Topic: Why Socialism is the key - page 22. (Read 33165 times)

Who will enforce the laws?

Who will come to your house with guns if you don't pay your taxes, and shoot you if you resist?

People won't pay your taxes if you don't threaten to shoot them.

Government can only exist when elites have the authority to kill people and take their money.

The main question is whether you allow individuals to have their own power,
or whether you want to take power away from individuals
and give it to other individuals who call themselves "the group" or "the government".

You want to take power away from some people and give it to other people,
so your system will result in elites killing more people and taking more money.

Do you even read the OP? First thing it says is that socialism is now possible because WE NO LONGER NEED THE ELITE LEADERS!!!!

Again, you have the old fashion illusion of socialism. Socialism doesn't mean a majority has to bow in front of a few. With current technology the group can choses for itself. Each individual can have a direct voice, we don't need to go through elite individuals like now.
Where the fuck did you see that personal behaviour was not compatible with socialism?
Seems like you're strongly confused. I'm talking about socialism not pure and absolute equalism. The goal is not to give everyone exactly the same thing but to reduce inequalities through group control that's all. It doesn't mean personal behaviour shouldn't be encouraged and rewarded! It's not all black or white you know?

No again no no and no. You don't understand there is NO NEED for a "supreme leader" or whatever.
This is not democracy and this would lead only to the "elite" to rape the people! This is not what I want neither what I'm talking about!!!
I'm talking about the possibility to directly chose your laws and your rules by proposing and voting them.

Yes if country does not support their citizens then there is no need for existence of such. I think we must learn from those who have achieved some kind of equilibrium as Sweden did. US system where people starving on the streets is worst of it kind, and cannot be authoritative for further comparisons.

I live in sweden and i say here we have a good system the Wellfare  checks wont make you rich but it will make you get the minimum. So you still want to get a job. And free health care and free schools for me is a must have. If a country don't have it or any kind of safety net for their citizen they don't really care for them at all. And yes we have high taxes here but it's ok I guess, your not rant to get rich from your job anyway you do that with your spare time.sweden is a hybrid I guess with socialist views and capitalist views at the same time

I wonder how much of you ever had some experience
with socialism except in school books? I was born and raised in one such system
and i know what can happen after socialism.
Democracy has delivered by NATO with bombs  in "Merciful angel"  action!

...

Brazil: Has been trying Socialism for several years now, in their Socialist experiment (and their vanity to land the Olympics), their country is in a hard recession now.

Russia: While "nominally" not Socialist anymore, they indeed have State Capitalism and Crony Capitalism ruining their economy.

India: Been Socialist for decades (hence still very poor), they may be reforming their economy.

China: While until very recently showing fantastic growth, much of that has been powered by over-investment as well as Crony Capitalism.

South Africa: Trying Socialism with disasterous results...

^^^--- That takes care of the "BRICS"

VENEZUELA and Cuba are both being ground into the dirt economically.  Communism/Socialism too...

*   *   *

Poland has been growing nicely since the early 1990s (on the whole), they are getting close to W. European standards.  How?  Freedom (Capitalism).

Greece?  Socialist government for many years.

QED

Groups don't work overtime.
Groups don't invent anything.
Groups don't take personal risks in order to make important progress.
Groups don't care about my children as much as I do.

Groups can't exist without individuals,
so why should individuals submit to your idea of "group" control to tell them what they're allowed to do?

Socialism requires the majority of individuals to submit to the control of a few individuals.






That's a list of things invented by individuals.
Most of them were wealthy individuals who had the freedom to acquire as much money as they wanted,
and then they had the freedom to spend that money however they wanted on whatever they thought was important.
And that's how they invented those things, which wouldn't have been invented if you were in charge.







If groups aren't greedy, why do they vote for people who promise them free money?

And who is "the group"?  Everyone but me?

How can "the group" benefit by making every individual member of the group suffer?

Oh, that's right - what you mean is that it will always be best for the leaders of the group.

The things you're saying have been used to take away people's rights for over a hundred years.

Not only is everything you say wrong, it's also inherently evil.

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/emergencyeconomics.html

Central planning is supposed to prevent the free market's higher prices, shortages, and waiting in line.

But central planning cannot do anything without using higher prices, shortages, and/or waiting in line. 




The problem with the "government" running things is that no one is accountable.
There is no government.  There are only people with the power to decide what happens.
In a free market, the amount of money we have gives us power to decide what happens.
Government employees want to take our power and give it to themselves.

When people are allowed to provide goods and services without government interference,
they have to do a good job.  Otherwise they will lose money, lose their jobs, go out of business.
When a government employee controls goods and services,
and he doesn't do a good job, people suffer but that guy keeps his job.

In a free market, all of us are free to decide what happens with our money.
If something is too expensive, or if we don't need it, then we don't buy it.
But when we allow a government employee to tell us what we are allowed to buy,
that guy doesn't know or care what our needs are.  He just makes something up, and we have to do it.

