Are you a dirty red Marxist? Or do you apply to the theories of Herbert Spencer and his Social Darwinism crap? A comprimise?
I’m writing a paper on Socialism, and I’d like to get some of your uneducated… cough choke cough I mean sophisticated and intellectual opinions on the whole issue. Oh yah, and answer the poll you dirty communist bastard.
I’ll have you know funnyman that some of us are more educated than your high school teachers. Some of us, like myself, have Masters. Some JD’s, Ph.d’s and MD’s. And the one’s with no former higher education have a lifetime of knowledge. So I definitely think you will get “sophisticated and intellectual opinions” as oppose to “uneducated” ones.
I know that the population of readers/posters that dwell here in CF are all on average extremely knowledgable, Real Deal, I’m just trying to be light-hearted. Didn’t mean to offend you 
I have changed over the years from a very capitalist view to a much more centre one… I blame my social worker wife for that 
.
A lot of things are fine in theory but simply don’t work in the real world.
John C-S, I think your right, although I am not overly knowledgable on anyhing???, I must say that I think the theory of Socialism is a good one, everyone is equal but unfortunatley the countries that tried this method proved that it does not work all that well, too much corruption…after looking at a little of Marxist works I think some of his theory’s are cool but I do not think it could work…as for Capitalism, I do not know, it seems to me like 2 extremes ( kind of?) Where you have a decent amount of comfort and cash flow or you don’t…good if your on the one side, bad if your on the lower end side??? I will have to read more on these topics to fully defend my views, and or change them!!! Good post though!!!
I encourage you to read the Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Both deal quite a bit with socialistic and capitalistic characters. Socialism is nothing but a form of slavery.
People become dependent on it when they are in a poor situation (regardless of whether they brought it upon themself or not) and it forces those who strive for something and work hard and the like to give up some of their own property and in turn, freedom. Socialism is the anticlimax to progress. I don’t see what social darwinism has to do with capitalism. Free people freely make agreements, based on each’s own interest. This makes both sides happy. Socialism forces agreements on men and makes none truely happy with themselves (you’re either dependent, or being robbed). Social darwinism is often based on conclusions that have no reason, which goes against the capitalistic system. I would agree though that they have similar viewpoints. For example, people who do not want to work or change the world around them or do a damn thing basically are looked down upon one way or another.
Look at most of the economic problems the US and the world face now. Brought by capitalism? No. Socialism? Yes. And no, the British Empire was not capitalist (rather mercantalist and not a supporter of freedom).
Davan, good points and when I get the time I will try to check out those books (did you see the south park where officer Barbrady learned to read and read Atlas shrug, and he said that book made him think reading sucked ass… 
) Just for arguments sake, if socialism worked, wouldn’t that avoid a lot of the scams out there, a lot people make a lot money selling crap ( tony little???) In a socialist environment wouldn’t that take away a lot of swindlers? I am probably wrong but just a though…by the way I am not for Socialism but it is fun to debate these issues! PEACE
i cant believe some of the stuff said about socialism. if you think russia was socialist you need to read up.
Both books are very long, but manageable. I read The Fountainhead (I believe it is the longest, but I don’t have AS with me to check) in 4 days (Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon). It depends on how fast you read and how much you can handle at each time. The only criticism one could make was an entertainment point is that the books are logged with tons of dialogue that goes on for pages. I don’t mind it as it delves into interesting concepts and thoughts, but you have to be ready for it I guess.
Would socialism take away from swindlers? Probably not, although you may not see them or they may be in a different form. You could say Socialists themselves are in fact swindlers (or second handers, as Rand puts it). They advertise the concept of nothing as something. They are against free thinking as one knows it here in the US and for the virtual enslavement of everybody.
I was thinking to myself how it’s funny college degrees and the like were brought up in the thread. Most of academia (in the US atleast) is, essentially, those who failed capitalism and live off of those who benefited from capitalism.
Davan, I am sorry for my ignorance in the topic, but time permitting it is something I would like to educate myself on (sorry Cocksprinter for my uneducated post about the soviet union, I changed it so I do not look like a total fool)…hopefully this summer I can dive into some of this stuff…as for your post Davan…all I can say is WELL SAID BROTHER!!!
does anyone have any good books on this subject that are good for beginners in the subject? NOthing too deep into but something to give a good overview?
Check out importanceofphilosophy.com . A section of it delves into different economic and political governing systems and discusses their logical fallacies.
