This Is Why People Are Pissed Off At Socialism

[pablow]

Maybe if we didn't have ten million plus illegal immigrants in this country [and counting!] we'd have a better chance to raise the standard of living for our less fortunate citizens. Of course, the Dems can't see the tension between these two issues because their too busy frothing over Ben Carson's opinion of a Muslim president.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I'm always amused when liberals try and prove socialism

 

[HawktimusPrime]

And natural resources played no role whatsoever.

Doesn't change the fact Capitalism, capitalized on them.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

I am always amused when OiT tries to prove anything.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Doesn't change the fact Capitalism, capitalized on them.

No one said it did.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

the WW2 heros who put their lives on the line fighting socialism, are probably turning in their graves

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

the WW2 heros who put their lives on the line fighting socialism, are probably turning in their graves

They probably are. I'm sure they didn't expect the USA to turn even more oligarchist than it was. I would bet the soldiers who fought in the revolutionary war are rolling over as well considering we are looking more and more like the Great Britiain they fought.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Doesn't change the fact Capitalism, capitalized on them.

Norway has a lot of socialist policies and is pretty rich and well off. So is socialism capitalizing on their oil?

I would argue that stability/good leadership and natural resources are probably the most important things here, not so much systems.

The examples people bring up of the failures of socialism in nearly every case the country they are speaking of lacks stability/good leadership.

For example, say Mao is a straight up capitalist. . . Does that make China successful under him? Doubtful, because he was someone who used violence and intimidation to run the country.

There are plenty of capitalist nations with free markets that are failures because they lack stability or good leadership. If someone is president for life, it probably doesn't matter if he's a capitalist, socialist or a communist that country is probably going to crap.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

No one said it did.

Someone said it, I know someone said it. Somewhere, sometime.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Norway has a lot of socialist policies and is pretty rich and well off. So is socialism capitalizing on their oil?

I would argue that stability/good leadership and natural resources are probably the most important things here, not so much systems.

The examples people bring up of the failures of socialism in nearly every case the country they are speaking of lacks stability/good leadership.

For example, say Mao is a straight up capitalist. . . Does that make China successful under him? Doubtful, because he was someone who used violence and intimidation to run the country.

There are plenty of capitalist nations with free markets that are failures because they lack stability or good leadership. If someone is president for life, it probably doesn't matter if he's a capitalist, socialist or a communist that country is probably going to crap.

They're rich because they don't get involved with trying to rule the world or spreading the Norwegian empire. You want a government that helps take care of you? Get that same government to quit trying to take care of everyone else first.

The reason Mao wanted Socialism/communism, is because it gave him complete control of the country. Norway is lucky enough to not have someone like that ruling them. What people fear about government, is what someone can do with it's power, if you let the wrong people run it.

The point of people like me, is to keep as many tools of power out of governments hands as possible.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

They're rich because they don't get involved with trying to rule the world or spreading the Norwegian empire. You want a government that helps take care of you? Get that same government to quit trying to take care of everyone else first.

If by "stop taking care of everyone else first" you mean stop believing every foriegn policy problem has a military solution then I would agree. I would agree to lower military funding as well and put it towards caring for people.

The reason Mao wanted Socialism/communism, is because it gave him complete control of the country. Norway is lucky enough to not have someone like that ruling them. What people fear about government, is what someone can do with it's power, if you let the wrong people run it.

The point of people like me, is to keep as many tools of power out of governments hands as possible.

Socialism was more then a tool for Mao. If it was just a tool to get people behind him then he wouldn't take so much time to institute thought control like he did.

What it is essentially is a difference between a government where someone took power by force and then said that I and I alone run this country and one where a democratically elected government takes and loses authority via the ballot box.

Socialism when backed by a democratically elected government having actual legitimate elections seems to be doing alright.

When backed by a one party state. . . you are right it does poorly.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

If by "stop taking care of everyone else first" you mean stop believing every foriegn policy problem has a military solution then I would agree. I would agree to lower military funding as well and put it towards caring for people.



