Topic: Socialist life - page 3. (Read 1005 times)

As in terms of economics, and trying to avoid tying in this reply in to politics, because this is not the political section but I would agree that a 50/50 split between so called "socialism" and "conservatism" or some sort of a mix between to the two makes for a good balance.  Going too far either which way provides more economic issues than not.  Look at all the economies around the world, if it were proven that one way or the other would result in a better stronger economy, everyone would do it..but that's simply not the case.  Plain and simple. I think as in everything in life, a good balance is key.

That's what we can see on the surface. Perhaps it is even more interesting to ask "Who governs the government?" than "Who governs the private sector?" Because I am almost sure that at the top of the food chain are the untouchable elites who not only own the large corporations which are somehow acting as the backbone of a country's economy but also the government itself.

When a government implements this and that, bans this and that, and so on and so forth, the primordial consideration will always be the preference of these elites.

When a government appears strongly decisive to go against a certain company, don't expect that it is acting alone in the name of its being a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It is probably acting on behalf of a much bigger fish.

Socialist is an always do better economic and political system based on public ownership  Its include all machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. The main purpose of the socialist is to help others.

Currently the U.S. is too distopian with its wealth inequality. The less fortunate, those born with disabilities or in an impoverished or torn apart family have very little chance to rise out of poverty and live a comfortable life. Basic amends like water are too expensive and even that alone can put someone in debt. Property taxes put a burden on poorer families even if they have zero income in most cases. Health care and medical expenses are the worst in the whole world. And moreover, the only credit line poor people can have is predatory loans. The U.S. has huge wealth inequality, with a lot of money accumulation at the very top, while big parts of the population suffer from a housing and health crisis.

Now even republican leaders are starting to notice the need for welfare. Past the failure of Trump's "corporate welfare" measures, even he himself enacted regulations on that spectrum, allowing the national debt to go way up. U.S. too, one of the last bastions among countries actively avoiding social policies, is also going down the one way road of socialized programs. Even they are realizing that this is the only way to level the playing field and help the vast majority of the population benefit.

Yes, this might be true to some extent, but who governs the private sector? We have seen how governments dictated specific trade and import agreements between countries, during the trade wars between the USA and China. (The two most powerful economies in the world)

We have also seen how sanctions was enforced on countries that was hostile towards the USA and China and how the government stopped the import and export of specific goods and items. (Example : Huawei routers & mobile phones)

In a FREE market, government should not force specific political agendas on private business. (trade restrictions)

Also, a very large percentage of the world is unemployed ...so the majority of the tax income is going toward social grants and the middle class (also a large percentage of the employed workers) are footing the bill for that. (This is also a kind of socialist design) 

Yes, exactly that. History suggests that real communism can't be implemented in real life, because it is too easy to corrupt.

Also, I wouldn't describe 'real' communism as a utopia. Forced absolute equality sounds extremely dull, and doesn't reward effort or talent. People would have nothing to strive for, and no incentive to try. I'm not sure what utopia might look like, but the best form of society that I can see ('best' in a moral sense) out of those that exist at the moment (and have existed previously) would be a left-leaning democracy where the excesses of capitalism are kept in check, and where there is true equality of opportunity irrespective of whether or not you are born rich. A capitalism that is carefully controlled rather than laissez faire.

I don't understand what you mean by 50%. For socialism, I don't think is about the 50/50 thing. The government regulate the economy indices and does the production mostly to ensure there is a set roles for all.

This is exactly what all socialists/communists have been saying after communism failed-"The communism in USSR wasn't the REAL communism"   Then what is the real communism?Is it come fantasy/utopia that can't be implemented in real life?There's no fair distribution of resources.Nothing is "fair" in our life.
The ideal communist utopian society looks something like "everything is owned by everyone,all the people are equal and there's no government,no rich elite and no poverty" .Sounds too good to be true.
This nonsense can't exist in the real world.
Anyway,I guess that OP is joking about the "50/50" socialism.That's not how socialism works.

Yes. The reason that capitalism triumphed over "communism" in the late 20th century is simply that capitalism is (slightly) less easy to exploit. I use inverted commas because "communism" as practised in the USSR was not real communism. From the other side, it is supposed that most of us live in "capitalist democracies", which is clearly an oxymoron. Capitalist systems are plutocratic, not democratic. There is less corruption in capitalist countries, but this is merely a difference of degree - the corruption is still huge.

The truth really is that both capitalism and our experience of communism are anti-democratic. The closest we have to real democracies are the capitalist countries that are run by left-leaning parties. Perhaps this is the best and most egalitarian compromise that we can achieve.

The ability of the government to carry out corrupt practices is not an indicator of socialism.
Using my country as a case study; social amenities such as electricity, tourism/hospitality has been privatized, with major sellouts still happening in various sectors indicating a shift from socialism. Corruption however is still widespread as they still have influence over financial structures like; budget allocation, contract awarding etc, so corrupt gov'ts can still effectively embezzle public funds.

Well let's look again at what you wrote here!