Very Very, awesome website Davan, thanks much. This thing will help me bunches and bunches in my essay.
Edit: Qoute for the ages… “When there is an attempted compromise between integrity and not acting in accordance with ones convictions, the result is an act not in accordance with one’s convictions.” Coors/Budwiser anyone?
By Davan: ” I was thinking to myself how it’s funny college degrees and the like were brought up in the thread. Most of academia (in the US atleast) is, essentially, those who failed capitalism and live off of those who benefited from capitalism”
… are you serious?
That website (http://importanceofphilosophy.com/) is pretty much a blatant caricature of propaganda. Here are some extracts, decide for your self:
? “Politics is ethics applied to a group of people.”
? “Government schools, or public schools as they are often referred to, are one of the worst violations of individual rights in existence.”
? “Resdistribution of wealth by the government, for example Welfare or Social Security, is egalitarianism put into practice at the point of a gun.”
? “Another way to look at welfare is a tax on the successful to support the unsuccessful, where anyone who thrives must be automatically punished; anyone who is inept and lazy must be automatically rewarded.”
? “Democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. It differs from other forms of dictatorship by the size of the ruling class.”
? “Social Security is a straight up Ponzi scheme, except that the government has the added bonus of being able to imprison anyone who refuses to participate in this wonderful investment opportunity.”
… Just go to the section of Evil Ethics or Bloody Politics, where apparently altruism, environmentalism, pacifism, humility, public schools, public welfare, democracy, and social security, to name a few, are considered EVIL!!!
You would be surprised Lorien, how many people are against pacifism, environmentalism, public schools, etc.
I think that this website/webmaster/author took their single logical premise “Life, Liberty, and Persuit of Happiness” and applied it blanket-style to every issue in modern times. I don’t think that a lot of what they said about peripheral issues, like public schools, humility, or democracy are necessarily true. In most cases they abuse the “straw man” tactic too much, such as when they attack humility or democracy, but I do think, though, that their core belief -that a government’s duty is not to protect the rights of its people as an entire entity but to protect the rights of its individuals and through that individual protection ensure the entire country is protected- is spot on.
To be a bit more constructive in my criticism, I suggest, for you who want to read into the subject, that you don’t start with reading proponents of any distinct political ideal. Rather start with some general work that pinpoints the differences (and similarities) of political ideals in a neutral fashion e.g. David Held: Models of Democracy (2nd ed.) – one of the best ( in my opinion), but there are many more (Anthony Giddens, Pippa Norris etc.). No easy reads thou!
A good trick to dwell into the matter further, is to read the references and the bibliography in any general work (omnibus work about political theory), and let them lead you further into your particular matter of interest. As with athletics: there are no “easy fixes” :), just well-thought-out and sensible decisions.
I don’t think either system has worked THAT well yet, but socialist/communist countries have had more success for the majority of people, I believe. Look at Yugoslavia in the 50s-80s, or Cuba, or China. Each is (or was) very successful, China is now the fastest growing economy in the World, and most of the companies are state owned.
Yugoslavia was one of the most pregressive powers in the 70s, and Cuba was up there too. While the US and other places were having much publisized black holes in their history because of red-neck racism. WHITES ONLY! Wow, how equal? Give me a break. In socialist/communist Yugoslavia: racism never happened. The reason for the collapse of Yugoslavia and, to an extent Cuba (or let’s say they haven’t reached their potential) was simply propaganda thrown at them by the West.
After Tito died, the seemingly impossible combination of states that was Yugoslavia and the clashes of culture, language and religion that was held together by a great government fell apart because of that bullshit that America threw towards them. Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia etc. got sucked right in to the nationalistic views brought on by some greedy dudes who were supported by the west (US). Now, the US didn’t care about it really, they just didn’t want a bunch powerful socialist/communist states in Europe, so the Soviet Union collapsed, Czechoslovakia split, the Berlin wall came down - and the Balkans war was fought for what?
The Serbs were portrayed as the bad guys with the “dictatorship” in place, and all the other smaller states (Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia) were supported by the West and crowned, knighted and angelic, which is bullshit, they all fucked each other over by believing in the fallacy that is democracy these days. The ancient greeks are spinning in their graves. So anyway, the country collapsed (I’m trying to keep this short ;)) because of greedy politicians on all sides (including largely in the US). One thing before I go on - don’t u think the Americans are a bit hypocritical, they preach about how the people should be in control, when they in fact go and decide what system of goverment all countries should have. Ohhh the irony! Ah, but the American government in the 20th century, now that’s a fucking golden essay topic.
