Disappointed?

[GOP]

And socialists do hail the wealthy, just not the exploiters. If someone can make an honest living, good for them. A socialist only takes issue when a person cheats and steps on others to get rich. How many socialists have you seen attack Bill Gates, Bill Cosby, ect? Hell Vladimir Lenin, 1 of the most famous socialists/communists of all time, was of the Russian upper class!

If they hailed the rich, the first thing that socialistic countries could and should do is lower taxes so: A) People who work hard for their money, can keep more of their well earned money. (Hailing the wealthy? Hardly!) And B) Lower taxes for business owners will make their business more capable of hiring and keeping their workers. (Really shows how "worker friendly" socialism really is).

 

[deanhills]

If they hailed the rich, the first thing that socialistic countries could and should do is lower taxes so: A) People who work hard for their money, can keep more of their well earned money. (Hailing the wealthy? Hardly!) And B) Lower taxes for business owners will make their business more capable of hiring and keeping their workers. (Really shows how "worker friendly" socialism really is).

That sounds more like what capitalists would do rather than socialists? :unsure: I like the idea!

 

[GOP]

And that's exactly why I am a large supporter of capitalism, and in great opposition to the evil socialism has meant for millions of people.

 

[Dirk]

And that's exactly why I am a large supporter of capitalism, and in great opposition to the evil socialism has meant for millions of people.

These so-called socialists mercilessly oppressed real socialists.

 

[David]

If they hailed the rich, the first thing that socialistic countries could and should do is lower taxes so: A) People who work hard for their money, can keep more of their well earned money. (Hailing the wealthy? Hardly!) And B) Lower taxes for business owners will make their business more capable of hiring and keeping their workers. (Really shows how "worker friendly" socialism really is).

No, the 1st thing a socialist country would do is give control to the workers that make the company, well, work. Taxes would be lowered if it was deemed the best way to stimulate the economy but taxes also pay for roads, police, public transport, ect so lower taxes may not be so great a deal. The whole thing is democratic.

 

[GOP]

These so-called socialists mercilessly oppressed real socialists.

No, it's a natural consequence of the government getting too much power. Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Vietnam and the list goes on, are very good examples of how socialism gives so much power to one single authority that the natural consequence is misuse of the authority and the brutality that comes with.

No, the 1st thing a socialist country would do is give control to the workers that make the company, well, work. Taxes would be lowered if it was deemed the best way to stimulate the economy but taxes also pay for roads, police, public transport, ect so lower taxes may not be so great a deal. The whole thing is democratic.

And in stead of over using government money on roads and public transport, you can have a co-operation between government and private sector to build and finance these things. Competition has never been negative.

 

[David]

No, it's a natural consequence of the government getting too much power. Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Vietnam and the list goes on, are very good examples of how socialism gives so much power to one single authority that the natural consequence is misuse of the authority and the brutality that comes with.



And in stead of over using government money on roads and public transport, you can have a co-operation between government and private sector to build and finance these things. Competition has never been negative.

SV was the oppressive dictatorship while NV was quite liberal if you didn't make the mistake of becoming a POW. Indeed they came to the USA before they went to the USSR. Just saying.

Exactly. But the people that use said services and not the overspending, capitalist backed politicians would be doing the spending in a socialist system. Socialism, at least the versions that Dirk and I follow (and they are quite different versions), supports a 'private' sector. Dirk is even a free market supporter! Indeed, even Marxism calls for capitalism to precede socialism to serve a a foundation for it with socialism in turn being the foundation for communism (which I oppose). Socialism and business is compatible, you just need to run the economy in a not statist and/or capitalist way (that was the USSR's mistake, giving gov't too much control).

 

[deanhills]

No, it's a natural consequence of the government getting too much power. Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Vietnam and the list goes on, are very good examples of how socialism gives so much power to one single authority that the natural consequence is misuse of the authority and the brutality that comes with.

Think Dirk once explained to us that the above countries did not have socialist government. In my opinion I also don't think the Government was socialist. More like dictatorships for most of the way. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Romania are democratic countries now I believe. Previously they were satellites of the Soviet Union.

