A bit on socialism.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lynchings, May 17, 2010.

  1. "American's have an extremely biased opinion on socialism. I mean, for some reason they always associate socialism with dictatorships and suppression, but that's only because socialism can only come about via dictatorships and suppression! That and pretty much every socialist country that has popped up has been incredibly negative: Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Communist China, Communist Cuba, etc. What a slanted view indeed":laughing:


    No, the idea that Marx had that people are inherently good and will strive to help their fellow man is a fallacy. lol, it only takes a few skunks to pollute a large area.
     
  2. i think socialism would work its just some people will always be greedy and want more

    i would love a true socialist society, but it wont ever happen
     
  3. Socialism was never given a fair shot, period
     

  4. Read Marx, he didn't believe anything was "inherent"--refer to his writings on historical materialism. In fact, if anything, I think his critique of capitalism suggested that he believed people are capable of horrible actions by exploiting labor in the name of profit. Marxism isn't about people helping each other out, it is about transferring power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, it is about the collective ownership of the means of production
     

  5. You asked a question that had only one possible answer. Nothing is impossible, I answered in a way that was more clear than yes or no. Perhaps that private school you went to should have taught you comprehension.

    It's true. Money = power in today's society.
    When all of the executives have most of the money where does the power lie?

    I'm in the UK, and yes I did go to public school. IMHO private schools should not be allowed to exist.
    Are you seriously suggesting that all education should be private?
    that seems a little snobbish.
     
  6. #46 Dronetek, May 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2010
    For those of you using the military as your example of American socialism, I'd like to point out that you are not a free person in the military. You are essentially government property. That is no bullshit either. I was once written up for "destruction of government property", because I got a bad sunburn.

    If Americans relied on government for their healthcare, we would basically be its property. No longer "free" Americans like we have traditionally been.
     
  7. There's only one answer because it was a good question. Not my first rodeo remember. And you didn't answer in a clear way. You basically went off on a unrelated tangent.

    Hahaha, I went to a public school cheech. No fucking wonder eh?

    As if it were different in any other society EVER?

    It's not just the executives that had money.... most everyone in America was doing great, especially in comparison to other countries. Government takeover and expansion has drained our economy and NOW the only people with money left are the uber-rich.


    Why? Since when is competition a bad thing?

    Why? I think you assume that Private school would remain the same over-priced luxury. However, if ALL schools were private schools the cost of tuition would plummet.

    The most important thing to remember when dealing with education "policy" is that you can't FORCE behavior through laws. Just because the law says little johnny has to go to school till he's 15 - doesn't mean he's actually getting an education
     
  8. My answer was basically it won't be impossible but the standard will drop significantly. I'm not really sorry if you were unable to see that.

    Then what's with the hate of public schools?

    Well we're tlkaing about socialism, which takes the power away from money. And yes, it has been different. Do you think the world only started when capitalism did? People were getting along just fine before money came around.


    Haha, you call people having a couple mroe dollars "well off" ? My point still stands, in relative terms the people at the top had everything and the people at the bottom had nothing. It's always been this way under capitalism, it always will. I really on't know how anyone can dispute this point.

    Would the cost of tuition plumet? Sure there'd be some cheap schools, where the quality of education would reflect the money you paid to go there (better teachers go to better schools to get mroe money) meaning that only the rich could afford a decent education.
    Is that really what you want? A world where the size of your bank account determines how much education you're entitled to?
     
  9. You have no evidence that such a claim would be true. Just your speculation.

    I don't hate public schools. I feel sympathy for all those who attend and work for them. Teachers especially. They deserve a lot better for what they put in.

    But I don't hate public schools, I just think that (like most government run programs) they are extremely inefficient as well as unproductive.


    To me it doesn't seem like you have very firm understanding of either Socialism or Capitalism.


    I love this quote from Zylark:
    The left is a moral vaccuum, where everything is relative, and nothing is absolute

    Hit's the nail on the head better than I've ever heard.


    Your flowchart of "capitalistic" education is a laugh. Education is important enough to always have a high demand. In a capitalist world - high demands usually leads to the manufacturing of a quality product... especially if the product can be put out by multiple companies/sources. Competition is great for the consumer. Aren't we the consumer when it comes to education? Private education will never lack motivation. Politicians only give a shit about education when they are up for reelection.



    Uh.... isn't that how it is now?

    Except that if you are lower-middle class, you actually get a CHOICE of a school and your kids aren't forced to go to a crappy public school because that's all that's available to you. Not to mention quality of education is likely to INCREASE due to competition of the market. But obviously socialists don't really believe in the free market so I get the feeling that no matter what I say you will automatically disagree.
     
  10. you have no evidence it wouldn't be true. You really think without the government intervening that big companies are ging to provide the best product possible rather than the shittest they can for the highest price? A capitalist society needs a government to regulate big businesses and re-distribute wealth.

    So what? Innefficient is better than non-existant. It's not perfect, but I don't see you offering any alternatives.

    I understand them just fine, but it's good to see you avoided the point to that part.

    You could easily take out the relative part and say the people at the top have next to everything and the people at the bottom have next the nothing. Once again you're deliberatley avoiding the point. I'm gonna make a guess that you're right wing? Kind of explains a lot.

    LMFAO! high demands lead to QUALITY products? High demands lead to high quantity products, quality has nothing to do with it. Is everything in high demand built to last? No, stuff is built and designed to last until they have their new product out on the market.

    Haha, no I don't beleive in a free market. Obviously die hard corporation-dick-sucking capitalists are going to disagree with everything I say too. So given that this isn't going to go anywhere it seems pointless to continue.
     