Socialism was more then a tool for Mao. If it was just a tool to get people behind him then he wouldn't take so much time to institute thought control like he did.

What it is essentially is a difference between a government where someone took power by force and then said that I and I alone run this country and one where a democratically elected government takes and loses authority via the ballot box.

Socialism when backed by a democratically elected government having actual legitimate elections seems to be doing alright.

When backed by a one party state. . . you are right it does poorly.

It's not just military funding, it's sending money over to other countries as much as we do. Especially when a good amount of the time, we end up getting into it with those countries further down the line. We sent Billions over to Libya just a couple of years before sending NATO over there to deal with them. That's just a small example of how we spend more on foreign related matters, than we do on the things actually needed over here.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Not to mention his choice of South American countries is particularly amusing, since the majority of their problems is caused by the legacy of Colonialism, capitalism run amok!

The US shrugged off colonialism and let capitalism run amok

 

[Titanhawk2]

Doesn't change the fact Capitalism, capitalized on them.

Capitalism isn't an entity or person, the fact is Capitalism has not ever done anything.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Any capitalist would be willing to pay those people what the market is for their services. If the market doesn't allow for the carpenters, etc. to live in the house they want, they are free to pursue work that does. Or not.

You are a typical liberal who wants to eliminate personal accountability.

If the workers do an outstanding job, complete on time or early - I give them extra $ as an incentive to go above "normal" efforts.

Seems to work well with any and all that have done work in\on\around my home.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Capitalism isn't an entity or person, the fact is Capitalism has not ever done anything.

Windows 7 isn't a person or an entity either, but the system it uses does a lot. It's all about the user.

 

[jscott78]

ahh the stench of a poorly crafted right wing meme.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

If the workers do an outstanding job, complete on time or early - I give them extra $ as an incentive to go above "normal" efforts.

Seems to work well with any and all that have done work in\on\around my home.

You're saying that more effort and production may lead to more profit for someone?

That's crazy bro.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

ahh the stench of a poorly crafted right wing meme.

Government hands money to Wall Street, get dis involved in wars, will kill you without trial, can force you to go to war for false causes, created terrorism towards you, taxes you in any way it can find to, lies, laughs and uses you.

Do you stand for it?

 

[jscott78]

Government hands money to Wall Street, get dis involved in wars, will kill you without trial, can force you to go to war for false causes, created terrorism towards you, taxes you in any way it can find to, lies, laughs and uses you.

Do you stand for it?

Same as it ever was, from when the country was formed.

 

[Rudolph]

Aren't professional sports leagues essentially built on a socialism-like model? Revenue sharing, collective bargaining, salary caps, and drafts weighted to promote a level playing field all seem kind of socialist to me. Think about when an expansion team is added! Teams have to essentially give up players to help the new team get started!

I'm of the belief that capitalism needs some socialist elements (and maybe vice versa) in order to be sustainable. Right now we're seeing symptoms of how capitalism, run amok, creates problems that are undeniable.

 

[22*43*51]

I'm of the belief that capitalism needs some socialist elements (and maybe vice versa) in order to be sustainable. Right now we're seeing symptoms of how capitalism, run amok, creates problems that are undeniable.

Socialism's failure is also undeniable.

As has been demonstrated over and over since Marx dreamt it up, while unemployed, living off of a friends' wealth.

 

[22*43*51]

ahh the stench of a poorly crafted right wing meme.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Aren't professional sports leagues essentially built on a socialism-like model? Revenue sharing, collective bargaining, salary caps, and drafts weighted to promote a level playing field all seem kind of socialist to me. Think about when an expansion team is added! Teams have to essentially give up players to help the new team get started!

I'm of the belief that capitalism needs some socialist elements (and maybe vice versa) in order to be sustainable. Right now we're seeing symptoms of how capitalism, run amok, creates problems that are undeniable.

Ehh it's a little bit different although there are valid comparisons.

The main thing is that each team has entered in to the league and agreed to these things mainly because they agree that fairness and rules designed to help struggling teams get ahead is better for all of their profits.

See you just want TV sets tuned into the games, it doesn't matter who they are rooting for or if they are even rooting for a team at all. It just matters that they are watching the game. So a basic sense of fairness, people feeling like their team has a chance if managed properly is extremely important.

So there is a selfish capitalistic motive to all of that. Sort of like though this is illegal in the US if several competing companies get together and agree to all start charging more for their product.
But it's even more important then sports because if you have a sports team you have to have teams for your team to play and that team has to be competitive enough with your team that it makes it worth watching. No one is going to take the time or pay money to watch an NFL team play the local high school squad. At least not on a regular basis.

So while sports leagues are competitively socialistic it's a bad example because it's done so that the team owners can make more money.

 

[Rudolph]

Socialism's failure is also undeniable.

As has been demonstrated over and over since Marx dreamt it up, while unemployed, living off of a friends' wealth.

Notice I didn't claim, or really even imply, that socialism has succeeded (historically or otherwise).

Do ideas, good or bad, only get to be formed and expressed by those with jobs? What if Bernie is elected and injects some socialist principles into our capitalist economy, and people are willing to give it a try, and it works? The middle class grows and strengthens so people who describe themselves as middle class no longer are a paycheck or two, or a serious health issue from effectively being broke and permanently indebted, the health care system moves toward a single-payer system (that works well elsewhere), public education miraculously gets back to where it was 30 or 40 years ago. Does that make Marx's ideas valid given Sanders will be employed?

I'm not saying Sanders is the answer. I'm just saying that capitalism may need an injection of some socialist principles to function well for everyone (or as close to everyone as possible).

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Same as it ever was, from when the country was formed.

Aren't professional sports leagues essentially built on a socialism-like model? Revenue sharing, collective bargaining, salary caps, and drafts weighted to promote a level playing field all seem kind of socialist to me. Think about when an expansion team is added! Teams have to essentially give up players to help the new team get started!

I'm of the belief that capitalism needs some socialist elements (and maybe vice versa) in order to be sustainable. Right now we're seeing symptoms of how capitalism, run amok, creates problems that are undeniable.

And yet Capitalism isn't the reason the National debt is over $20 trillion.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Notice I didn't claim, or really even imply, that socialism has succeeded (historically or otherwise).

Do ideas, good or bad, only get to be formed and expressed by those with jobs? What if Bernie is elected and injects some socialist principles into our capitalist economy, and people are willing to give it a try, and it works? The middle class grows and strengthens so people who describe themselves as middle class no longer are a paycheck or two, or a serious health issue from effectively being broke and permanently indebted, the health care system moves toward a single-payer system (that works well elsewhere), public education miraculously gets back to where it was 30 or 40 years ago. Does that make Marx's ideas valid given Sanders will be employed?

I'm not saying Sanders is the answer. I'm just saying that capitalism may need an injection of some socialist principles to function well for everyone (or as close to everyone as possible).

This is already what is happening. The other thing that is happening is that Corporatism is becoming more and more entrenched with public policy. Lobbying is the biggest and the most impactful problem we have on the economic disparity we see today. Socialism, while good in theory, is simply not realistic. This is because of the human factor involved. Socialism, as I've said before, doesn't take away from the ruling class. It keeps the ruling class from having any real competition. Hence, why so much money and effort is used into promoting it.

 

[Vroom_C14]

So for those that don't want to work harder to get out of where they are:

 

[aflachawk]

I don't have a problem with Capitalism. But the hand's off unregulated capitalism was proven to be terrible for people in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

If you really think that's a good idea you either already have a ton of money that you don't have to worry about being exploited or you simply are ignoring the history of the exploitation of workers.

I believe most cons would agree with that. Right now we are getting deeper and deeper into the othe end of the pool(too much regulation)

 

[jscott78]

That world no longer exists. That's why so much of your stuff, e.g., just work harder, doesn't resonate.

