Does Socialism lead us to tyranny, communism, or dictatorshi

Page 4 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Daryl_Blonder
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 473
Location: Salem, CT

16 Jan 2011, 11:20 pm

Socialism doesn't work. It's a failed experiment. The more we try to achieve socialism here in the U.S., the more trouble we'll be in.

When you take away too much of what people earn in taxes, you demotivate them from wanting to produce. Then there is no wealth to help provide for the needy anyway.

You want to balance necessary social services with the capacity for society to be as productive as it can.

I get enough of my paychecks taken out in taxes, mainly for socialist programs (read: "Social" Security) that I will never reap the benefits of, because they can't pay for themselves and are basically government handouts as they currently exist.

Under capitalism, a few people are happy and many are miserable, but under socialism, everyone is miserable. The former is the better choice.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Jan 2011, 11:25 pm

Daryl_Blonder wrote:
Socialism doesn't work. It's a failed experiment. The more we try to achieve socialism here in the U.S., the more trouble we'll be in.

When you take away too much of what people earn in taxes, you demotivate them from wanting to produce. Then there is no wealth to help provide for the needy anyway.

You want to balance necessary social services with the capacity for society to be as productive as it can.

I get enough of my paychecks taken out in taxes, mainly for socialist programs (read: "Social" Security) that I will never reap the benefits of, because they can't pay for themselves and are basically government handouts as they currently exist.

Under capitalism, a few people are happy and many are miserable, but under socialism, everyone is miserable. The former is the better choice.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!


I assume you are one of the wealthy elite.



Last edited by Sand on 16 Jan 2011, 11:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

16 Jan 2011, 11:35 pm

Socialism gives individuals the freedom to keep engaged in politics and to maintain more influence on the decision-making process. Governments also are allowed to try to solve problems instead of claiming that the problems are God's will.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

17 Jan 2011, 12:28 am

Daryl_Blonder wrote:
Socialism doesn't work. It's a failed experiment. The more we try to achieve socialism here in the U.S., the more trouble we'll be in.

When you take away too much of what people earn in taxes, you demotivate them from wanting to produce. Then there is no wealth to help provide for the needy anyway.

You want to balance necessary social services with the capacity for society to be as productive as it can.

I get enough of my paychecks taken out in taxes, mainly for socialist programs (read: "Social" Security) that I will never reap the benefits of, because they can't pay for themselves and are basically government handouts as they currently exist.

Under capitalism, a few people are happy and many are miserable, but under socialism, everyone is miserable. The former is the better choice.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!
Exactly, though I'd say more than just a few people are happy in capitalism. Lower-middle class is pretty comfy, so that should keep people happy. And yeah, it's best to have a balance between social services and freedom since society is a medium which the individual provides himself/herself through.

@ xenon13: Socialism is "State take, state give", nice try at mocking the religious right though.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Jan 2011, 12:47 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
Daryl_Blonder wrote:
Socialism doesn't work. It's a failed experiment. The more we try to achieve socialism here in the U.S., the more trouble we'll be in.

When you take away too much of what people earn in taxes, you demotivate them from wanting to produce. Then there is no wealth to help provide for the needy anyway.

You want to balance necessary social services with the capacity for society to be as productive as it can.

I get enough of my paychecks taken out in taxes, mainly for socialist programs (read: "Social" Security) that I will never reap the benefits of, because they can't pay for themselves and are basically government handouts as they currently exist.

Under capitalism, a few people are happy and many are miserable, but under socialism, everyone is miserable. The former is the better choice.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!
Exactly, though I'd say more than just a few people are happy in capitalism. Lower-middle class is pretty comfy, so that should keep people happy. And yeah, it's best to have a balance between social services and freedom since society is a medium which the individual provides himself/herself through.

@ xenon13: Socialism is "State take, state give", nice try at mocking the religious right though.


Perhaps you live in a cave or somewhere in Antarctica and have little idea as to what is happening to the US middle class.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

17 Jan 2011, 1:28 am

bah, the mix is better, pure capitalism has no middle class ace, the kings either made or born rule.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Jan 2011, 1:56 am

ikorack wrote:
bah, the mix is
better, pure capitalism has no middle class ace, the kings either made or born rule.


Fear not. There never was any "pure capitalism". Certain legal restraints have always been applied to commercial activity. Not the least of which are laws against fraud and damages for breach of contract.

ruveyn



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

17 Jan 2011, 2:42 am

It depends on how you define socialism. To some people, "socialism" simply means using tax money for any public services, including schools, roads, and food stamps, which simply isn't true. That's a form of social democracy. Socialism is about ceasing control of the means of production from capital and placing it in the hands of labor, which using tax money for social programs simply doesn't do. Being that state and federal government only spends 1% of taxes on welfare programs, I don't think its that big of an issue in comparison to the 2/3 that's spent on the war and war industry contractors.

Besides, talk radio has people believe that socialism is any kind of taxation and spending. I've even heard bank bailouts referred to as "socialism for the rich" which is just a further bastardization of the term. Socialism can exist absent of government intervention through independent, worker cooperatives. Look at the Mondragon corporation. It employs and is run by its workers and has functioned since 1953 in the Basque region in Spain.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

17 Jan 2011, 2:42 am

It depends on how you define socialism. To some people, "socialism" simply means using tax money for any public services, including schools, roads, and food stamps, which simply isn't true. That's a form of social democracy. Socialism is about ceasing control of the means of production from capital and placing it in the hands of labor, which using tax money for social programs simply doesn't do. Being that state and federal government only spends 1% of taxes on welfare programs, I don't think its that big of an issue in comparison to the 2/3 that's spent on the war and war industry contractors.