  11. Called the Free Market. Competition brings out the best.

    Uhh.... sounds a bit like the opposite of capitalism. Sounds like socialism. Did you mix up your "ism"s?



    You really think it would be non-existent? Jesus talk about not believing in humanity.... It's abusrd that people believe that life cannot be sustainable without some government programs holding your hand all the way through. Christ I can't believe how brainwashed people are.

    You understand them just fine? You just said capitalists believe in highly regulated market and the re-distrabution of wealth! That's the exact opposite! How can you fault me for calling it as I see it? I'm not going to debate capitalsim over socialism with someone who doesn't understand either.


    ??? Sounds like your trying to respond to the quote of Zylark...>??

    Once again. I'm not going to get into a debate over Capitalism Vs. Socialism with someone who doesn't understand either.

    :rolleyes:
    Wow.

    Not when you put it so elegantly....
     
  12. No, I was making the point that it needs to be balanced out by socialism. Both free market capitalism and hard line communism are far too extreme to actually work on their own. One needs the other to balance it out. Yin and Yang.


    I beleive without the government it would be solely in the hands of big corporations. I support the government in this area simply because it's the lesser of two evils. I'm not really pro-government in any other area but providing education and health care for the masses isn't something I oppose.

    I said capitalism needed to be reglated and wealth needed to be redistributed, I never said that was what capitalism is, I said that's what it needed.

    you posted it.


    Good, then I guess we're done here?
     
  13. #53 Lionel Hutz, May 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2016
    Sounds like crap to me. Usually when you try to do to different things at the same time you end up doing a crappy job in all areas...


    And i'll post it again because there's an obvious trend your logic:
    "everything is relative" Hmm... Kind of like "Well, ________ isn't a very good idea, but it's the lesser of two evils..."




    Guess so.
     
  14. So extremism is the way forward?
    Good logic.
    At the end of the day i'm left and you're right, the chance of us coming to any sort of middle ground is slim, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
     
  15. the simple fucking fact is that socialism has never worked, and will never work. it would if everyone was the same. the simple fact that people are people is what prevents it from being effective. marx himself expressed doubt about it ever being able to work.
     
  16. A little bit about privitisation of schooling -

    Private schools, I presume, would be just as free from regulation as every other business that 'libertarians' want deregulated. If I understand the implications of this correctly, this means there is no central creed, no curriculum framework that has to be imposed or respected across the board. This means that every private school, essentially, is teaching a different set of teachings using their own curriculum. Now, ask yourself this - the various students, who obviously will all have been taught differently upon the various subjects that they excel in; how will they go getting a job?

    I think it's fairly obvious - the kids who actually recieved a proper education and who have been taught as according to a good curriculum will be most useful to the employer, and the kids who were unfortunate enough to get sent to a school that taught them a load of shit based on a poorly devised curriculum will not get a job. The students are little more than hapless pawns in the game of free market competition between schools. This is unconsenting competition, and this unconsenting competition will mean that many students who would of outshined their peers had they gone to the same good school will instead find themselves being unable to compete due to getting taught a load of shit in school - due to removing regulations on schools.

    My second point is this - there is NO garuntee a school will be available in your area to cater to your price range. I know, I know, "People are greedy, the profit margin will be filled" - but really? By what binding contract will this margin-filling occur? The answer is "There's no binding contract, have faith in the market!"

    And isn't that just fucking fine for the richboys to say? "Just have faith, something nice'll come around your way soon! The market must fulfill our expectations, but it doesn't really matter if it does or not because we're already rich enough and well located enough to afford a good private school." The point here should be obvious - just because there potentially could arise a low-cost school to cater to the poor, it doesn't mean it will. What then? Kids don't get schooled? Their parents take out loans to put them through private school? Credit crunch? Debt implosion?

    No, the notion that all schools should be private is a sham, a ploy to keep the underclass down and remove obstacles and inconveniences for the rich. It would be nothing short of an utter disaster if implimented, an unsustainable, unmanaged and unregulated failure that would be hugely, hugely inefficient at giving everyone the opportunity to a good education that they deserve and indeed require to function in our modern world. I guess some animals are more equal than others - some (rich) kids are better (richer) than others and thus deserve (inherit) a higher standard of education than other (poor) kids. What a wonderful world... :rolleyes:
     
  17. I support the continuation of America as a Free State.
     
  18. #59 prez420, May 26, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2010

    I love how you liberals make nearly all ure cases off of a truck load of what-ifs and then act as if you stating absolute fact. Let me get this strait ure saying your against people working hard to send their kids to the best school possible because some lazy SoB up the road doesn't want to work hard to make sure his kids get a great education ? Also lets be clear there will be schools in the area they may not all have the same quality level but thats the nature of the free market because if you want a cadillac your going to have to pay cadillac prices. Go ahead and say how can you be so cold doesnt little timmy deserve the same quality of education as little tommy? Yes he does but if his parents are to lazy/greedy to earn the money for the higher class education then little timmy is screwed not because of the free market but because his parents where to lazy/greedy to put the hard work in to make sure little timmy is getting the best he can. I say greedy because alot of cases parents have the money they just have to give up luxuries for it like no cable tv instead of buying a new car buying a used car etc... In other words tighting ure own belt so ure kids can have the best of the best. Also it wont be that bad cuz I am sure it has been mentioned b4 the prices of private schooling will go down drasticly once there is more competition on the playing field because that is the nature of the free market.
     
  19. Followed by....

    So, according to you, a capitalist society NEEDS a government to ... but capitalists are going to disagree with what you say.

    :confused:

    Are you sure you're not running mental laps around yourself? You seem to have confuzzled yourself quite properly, lad.
     

Share This Page