system where people think that people should cooperate with each other, this creates competition
between humans is reduced. This will make people less creative and cause a decrease in the number of entrepreneurs. It is very different
from the capitalist system which can have the impact of increasing innovation and can improve the quality of the human. And the most
dangerous part of the socialist system is if it has a bad leader, because the role of the state is too big, there can be abuse of power.
Topic: Socialist life - page 2. (Read 1006 times)
The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.
Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.
Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.
I would not say that capitalism has failed. It functions as much as capitalism has to function. Many people only see that it does not work properly because they do not benefit from it. When you see what progress is happening in human civilization (research and development), capitalism is definitely the better alternative to socialism/communism (or name me an existing or past socialist country that has brought progress for humanity in the long run).
I do not understand your reference to religion. Both are first and foremost economic forms, in a graded form also ideologies, but certainly not religions.
The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.
Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.
Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.
I would not say that capitalism has failed. It functions as much as capitalism has to function. Many people only see that it does not work properly because they do not benefit from it. When you see what progress is happening in human civilization (research and development), capitalism is definitely the better alternative to socialism/communism (or name me an existing or past socialist country that has brought progress for humanity in the long run).
I do not understand your reference to religion. Both are first and foremost economic forms, in a graded form also ideologies, but certainly not religions.
However if you look at socialism in these small countries everyone lists, like Cuba or Venezuela ..., they were still "better", ... but they are missing the fact that even before revolution they were worse, ...
You make a good point about socialism vs. dictatorship.
As for Cuba and Venezuela, you are mistaken. Both of these countries had higher standards of living than the other Latin American countries before they turned socialist, and now they are struggling.
... if we could change one or several aspects of human nature then socialism could work, but the point is that we can't ...
The re-education camps in China and in Vietnam after the war, and the Soviet labor camps of Lenin and Stalin all demonstrate the terrible outcome of that socialist myth.
It is still commendable if the Government will just reach out for help to the community especially those smaller businesses so everyone will be given a chance to grow and be successfull in each endeavour, rather than advocates collectivism for their own good. I believe that if we help each other, the whole economy will grow fast and its a great pride of a certain Country.
I have you to understand that I believe that whatever kind of economic system in place in the country or world in general, we are still going to realize people with be equal in economic status. Some will have more than others and the reason is strength is not same, bonuses will come in different kinds of work we do. And even government give loan, some will squander theirs while others will be able to grow theirs. We can only practice the one better for the people well being.
This is literally what people are missing out when they are talking about socialist countries and that is the funny part.
When people talk about socialism they are not talking about authoritarian socialism, if there is a dictator at the helm that doesn't mean that it is something ANYONE can agree on, who could say having one strong dictator ruling all of the nation could be good? Right, left, socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, doesn't matter what you believe in, if there is one person leading it all the time that is not acceptable at all.
However if you look at socialism in these small countries everyone lists, like Cuba or Venezuela even though they did had those type of rulers at times, they were still "better", obviously they compare it to European or american great nations and say look how people are poor but they are missing the fact that even before revolution they were worse, things are not all sunshine and rainbows now neither but at least they are doing better than how they were, which means improvement.
When people talk about socialism they are not talking about authoritarian socialism, if there is a dictator at the helm that doesn't mean that it is something ANYONE can agree on, who could say having one strong dictator ruling all of the nation could be good? Right, left, socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, doesn't matter what you believe in, if there is one person leading it all the time that is not acceptable at all.
However if you look at socialism in these small countries everyone lists, like Cuba or Venezuela even though they did had those type of rulers at times, they were still "better", obviously they compare it to European or american great nations and say look how people are poor but they are missing the fact that even before revolution they were worse, things are not all sunshine and rainbows now neither but at least they are doing better than how they were, which means improvement.
I don't see any sign that we are going to be a socialists world. First and foremost, the world is composed of many different countries, with different beliefs, culture and behaviour. Its not easy to comprehend the kind of economy growth in each country, others may based upon economic and political theories, but some are definitely not.
It is still commendable if the Government will just reach out for help to the community especially those smaller businesses so everyone will be given a chance to grow and be successfull in each endeavour, rather than advocates collectivism for their own good. I believe that if we help each other, the whole economy will grow fast and its a great pride of a certain Country.
It is still commendable if the Government will just reach out for help to the community especially those smaller businesses so everyone will be given a chance to grow and be successfull in each endeavour, rather than advocates collectivism for their own good. I believe that if we help each other, the whole economy will grow fast and its a great pride of a certain Country.
Democratic socialists may draw closer to equality, but they do not make economies of society equal. Here I am not in favour of capitalism. it's just that, I assume that equality will be achieved if society adheres to egalitarianism and mutualism. I mean is. The breakdown of hierarchies and entire institutions will give birth to a classless society. and I think that is true equality.
I'm in favour of equality of opportunity, where everyone gets the same chance to succeed. I also think that the rampant inequality of outcome that we have in modern societies needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and certain well-worn progress paths need to be removed (e.g., in the UK: Eton->Oxbridge->Conservative government).
But at the same time, I don't think absolute enforced equality of outcome is desirable. We need to permit a certain level of inequality in order to give people something to strive for, so that those who try harder or who have more talent are better rewarded... otherwise I think society stagnates. It's all a matter of keeping that permitted inequality to a reasonable level, and ensuring that inequality is based on merit rather than circumstance or an accident of birth.
Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks?
I think that people worry that they would end up paying for those that do nothing because that is the result of communism and communism is a form of socialism.Isn't that what is already happening? I just watched the Fed print $3 trillion+ to bail out corporations and their shareholders. The US government is planning to borrow $3 trillion this year, most of which is being spent to bail out out the unemployed (literally paying them more than they got at their job to do nothing), homeowners who no longer had to make housing payments without any effect on their mortgage or credit, and unprofitable companies and their workers who were gifted forgivable loans for keeping people on the payroll.
In my book, that means taxpayers and savers like me who are paying to bail out greedy corporations and the people who work(ed) for them, who have spent months this year collecting checks for doing nothing.
Some form of actual socialism (and by that I don't mean to imply Marxism-Leninism) seems preferable to this system where bailing out corporations and the investor / homeowner classes is paramount. In this system, money is taken through taxation and inflation and gifted to those who already have it. It's the worst of both worlds: an absolutely unfree market, but also an inequitable society.
The problem with socialistic ideas that people who should be in charge of these type of stuff usually make it their own mission to get richer than everyone else, human greed just doesn't allow the ideas to work, there is no problem with the concept itself, the problem is with the execution and that is what most of the right people go against and I do understand their point.
If you look at Russia for example, they were Soviet Union for a while and in 91 the day after they became a non-communist regime there were plenty of billionaires, how did those people became so rich so quickly? Because even at the point when everyone should have been equals, they were richer and didn't follow their own rules. So yeah, as an idea socialism is the best one there is to me, but execution should be done with people who are not greedy at all.
If you look at Russia for example, they were Soviet Union for a while and in 91 the day after they became a non-communist regime there were plenty of billionaires, how did those people became so rich so quickly? Because even at the point when everyone should have been equals, they were richer and didn't follow their own rules. So yeah, as an idea socialism is the best one there is to me, but execution should be done with people who are not greedy at all.
The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.
Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.
Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.
Venezuela in their heyday
the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.
Yes, all of these countries had a leadership that was entrenched and unaccountable. They serve as examples of how communism does not work in practice, and why democracy is so important. But it doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are bad, and that utterly unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the holy grail.
It's not black and white, it's not either/or. There are degrees of socialism. A democratic socialism may be the best approach to create greater equality of opportunity and reduce corruption at the top.
The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.
Harvard costs a lot of money because it is not subsidized by any government. The money to run it has to come from somewhere.
The money comes from returns on existing wealth. The system is set up so that the rich get richer. The richer you are, the greater the benefit.
Quote
Income from wealth is probably even more concentrated than wealth itself because, as Piketty notes, large blocks of wealth tend to earn a higher return than small ones. Some of this advantage comes from economies of scale, but more may come from the fact that very big investors have access to a wider range of investment opportunities than smaller investors.
https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewedThe current system is unfair because it rewards the already-rich disproportionately to any talent or effort. A wealth tax might be the answer to reducing inequality.
Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks?
I think that people worry that they would end up paying for those that do nothing because that is the result of communism and communism is a form of socialism.
Socialism is when you get healthcare for free, you get cops for free, you get firefighters for free, why not get doctors for free? Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, ...
A socialist country controls a lot more than just the healthcare, police, and fire. A socialist country owns all of the capital and means of production. In other words, the country owns all of the land, all of the natural resources, and all of the businesses. It has nothing to do with student debt, though since the country owns all of the universities, it could make them free to everyone.
Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, why is community college or state college is almost free but Harvard isn't?
I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it?
I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it?
Harvard costs a lot of money because it is not subsidized by any government. The money to run it has to come from somewhere. Also, Harvard is bad example for your point. According to Harvard, 20% of the people that go there pay nothing, and Harvard does not admit based on wealth or income. Read this: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability
Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks? Socialism is when you get healthcare for free, you get cops for free, you get firefighters for free, why not get doctors for free? Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, why is community college or state college is almost free but Harvard isn't?
I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it? Basically socialism is not giving away free stuff, it is giving away stuff to people who deserve it, a huge difference.
I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it? Basically socialism is not giving away free stuff, it is giving away stuff to people who deserve it, a huge difference.
The way I see it is that everyone will be contributing, and not 50% working and feeding the remaining 50%, that won’t work. Seriously, human beings will never do that, if 50% are asked to work and feed the other 50%, they would be like ‘why should I be working and feeding other people why they are relaxing and doing nothing?’, even you yourself would have the same reaction.
Nobody wants to be working while the other people are doing nothing, it will be seen as cheating. Apart from that, I think this kind of life will be very difficult to work out, people will still prefer the current system of them getting paid for their work.
Nobody wants to be working while the other people are doing nothing, it will be seen as cheating. Apart from that, I think this kind of life will be very difficult to work out, people will still prefer the current system of them getting paid for their work.
Venezuela in their heyday
the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.
Yes, all of these countries had a leadership that was entrenched and unaccountable. They serve as examples of how communism does not work in practice, and why democracy is so important. But it doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are bad, and that utterly unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the holy grail.
It's not black and white, it's not either/or. There are degrees of socialism. A democratic socialism may be the best approach to create greater equality of opportunity and reduce corruption at the top.
A socialist regime is an oppression in the name of social. The socialist state has failed and even bring about slavery, poverty and totalitarianism. Communities living in socialist countries, such as the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.
Jump to: