A Conversation for Socialism

Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 141

Tzench

Well, we'll see... Patents expire, you know.


it's not just about govt

Post 142

Tzench

I would much rather be a doctor than a pizza delivery boy...

Socialism doesn't state that everybody should get exactly the same money for their work, regardless of what it is. It states differencies should be smaller. Not even the Soviet Union had equal wages for everybody. Marx general rant was about the destruction of the class society and the control of the means of production being transfered to the workers. Claiming socialism means equal income for all is a vulgar interpretation of the concept.


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 143

Tzench

Boy, did I spam this one...


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 144

Flyboy

Uhh... the thread's been moved to 'Balance' feel free to join in there. This page takes far too long to load anymore.


*pure* socialism???

Post 145

RedFish ><>

The issue in the conversation seems to have become slightly muddled.
What you are referring to when you talk about Cuba and the ex Soviet Unionare failed attempts at *Communist* societies, and even then the goal of communism was never even nearly acheived in these places. Communism is but one branch of Socialism, an idealism which ranges from Anarchism right up to modern Liberalism such as that of the UK Liberal Democrat Party.
The claim that all that Socailism equals is SCUD missiles is absurd - who could imagine the current Liberal Leader, Charles Kennedy, agreeing with the production of weaponry? The fact is that you are over gerneralising on this issue and therefor your arguaments are highly flawed, if not invalid.

(nb. Dixons is a chain of electrical goods retailers in the UK)

---The Red Fish )-{{{'>

"Power Corrupts"


*pure* socialism???

Post 146

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

I don't know how you managed to confuse liberalism and libertarianism as the same thing, and then managed to tie them in with libertarianism. Classic liberalism and modern libertarianism are one in the same, and are diametrically opposed to socialism. Modern liberalism is a halfway house between the two, combining libertarian personal freedoms with socialist economic regulation. All of my arguments are from a position of moderate libertarianism... I believe in absolute freedom in personal matters, but unlike mainstream liberetarians, I feel that some regulation of big business is required to prevent them from trampling over your human rights in the name of profit. Anarchism has much in common with libertarianism... indeed, libertarianism could be seen as a moderate anarchy. Anyway, socialism is all about central planning in every facet, which is as opposed to anarchism, libertarianism, and classic liberalism as it is possible to get.

Everyone who has ever tried socialism has failed, or is about to. China is becoming very liberal. Sweden was liberal all along, but has lost the way, and their economic decay is the result. The arguments that socialism has not failed are just as meaningless as the arguments for a personal deity... they say that socialism has never failed because we've never had a real socialism. Is that possible? Do you think that any country has a true democracy, in the purest sense of the word? Socialism is an ideal, an abstract, but when it comes into practice, it turns into totalitarianism and poverty.


*pure* socialism???

Post 147

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

Typo... first line should read: "I don't know how you managed to confuse liberalism and libertarianism as the
same thing, and then managed to tie them in with socialism." Too many -isms in there made me lose track. smiley - winkeye


*pure* socialism???

Post 148

Flyboy

Everything falls apart sooner or later. Capitalism will fall apart, but just how long will it take? I think a lot of the reasons socialist countries fail is meddling by capitalist countries. Capitalist countries see socialist countries as closed markets they'd like to get into, so they do everything they can to get in.

Most Cubans are happy with their government, even if we see it as screwed up. I think that will change now that they are opening up to other countries. I think in 50 years we will look at Cuba as an ally economically, and they will be as upset with their government as we are with ours.

How many foreign countries did the CIA screw up in the name of 'democracy and capitalism'? Wanna guess why we have so many enemies in the middle east?


*pure* socialism???

Post 149

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

In what ways do capitalists meddle with socialists? I would be interested in real-world evidence. The US and many other capitalist countries ostracized Cuba and chose not to trade with them, but they were still free to trade with the Communist Bloc... who, incidentally, were all poor as well. The USSR had a quarter of the world under its direct influence, and open trade much of the rest, and still fell flat on its face. The honor roll of socialism:

USSR - Broke and no longer existent.
Eastern Europe - Broke and horribly polluted.
East Germany - As it was handed over to the capitalists, it was filthy and broke. This in a country known for some of the most fastidious, industrious, and technologically advanced people on earth.
Cuba - So broke their cab drivers are tooling around in 50's Chevys held together with bailing wire, duct tape, and belts made from the wife's panty hose.
North Korea - Broke and starving to death.
Sweden - Going broke.
China - Turning to capitalism as a way to end their endless cycle of being broke.