 

[Dirk]

Think Dirk once explained to us that the above countries did not have socialist government. In my opinion I also don't think the Government was socialist. More like dictatorships for most of the way. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Romania are democratic countries now I believe. Previously they were satellites of the Soviet Union.

Yah. And i agree.

These were miserable dictatorships with no democratic accountability and far too much power centralised with the state. I might add that they oppressed real socialists is fact, not opinion.

 

[GOP]

Socialism and business is compatible, you just need to run the economy in a not statist and/or capitalist way (that was the USSR's mistake, giving gov't too much control).

I interpret this as you speaking of social democracy? The third way policies won't work well for business. Even though they can exist with socialist run government, they will still be taxed so they can't produce anything and they will probably move to another country.

Think Dirk once explained to us that the above countries did not have socialist government. In my opinion I also don't think the Government was socialist. More like dictatorships for most of the way. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Romania are democratic countries now I believe. Previously they were satellites of the Soviet Union.

They were dictatorships, but that's mostly what socialist countries have been and still are. Belarus and North Korea as an example today.

 

[Dirk]

I interpret this as you speaking of social democracy?

No, he's not. He's talking about socialism.

 

[GOP]

No, he's not. He's talking about socialism.

When you're mixing a socialistic government and private business, it's called socialdemocracy.

 

[Dirk]

When you're mixing a socialistic government and private business, it's called socialdemocracy.

We're not talking about government here. Just economics - independently.

Government is not necessary for socialism to exist, by the way. In comrade David's case, while he'd like Government to exist, it would have little, if any, real relation with the economy.

+ He's a conservative socialist.

I'd really rather not speak for him, mind. I have no telepathic powers, i'm afraid.

By the way, social democracy is more explicit than that. It's a welfare state with high state intervention in the economy - David, so far as i'm aware, supports none of these, ideally. Socialism is a seperate economic idea and largely open to interpretation.

 

[GOP]

We're not talking about government here. Just economics - independently.

Socialism and economy. Who or more correctly, what, makes a country or a society socialistic? The one who's in power, who's in power? The government.

By the way, social democracy is more explicit than that. It's a welfare state with high state intervention in the economy - David, so far as i'm aware, supports none of these, ideally. Socialism is a seperate economic idea and largely open to interpretation.

That's exactly why I interpreted the post made by deanhills, as referring to socialdemocracy.

 

[Dirk]

The one who's in power

I disagree. I'd say, the ones with power. There is often a difference.

 

[GOP]

I disagree. I'd say, the ones with power. There is often a difference.

Through history we've learned that in countries run by the dirty ideology of socialism, there's one in power, not the ones with power.

 

[David]

I'd like to point out that socialism is an economic, not governmental, philosophy. Socialist "gov'ts" simply pursue policies that support a socialist economy. A gov't cant actually be socialist anymore then it can be capitalist, just pro-socialism.

 

[GOP]

I'd like to point out that socialism is an economic, not governmental, philosophy. Socialist "gov'ts" simply pursue policies that support a socialist economy. A gov't cant actually be socialist anymore then it can be capitalist, just pro-socialism.

Of course it can be a socialist government. If the governments beliefs are the same as socialism and they follow the policy of socialism, they're a socialist government.

 

[David]

Of course it can be a socialist government. If the governments beliefs are the same as socialism and they follow the policy of socialism, they're a socialist government.

No, if socialism was a gov't philosophy (like democracy) then it couldn't work in an anarchist society (and it can). You can have a gov't that supports a socialist economy but find me a single piece of socialist literature that calls for a gov't. The closest you'll come is talk of soviets and they're worker councils.

 

[GOP]

No, if socialism was a gov't philosophy (like democracy) then it couldn't work in an anarchist society (and it can). You can have a gov't that supports a socialist economy but find me a single piece of socialist literature that calls for a gov't. The closest you'll come is talk of soviets and they're worker councils.

The definition of pro is being in favor of something, now that is correct. But it doesn't mean DOING something. A governments actions are called something far different than being "pro-capitalist" or "pro-socialist". They are not only in favor of the ideology, but they're also acting so they get their views through in society.