1) I, too, understand that propaganda. If there were "not so many taxes", then where did all this "free medicine" or "free education"come from? Now you pay for them out of your own pocket and are free to choose the level of services you need. At the socialism time you paid before you saw your money (indirect taxes hello) and you had no choice in the service
2. so hundreds of thousands of people living on benefits are not parasites? Or do you propose to introduce criminal terms/forced employment of those who do not want to work?
3. Social Elevator under socialism-a good attempt! I know very well the lists for the best University in a already non-existent country where there was a prestigious education. The vast majority are children of people from the government, while all the rest studied in their" common " universities. A normal Elevator, I'm sure.

By experiment I mean that they tried to build socialism but the attempts were as unsuccessful as possible and led to very bad consequences.

What prevents you from earning your capital? Personally Bezos who takes your salary?

Yes, all power to people and councils! All the land to the peasants, and the factories to the workers. Slogans are good, but they are just slogans.

Again, no. Socialism is a legendary "non-functioning democracy" because if we assume (as it should be) that under socialism we must take into account the needs of everyone, then just imagine this bureaucratic machine that eats up tens of tons of paper and ink a year just so that the whole structure would somehow function. How will the market work under socialism? What to do with those who are more successful than others? What to do with those who don't want to work? What about the outflow of successful people who will (quite reasonably) run away from such a device?

Even what we can call socialism now, in our 2021 year, arouses dislike rather than any interest. There are too many different "buts" and too few adequate answers and working solutions other than the words "let us try again, the plane also did not take off in the first time".

World is going this, world is going that... mind providing some Proof? and please dont say you are drunk or on weed.

It might be easy to think like that, but every one has to work to keep a country running. Every person is a cog in a large chain and though we tend to have a narrow vision of ourselves there are many others doing different roles in different positions and nobody is inferior to anybody. Just that we dont care to give the importance to others.

So what you say, is a part of your own delusion. Half of the population of any country is not sleeping, they have different work to do.

This is what is happening in most of the countries around the world.

Governments have full control when it comes to manipulation in the economy that's why most of the politicians are suddenly becomes rich due to corruption. They are uncontrollably abusing their power due to this socialism that they are saying. They can't handle the temptation to steal the money from the people, they are just using it in the wrong way that's why economic crisis is still there and they are having a hard time to eliminate it.

Citizens are suffering, especially those poor people who are just relying on the government's support but still the economy are really affected by mishandling of budget.

How exactly is the world going socialist? Are you saying this because of the lockdown? You do know for sure that if you don’t work you’re not going to get any food on your table right? So don’t think that the world is going socialist because you’re sitting at home due to Covid-19, better to find something. And by the way I can’t even imagine that happening, where 50% will sit at home doing nothing and the others are out there working for them to feed.

What makes you think that such thing will ever happen? The way it is nobody is ready to do that, the world will prefer that there is no food for people who don’t work. If we should socialist like you said, trust me, nobody will agree to work while another is at home chilling and doing nothing. The reason why people are working is because they have a target and that target is income.

Common wealth is a lie spread by socialists and communists. It was always about reposession of goods and control over the masses.
The most basic thing in socialism and communism, the concept of equality, cannot work, as people are not born equal and through their lives prove to different from each other. Comunism doesn't even try to treat them equally, it treats the working class, people who produce material goods, better than the rest. Socialism is an unsustainable system that will never work.

Socialism can only be perfect if each human being does not live only for himself, but lives for the needs of the common society. In a socialist system, the people should have a direct voice in matters related to the state and the livelihoods of many people, what is currently happening is democratic socialism. Socialism will be perfect if it is bound by moral and religious values. The true basis of the socialist society is egality and brotherhood. Socialism was originally a communist philosophy that was based on the unity and integrity of society as a community in which socialism entered the economic realm so that it had a political-economic foundation. With the aim that the country's wealth could be enjoyed by the majority of the people, especially the peasants and poor workers - a movement to erode the various political, social, and economic impacts caused by colonialism and imperialism.

Socialism has a weak resistance compared to capitalism even though its basic ideas are equality and brotherhood because socialism is rigid and not flexible to the changes demanded by history.

Full on socialism has never worked and there’s no reason to expect that to change in the future. It requires suppressing with force a market’s natural tendencies and is therefore inherently violent. Countries with a mostly market system and strong social programs (free healthcare and education) have worked well and are probably as close to socialism as you want to get. But it’s not socialism per se.

In theory, based on public benefits, socialism has the greatest goal of common wealth; Since the government controls almost all of society's functions, it can make better use of resources, labors and lands; Socialism reduces disparity in wealth, not only in different areas, but also in all societal ranks and classes.

The Soviet Union remained invincible because it overthrew the capitalist system established the socialist system and overthrew the dictatorship of the exploiting class and established the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this country, the social productive forces have developed at a rapid pace which the capitalist countries have not been able to reach. This country truly practices proletarian internationalism is a real opponent of national oppression and helps the oppressed countries to be free. Such a country is enthusiastically supported by all the people of the country and the people of all the countries of the world.

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.