So for those that don't want to work harder to get out of where they are:

 

[Vroom_C14]

That world no longer exists. That's why so much of your stuff, e.g., just work harder, doesn't resonate.

Unfortunately you are correct for the "entitled" crowd (which makes up nearly 75%+ of the population).

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

And yet Capitalism isn't the reason the National debt is over $20 trillion.

Nope you can thank ill advised tax cuts and ever increasing military budgets for that.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I've lived in and near Berkeley, California for over 20 years.

How many capitalists do you know who are willing to pay people who do work for them enough to buy a house like the one in the picture.


.

I know lots of capitalists who are willing to pay people what their skills are worth.

What they can or can't buy with that pay is irrelevant. You make it sound like capitalists consciously don't want to pay people so they can buy nice houses.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Nope you can thank ill advised tax cuts and ever increasing military budgets for that.

Don't forget to add welfare.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I wouldn't entirely disagree with the first but the 2nd is just silly.

Everyone should be able to live like this*

* Unless they grew up poor and couldn't afford an education
Or arn't lucky enough to have the connections to get a top job
Or havn't come up with a super awesome business idea
Or want to spend more then 3 hours a week with their family
Or work at an unskilled job or a job less skilled then mine.
Or are disabled
Or havn't been able to get a job, in which case they should starve.

Others are right, if a capitalist really believed all that he'd pay everyone that works for him enough money to allow them to live like that.

I don't hate capitalism, I think when regulated it's probably the least evil of all economic systems but by itself it's not an altruistic system. People who believe that EVERYONE should have a certain standard of living usually advocate for measures that Capitalism's biggest fans tend to hate. You know public health care and things like that.

Wow!

Anyone who's successful must have grown up rich, had connections, unfairly came up with an awesome business idea, decided not to spend more than 3 hours per week with family, or had no disability whatsoever.

And BTW, the "poor and couldn't afford an education" thing is total crap.

There are lots of ways for people of modest means to get an good education.

You do hate capitalism.

 

[jscott78]

Wow!

Anyone who's successful must have grown up rich, had connections, unfairly came up with an awesome business idea, decided not to spend more than 3 hours per week with family, or had no disability whatsoever.

And BTW, the "poor and couldn't afford an education" thing is total crap.

There are lots of ways for people of modest means to get an good education.

You do hate capitalism.

So at what point does trickle down start to work for the first time ever? It will be like landing on the moon in this country.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Don't forget to add welfare.

Welfare is small beans by comparison.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I know lots of capitalists who are willing to pay people what their skills are worth.

What they can or can't buy with that pay is irrelevant. You make it sound like capitalists consciously don't want to pay people so they can buy nice houses.

The point is that the system is not designed to be for the common good. It's designed to be for the good of the self.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Wow!

Anyone who's successful must have grown up rich, had connections, unfairly came up with an awesome business idea, decided not to spend more than 3 hours per week with family, or had no disability whatsoever.

My point was that the picture is inaccurate capitalists biggest defenders don't say "Everyone should be able to live like this" They say "Only the people that the free market determines should be able to live like this, should be able to live like this."

And BTW, the "poor and couldn't afford an education" thing is total crap.

There are lots of ways for people of modest means to get an good education.

Always opposed by conservatives.

You do hate capitalism.

No I recognize it's limitations. I see a lot of people work hard, working 2 jobs for years to still be stuck paycheck to paycheck.

I see other people who are blessed by birth to be in the right social group or the right family and succeed when their actions would have otherwise created failure.

The image you have of the hardest workers making the most money and succeeding. . . it's just not true.

I don't hate capitalism, I view it as the least objectionable system when properly regulated. But I don't like the overly rosey picture of it that is often painted of it.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Don't forget to add welfare.

The point is that the system is not designed to be for the common good. It's designed to be for the good of the self.

Of course.

And people are supposed to look out for the good of the self, within a reasonably regulated free market.

Are you arguing that capitalism has not absolutely blown the doors off of socialism in terms of meeting human needs?