A free market allows supply and demand to determine prices and the quality of goods and services.
Central planning means that no quality is too low,
and Florida gets shipped just as many snow shovels as Minnesota.  That's equality.

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.
Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).
Of course it needs for every individual of the group to be able to decide freely. Not by the indirect pseudo shitty democracy we have that are nothing but big fat oligarchies.

We have yet to experiment true democracy that's for sure.
And if you're asking what technological development France is responsible for, seems like you don't know enough about our country ^^
Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

Of course the system is not perfect.
But imagine communism/socialism (I prefer socialism but both may be disputed) or another Marxism solution with DIRECT DEMOCRACY!!!

That would be the solution! That would mean they couldn't steal us anymore, they'd have to obey the 99% finally!

Sigh... But in the hypothesis of a direct democracy, government IS the people as there is nothing between them! Peope directly vote laws and constitution and take decisions. So it's not "theft-by-government".

Like what exactly?

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is my all-time favorite book, and he was a die hard socialist and tried his damnedest to implement it in the US, but it was not to be.  I'm not saying capitalism is the best, but I don't think socialism is compatible with human nature, which contains elements of greed and altruism but in nowhere near equal proportions.

Only good system is that system who care for its people not only for profit!
Capitalism is worst of all, especially free trade, and free market!
He is good only for big capital and you can't succeed in this environment if you are small player.

Communism is real power but many times was misused by those in power.

Socialism is not solution because this is old fashion system and needs some workout,
 I believe we must find better solution.

In the end, tried and didn't work. It makes no sense to keep thinking that it's the key. All there is left is listening to Imagine and keep dreaming.

Socialism is good in the others country.

First of all, the expression "socialism" means that, people who work hard everyday and those who got money from their own effort will have to "finance" those who don't work and who take money or "social benefits" without making the same effort.

Theoretically it's a solidarity, because I have money and I'll "help" someone who don't have... but, what he gives in this situation? What I will win or take? Pratically it's "a poor sustaining another poor".

I worked for some money, and "he" don't. I work because I need money, it's not a matter of luxury. The vast majority (99.99%) work because they need. And they need each cent they are winning. So, I can't help other people, because I have debts to pay. But in the socialism, even if you got all of your sweaty money compromised by your debts, "fuc* you".

If somebody don't work because he or she don't want to work, because it's hard and wake up early it's not fun, I must pay for their medical treatment if he or she became sick. But they don't pay for my treatment if I became sick. This is not selfishness, this is fairness and unfairness.

First, if I gave money in your hand it would be less worse, but the money will end in the government hands. So why should I trust in the government?
Will "he" deliver exactly what is needed for those who need? What is the guarantee?

Why Latin America (the amusement park of socialism) has the higher migration rates in the world? And why countries like US or i.e Hong Kong, Cingapure, The Netherlands are very different in this point?

There are any socialist country where the "experience" was good? I can't remember...

Remember a phase of komrade Lenin: "The goal of socialism is communism".

If you think "modern socialism" from Frankfurt School is right, why Germany don't use this kind of "teaching" in their own country? Why the most developed countries aren't socialist and the must fu**ed up are? Want an example? take a look in the argentinian economy or the brasilian... Brasil has SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde), and it's one of the worse in the planet... want to see a picture of it:



Just write "sus brasil" on google images and you will see the classic socialist healthcare system.

It's easy to say "I live in a socilist country blablabla" and the true scenario and real life been "capitalist". I mean, analising it deeply, when you got socialism you're making a scheme like a Ponzi Scheme... taking money from one who don't have and give to another one who don't have either, but the administration is not in your hands, just in the "bank/state" hands...  it's the monopoly of power, the monopoly of means of production, the monopoly of education, etc. Do you wanna live a real "socialist" experience? Come to Latin America and you'll see.

I agree, we need to care more for people all over the world.
Everyone deserves a good home and health, But I also think borrowing money to do that is a bad thing!

But what is more wrong they spend so much money on war and weapons, we can use that money for way better things.

It is not the problem of socialism alone. Corruption is bane of any political system. Saying that in socialism corruption it is worse is usually untrue.
But seeing how socialists regimes of some countries are riddled with corruption is somewhat interesting. I have been reading about Venezuela recently.
Amount of problems caused by socialist government for this country created the biggest crisis in the history of this nation, coincidence?

Actually real key is: socialist touches (generally for social problems, income distribution etc.) under capitalist rule.
Just like scandinavia did.
Other than that, getting absolute power from riches and giving bureaucrats doesn't change a thing.
Because it corrupts absolutely.

Problem is when you don't have a chance to choose.
Many Arab countries choose to live on their own way of life and US had a self proclaimed task to bringing them a democracy.Why?
This is not called democracy expansion this is aggression, and every time we have disastrous aftermath.Why capitalism have tendency to outbreak, and every other system acknowledge only as opponents?
Now many European countries have problems caused by US-NAto bombs.