Which in your opinion is worse? If you're not sure what either are look it up first please. I know some of you may be Socialist or Theocratic etc... That's fine, to each there own. I'm just curious as to what my wise fellow tokers think. Besides Grasscity is pretty much a think-tank. I believe any form of radicalism is bad. Mild or moderate is fine... but if I had to pick I'd say a non-secular government is scarier. Primarily because I'm half Turkish. VS.
i wouldnt argue that one is WORSE than the other. i'd say socialism would be preferred only because it would probably be more efficient. The issue I have with socialism is the possibility of it becoming tyrannical. A non-secular govt. seems a bit less stable and ill-equiped to change, which in order to have a long lasting country, being able to change with the times is essential. BTW, there is a political discussion sub-forum would render a better discussion on the topic, imo.
Well, socialist because although I am a socialist/anarchist, I believe that the best time of government is one which is ran by no seperation of church and state, as I am religious.
I'd agree with your points, the tyrannical aspects have obviously played out a in many of the prominent examples, USSR, N. Korea. But either way, the current state of affairs is still not great. Capitalism is a system that benefits wealthy citizens by providing anything money can buy. Those who earn less get less back from the system though.
I would definately prefer a system of pure socialism over that of a religiously controlled state. By pure socialism I mean proper Marxism, not totalitarian Leninism/ Stalinism. If you think about it, the world has never really experienced proper socialism before, in that governments which claim to be socialist deviate from Marxist theories and install a totalitarian government, something Marx would not have agreed with.
look at Iran or Saudi Arabia and then look at Cuba or Venezuela. where do you want to be? me personally? i'm chillin smokin prime cigars all day or running my car off of sugar cane ethanol. yall dudes can get whipped for lookin at a richer dudes woman too long an wear pajamas all day long if you want but i dont fuck around like that. :l
I would respectfully disagree with your view on Capitalism. Anybody can make money if they're willing to work hard for it. I went from literallly nothing to where I am to day that way, and so have quite a few people much wealthier than I am. Except for those few who really are not capable, all it takes is discipline and hard work to succeed in a Capitalist system.
and you get to, for the most part, spend your money how you want to spend it. In socialism your money can get taken away from you to put towards someone who just doesn't feel like working.
If your only smart enough to earn around minium wage, you will live a fairly meager life atleast as far as your power to accommodate a lifestyle(food, travel, entertainment, the arts) I don't argue that capitalism works for many. I just feel it leaves too many behind in the process, in interest of creating and sustaining the goddamn capital that drives this machine. Never said socialism was the answer either. I think there has yet to be a system that is ideal, humans are probably too stupid to successfully operate what I would consider an ideal government.
Very few people actually work for minimum wage if you look at the statistics. Anyone with an IQ over 90 can make more than that, and those who truly can't take care of themselves should have help, that I agree with. There IS no ideal system. Humans are imperfect and any system we ever make will also be.
I can atleast agree on that. I will argue though that even above minium wage to a point you really don't get much that you can save from a 30,000/yr. salary (as far as savings you can use for opportunites both enterprising and enriching)
All one needs is food and shelter which for 99% of the population is easily attainable by working rather than sitting on one's ass smoking crack or watching TV. I didn't say everyone would/could get rich, but that's not a requirment for living a comfortable life. Oh and OP, the thread premise/title is flawed. The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have a non-secular socialist government.
Ya I was thinking that last part in my head as I first posted... honestly I think much of the population is unable to do things that would be considered worthy enough to give them excess capital to use in the system and I think it is unfair. Should the smarties and the already rich citizens continue to enjoy the grunt work of the proletariat?
I disagree with your premise. Much of the population is unwilling to do what it takes, not unable. One doesn't need to be a genius to make a decent comfortable living.
I guess it is just hard to believe there are that many people unwilling to provide a decent life if the system is as fair as you say it is. But I appreciate your responses and I don't want to belabor my point too much
I think they are both equally awesome it just depends on your attitude. And I'd rather live in Iran/Saudi Arabia than Cuba, but that's just me. (camel fetish...)
I agree, I appreicate the civil debate. It's a refreshing change from a lot of the 'yer so wrong u n00b' crap that goes on here. We can agree to disagree, but as my last point I would suggest you think about all the other counterproductive and self destructive behaviors people engage in. It's the same thing with people doing what it takes to build a good life for themselves. Just because you and I see the sense in working hard and practicing some discipline doesn't mean most people are willing to do what it takes, especially when they know their Government is just going to bail them out by taking money from those who are willing to do so and redistributing it. Thanks for the cogent and civil discussion