Well I assume you were.It's an ideology that has caused so much misery for so many people, so for me it's quite difficult to understand how people can still hold on to it.
Yes because the fascist gov'ts in South america that were installed by conservative American gov'ts were so much better. Sorry, that argument just doesn't stand up to facts.
Besides, Cuba is doing quite well for itself.
This argument is pretty standard, but the definition of workers rule can hardly be used for Cuba either. Socialism has been tried so many times, but with no success. The reason for this is that the socialistic theory about a society without any classes can never exist, socialism gives one class more power than any other: the government. Socialism can never stop some people more hardworking than others, it's not possible. If socialism was FOR the workers, socialists would hail wealthy people, but no they loathe them because they manage to create their own businesses, their own little shops etc, and they realize that the government is not alone controlling everything anymore. It's really sad that some believe this is right still today, but I guess we can't get rid of it.
Cuba is hardly a perfect example of socialism but it's not the worst ether. It's also relatively prosperous. As for not working, what about communes? the many anarchist societies that have existed? The decentralized communist societies of nomadic peoples?
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!
Though she was an atheist, I am a fan of Ayn Rand. I believe that one's work is one's own and what one makes from their work is their own. I do not believe the income tax is constitutional. So then I don't see how you can be a socialist without taking from those who produce to give to those who do not. Define socialism to me for you admire those who are rich as you mentioned and I agree with you .......but you would take from them to give to others.....instead of allowing them to give of their own accord? Do you think Gates or Cosby needs to be told by a government to give to those who need it? I don't. Why then would you follow socialism?
That's socialism in a nutshell if I were to water it down to it's basics. I think you are confused about socialism, dirk for example is a staunch free market supporter (and farther left then myself) and no self-respecting socialist/communist would deny the need for capitalism.
What is your view of socialism. I want details and I'll respond to each point you make.
I am a socialist as well.
That's what i believe and that is precisely why i am a socialist.
I think that your definition of socialism is fallacious - it is far too narrow, and, in the definition of the traditional term, which i follow, simply false. I oppose Government intervention.
Well said. The system did want to fail in September of 2008, and they should have allowed the banks to fail, so that they could start from scratch again. Instead they just manufactured more money, bailed the banks out, and Wall Street is partying all over again. Wonder how long that is going to last this time round?
Not all banks were failing and I felt that there were many who could have continued as they are and incorporated the mess and made it work. Many local banks across the country are not working in the same manner as those who failed; they are doing great.
So then, you opppose the income tax and believe that all should give as they want to whom they want to help?
Yes And I believe that what 1 makes for them self is their's and not some capitalist's who wishes to size it for profit.
To me, socialism means the government decides how much money they take from you to fund their programs. IMO we already have a socialist country to an extent. Medicare, welfare, schools etc are all run by the government. People are punished for making a lot of money. I have no choice as to where my money goes once the government has it. Even my home is not safe if the government decides to take it for emminent domain which they would justify anyway they chose.
so then you seem more Libertarian to me than socialist.
How would you propose that those truly in need of the basics receive them? Note the word truly; for I believe that 95% of welfare recipients do not need it but receive it because the program is too large to keep check on all of them.
No, no. That's a welfare state. A socialist country (my brand of socialism anyway) would be dominated by worker councils (soviets) that would, via direct democracy, decide what kind of taxes and spending would take place within the local community and the national gov't would further organize this
in a federation of soviets (not unlike the current set up with the USA) providing governing consistency and military protection over all the soviets. Workers would keep what they produce minus what they produced for the purpose of sale. All companies would be owned, not by the state but by the workers themselves and private enterprise would be encouraged on the small scale with corporations ether not existing or being gov't run (and worker owned).
Dirk will have a good laugh at that. :giggle:
Those in need would get help, leaches would be left to starve.
I was referring to the "banks" that got bailed out. I'm aware that not all the banks had been failing, also that quite a number of banks and investment companies had been allowed to fail. The Government applied its assistance selectively. Also not very transparently, as there is no public record as far as I know of exactly who got bailed out for how much and what the terms and conditions had been. Guess the Government did not want to "confuse" us with too much information
They are so sweet about not worrying us with "details".Guess the Government did not want to "confuse" us with too much information