With the exception of Sweden and possibly North Korea (although the Southerners don't have much more, and they're doing okay) we're talking about countries with an abundance of natural resources and available technology. There are really no excuses.


*pure* socialism???

Post 150

Flyboy

In my rant about the CIAs meddling I was referring to our activities in the Mid-East in the '50s and '60s which led to the Ayatolla Khomeni (sp?) kicking the Shah out. The Shah had been a puppet of the US and used death squads to get rid of those who opposed him. The Iranians knew it was the US backing him but had no proof, that is untli they ransacked the embassy. Embassy officials had hurriedly shredded documents, but the shredders only shredded them into 1/4" strips and the Iranians had people with plenty of time on their hands and soon provided proof to the world we were screwing with their politics. Guess who was head of the CIA at that time? George Bush Sr.

Then there was our policy in Vietnam. When North Vietnam rebelled from the French and became communist we got involved with South Vietnam. South Vietnam became a veritable dictatorship run by US backed officials. We manipulated their politics so nobody else got elected. Then we wondered why we couldn't tell the enemy from the people we were helping.

Why did we fight the Korean War?

Did you forget we planned a full-scale invasion of Cuba?

McCarthy?

I thinnk we had a lot of people in this country who gave their lives for the cold war when it didn't need fighting.

For a counterpoint, I do think the cold war gave a lot of countries some stability - Yugoslavia being one. The balance of power kept a lot of hostility in check. Then again both sides shot themselves in the foot on occasion, Korea and Vietnam for us, Afghanistan for the USSR.


*pure* socialism???

Post 151

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

In the Korean War the objective was to protect people who wanted to keep democracy from people who were ready to enforce communism. Same with Vietnam. But how this supposedly ruined the entire communist bloc is still a mystery to me. I don't make the connection. If anything, the Vietnam War should have ruined capitalism. And anyway, all your arguments are about what governments have done... it has nothing to do with the way the economic systems have worked and failed, respectively. Capitalism is an economic policy. Socialism is an economic policy. In order to have a meaningful dialogue on this subject, it is necessary to keep it on the subject of economics.


*pure* socialism???

Post 152

RedFish ><>

Socialism is not just an economic policy, it is a system of thought, a political belief and a method of government.

also in reply to:

>>But how this supposedly ruined the entire communist bloc is still a >>mystery to me. I don't make the connection.

Remember tho so-called "domino effect"? Part of the *aim* of Vietnam and Korea was to collapse the Soviet bloc.

---The Red Fish

"Power corrupts"
[email protected]


*pure* socialism???

Post 153

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

Wrong. The purpose of Vietnam and Korea was the policy of *Containment*. They wanted to prevent communism from *spreading* worldwide. And I still haven't seen any valid arguments that they had anything to do with the fall of Russia.


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 154

Stealth Munchkin

The real reason those countries failed is not (or not only) their economic systems, but also (or principally) because of their undemocratic nature. In every case 'socialism' was brought in as the result of a revolution, followed by war. There was no democratic movement in those countries, and the wars gave the authoritarian revolutionary leaders the chance to cement their hold over the country.
I think one has to say about socialism as Gandhi said of Western Civilisation - 'it'd be a nice idea'.


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 155

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

That argument would be valid if it weren't for the glaring contradiction of Sweden. Their socialism came about entirely through the democratic process. In fact, it could be said that their democratic process is exactly what is wrong with their system. In order to get elected, Swedish officials have to promise bigger rewards to the people, which they cannot afford. Instead of the tyranny of the few, they suffer under the tyranny of the masses, until they no longer get to keep any of the money they earn. Ironicaly, the US has been doing this same thing, but the American distaste for taxation has slowed the process to a crawl.


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 156

RedFish ><>

oh


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 157

Stealth Munchkin

But Sweden is also a country which in many ways is one of the more successful in Europe, certainly in terms of crime rates, health of the population and so forth...


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 158

Blatherskite the Mugwump - Bandwidth Bandit

Yes, but the foundation of that great health is a massive, uncontrollable debt. When that foundation collapses underneath them, where will their health go? And now that their economy is in decline, they are becoming less and less likely to be able to even begin to pay it off. Which will lead to more debt, which will lead to more decline, which will lead to more debt... until somebody realises that they need to quit paying everyone, and they need to take care of themselves.


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 159

erasershed1976

To the above author.

Congradulations on being 95% cleverer than the rest of us. What colour medal would you like.?


Pure Socialism = SCUD Missiles

Post 160

Commienazi

Viva la Führer! Heil die Revolucion! Something something Ayn Rand. Something more Libertarianism. And something more about Capitalism.


Key: Complain about this post