But I think why we in the west aren’t living in communism/socialism is because the capitalist propaganda was simply better than the communist.
So, I reckon its unfair to say that socialism works on paper but not in practice because, if for nothing else, democracy is an even funnier drunken bar joke in practice.
Well, you would be surprised how many starve (hundreds of millions) and live under the most horrendous circumstances in our standards (billions) because of not having access to public education, peace, environmental protection or public healthcare etc.
When have the wealthy and the mighty (as a group) needed any governmental protection, aside from the governmental assurance of theirs keeping their position of power? That is, keeping the poor in a leash and tramped under foot? Of course the rich proclaim individual liberty and integrity; likewise, the poor – without any use of their given “liberty” – will proclaim collective responsibility.
‘We are only responsible to our stockholders’ has become a sort of mantra! You will not find any poor people among the stockholders (maybe 90% of the population): too bad for them then! Like the case when a company (Bechtel) privatized water – yes, INCLUDING RAINWATER – in Bolivia and made the poor population pay for what used to be their given right to water. What kind of bullshit is this, personal right? Liberal market economy…my ass! More like fucked up moral disguised in liberalistic ideals!
Perhaps my rant should end with a quote (fractional) from Langston Hughes “Let America be America Again”:
[i]
I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek–
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.
O, let America be America again–
The land that never has been yet–
And yet must be–the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine–the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME–[/i]
(The same quote is also found in Benjamin Barber’s book: “Strong Democracy”) - a good read indeed!
Dead serious. I didn’t say all though.
? “Politics is ethics applied to a group of people.”
…? Your point being?
? “Government schools, or public schools as they are often referred to, are one of the worst violations of individual rights in existence.”
They often force a propaganda on the kids (depending on which school you go to, it could be liberal or conservative). You do not have a choice really, since you are forced to attend school (if you have the money, you may be able to get out of it). Forcing down propaganda (albeit, not most of it is propaganda and is useful) to kids throats without them having a choice otherwise is a violation. The person who wrote it took it a bit far, but it is true to an extent.
? “Resdistribution of wealth by the government, for example Welfare or Social Security, is egalitarianism put into practice at the point of a gun.”
Your point? It’s the truth. Redistribution of wealth (or robbery) is not an optional deal. You either allow it to be taken from you or you go to jail.
? “Another way to look at welfare is a tax on the successful to support the unsuccessful, where anyone who thrives must be automatically punished; anyone who is inept and lazy must be automatically rewarded.”
Welfare takes the money of those who are successful and gives it to people who may be living in conditions not as luxurious as those who are wealthy (may). Instead of being given the option to do such a task, these people are forced into it. Why work when you can sit on your ass and get money for it? It doesn’t hurt the rich as much as it hurts the middle class, who make too much to be considered poor, but do not make enough to consider the tax a small change to their bank account.
? “Democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. It differs from other forms of dictatorship by the size of the ruling class.”
Yes? Democracy as described (mob rule) is a dictatorship of the majority over the minority. The US (and no country that I know of) is not a pure democracy, thank god. You don’t want a dictatorship of one over many, nor do you want one of many over one.
? “Social Security is a straight up Ponzi scheme, except that the government has the added bonus of being able to imprison anyone who refuses to participate in this wonderful investment opportunity.”
With social security going to be in ruins in the not to distant future, what do you expect to call it? How are we to live in freedom if we are forced into paying into something that is essentially high way robbery? How can you explain how the people that have paid into this system the most may never see a dime back because they were too successful?
… Just go to the section of Evil Ethics or Bloody Politics, where apparently altruism, environmentalism, pacifism, humility, public schools, public welfare, democracy, and social security, to name a few, are considered EVIL!!!
Altruism has been the cause of virtually every genocide and terror in the world. Hitler, Mao, STALIN were all altruists and collectivists. I could go further into it, but that says enough, I believe.
Are you kidding me? China has the world’s largest population and is barely getting by. They sure as hell be the fastest growing economy based on their size. On top of that, they had no wealth until they implemented capitalist ideas and philosophies. What’s the good of all the money if you can’t even practice your own religion (if you have it) or beliefs? What’s the point if you have laws forced upon you that restrict what you may say and write?
Care to explain how democracy is funny in practice? A small, laissez-faire government has rarely been around in the world. The times it was around had incredible economic boosts to the country. Hong Kong, the US pre-new deal, etc.