Besides, talk radio has people believe that socialism is any kind of taxation and spending. I've even heard bank bailouts referred to as "socialism for the rich" which is just a further bastardization of the term. Socialism can exist absent of government intervention through independent, worker cooperatives. Look at the Mondragon corporation. It employs and is run by its workers and has functioned since 1953 in the Basque region in Spain.



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

17 Jan 2011, 2:56 am

Another way to look at social democracy, which many people confuse with state socialism, is that socialist dictatorships never came into being through any of the slippery slope arguments neo-liberals give. The Soviet Union didn't come into power because Kerensky decided to raise taxes for the top tax bracket by a few percent of funding public schools. I don't even think that was apart of his agenda. The reason why they came to power was the same reason Robespierre came to power, and that was because of the social upheaval and instability that goes along with any violent revolution. Granted the October revolution was initially peaceful, but Lenin's militarism and ideology subverted the movement because of the invading white armies during the Civil War. You had these really egotistical personalities trying to change the world and in-fighting over what ideology was going to be implemented. A lot of people agreed the Czarist system needed to change but disagreed on exactly how to do it. No, though, none of those oppressive communist countries got to where they were because they had been moderate, social democracies that slid out of control from using too much tax money on roads and social security, They were all either former dictatorships of some other type, monarchies, or European occupied colonies.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Jan 2011, 5:12 am

Orwell wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
The article is obviously polemics rather than a serious discussion.

It was also very poorly written and ill-informed drivel.


Yep I saw this " the Soviet Union became the primary model for a number of ideologically close Marxist-Leninist nations during the Cold War" and my base thought was F**ck off you moron"


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Jan 2011, 5:14 am

JNathanK wrote:
Another way to look at social democracy, which many people confuse with state socialism, is that socialist dictatorships


I am sorry but the term "socialist dictatorships" is a complete and utter nonsense. Just because a monica is applied by the user or others does not make it true. Socialism by its very definition cannot occur under a dictatorship, unless that is you are talking about eh "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is an altogether different proposition.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Jan 2011, 5:21 am

Sand wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Daryl_Blonder wrote:
Socialism doesn't work. It's a failed experiment. The more we try to achieve socialism here in the U.S., the more trouble we'll be in.

When you take away too much of what people earn in taxes, you demotivate them from wanting to produce. Then there is no wealth to help provide for the needy anyway.

You want to balance necessary social services with the capacity for society to be as productive as it can.

I get enough of my paychecks taken out in taxes, mainly for socialist programs (read: "Social" Security) that I will never reap the benefits of, because they can't pay for themselves and are basically government handouts as they currently exist.

Under capitalism, a few people are happy and many are miserable, but under socialism, everyone is miserable. The former is the better choice.

****************************************************************************************************************************************

Check out my IMDB page!
Exactly, though I'd say more than just a few people are happy in capitalism. Lower-middle class is pretty comfy, so that should keep people happy. And yeah, it's best to have a balance between social services and freedom since society is a medium which the individual provides himself/herself through.

@ xenon13: Socialism is "State take, state give", nice try at mocking the religious right though.


Perhaps you live in a cave or somewhere in Antarctica and have little idea as to what is happening to the US middle class.


NO they obviously live a nice comfy life, without the inconvenience of battling to make ends meet


BTW I just noticed the OP date, nice necro guys


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Jan 2011, 8:54 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Another way to look at social democracy, which many people confuse with state socialism, is that socialist dictatorships


I am sorry but the term "socialist dictatorships" is a complete and utter nonsense. Just because a monica is applied by the user or others does not make it true. Socialism by its very definition cannot occur under a dictatorship, unless that is you are talking about eh "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is an altogether different proposition.

You can indeed have a socialist dictatorship. North Korea and Cuba both fall under that description. Socialism refers to a model of economic organization, which can in principle be implemented under a variety of different governmental schemes, eg democratic socialism, totalitarian socialism, or anarchistic socialism (that is, communism).


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Jan 2011, 9:51 am

JNathanK wrote:

Besides, talk radio has people believe that socialism is any kind of taxation and spending. I've even heard bank bailouts referred to as "socialism for the rich" which is just a further bastardization of the term. Socialism can exist absent of government intervention through independent, worker cooperatives. Look at the Mondragon corporation. It employs and is run by its workers and has functioned since 1953 in the Basque region in Spain.


Tax and Spend goes all the way back to Bismark. It is not the bench mark of a socialist order. What is the benchmark is the cessation of private ownership of the means of production and make the ownership public and general. Since the Proles are in the majority, it effectively means putting production in the hands of the Proles. Think of it as the Economy of the Knuckle Draggers. Good bye productivity and invention.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

17 Jan 2011, 7:12 pm

Orwell wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
JNathanK wrote:
Another way to look at social democracy, which many people confuse with state socialism, is that socialist dictatorships


I am sorry but the term "socialist dictatorships" is a complete and utter nonsense. Just because a monica is applied by the user or others does not make it true. Socialism by its very definition cannot occur under a dictatorship, unless that is you are talking about eh "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is an altogether different proposition.

You can indeed have a socialist dictatorship. North Korea and Cuba both fall under that description. Socialism refers to a model of economic organization, which can in principle be implemented under a variety of different governmental schemes, eg democratic socialism, totalitarian socialism, or anarchistic socialism (that is, communism).


One would argue that all the socialisms you bring up will eventually slide into totalitarian socialism (which communism falls under). The fact is Government ends up having to force mediocrity onto people and thus will turn into a tyranny eventually.

Socialism works good on paper, but due to man's fallen nature it will always end up devolving into tyranny in practice.