So a child born to crack head parents that cant feed him sucks at life? Maybe he will eventually suck at life, but thats because his parents did. Why continue the cycle? Socialism gives people incentive to become active working members of there community without taking advantage of each other.
No, it gives people the incentive to sit on their ass and wait for other people to pay their bills and feed them. Why would people go to work if they knew they were going to get taken care of whether they work or not?
Do you think it would be impossible to create a law that says if you dont work and you are able to, you dont receive from the collective.
What's the point of doing that, instead of giving people control over their money and making them earn it? Why replace the work motivation with an impossible to administer horribly complicated and expensive cluster fuck that would be legislating people to work and not paying them. What I essentially hate about that idea is that I work, and indirectly I do (in theory) receive the fruits of my labor, but I then I have practically no self determination whatsoever. I am totally dependent on the state. They have absolute power over me in that scenario, they control my livelihood, not me, and I hate that idea so much. I hate the idea of being dependent on a collective, I wanna be free
[quote name='"Mirvs"'] Says Socialism doesn't take away freedom. Cites being forced to pay taxes as the reason. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote] Its funny, every time i hear a counter socialism.arguement it sounds like anarchy. Pretty much everyone on this forum that posts anti communism pro calitalism "freedome" seems to he completely anti government. Privitize everything. Abolish cops. No regulations on buisness. Your illusion of freedomd leads to government being replaced by super Rich corperations and.organized crime.doing whatever they want
[quote name='"Burrito Bandito"'] No, it gives people the incentive to sit on their ass and wait for other people to pay their bills and feed them. Why would people go to work if they knew they were going to get taken care of whether they work or not?[/quote] No thats "crony" socialism. In a true socialized democracy, the governments role is to ensure opportunity and fair play, and doesnt interfear with free market and freedome. Things like tax breaks to.companies who hire more employees and tax programs to ensure kids go to college. These are ways socialism can be succesful. Its a straw man arguement people keep using to say socialism steals money from the Rich to give to lazy undeserving poor people. Real socialists just want fair play, and not Rich people thriving off suffering. Take wallmart for.example. Wallmart takes shit Care of their employees and is one of the richest companies in the world. in a socialist society wallmart would be taxed to provide jobs, or given a tax break as an.incentive to give more jobs. Socialism and.communism arent the same thing. We arent gojng to run out of toilet paper and share.a lawn mower
Without government, corporations don't have the means to become monopolies of one industry and become "super rich". Without government control of guns people could defend themselves from armed gangs, and gangs would lose a lot of maneuvering room in fact.
Where's the incentive to work your hardest? Where's the incentive to innovate, to do your best? Oh wait... there isn't one. How about each individual gets what they earn? WHOA what a concept.
Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not what most people think of when they hear 'dictatorship'. It's the dictatorship of an economic class and was contrasted with the current system, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For more info on Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, see his work on the Paris Commune (in the larger work of The Civil War in France) where he referred to the Paris Commune as being his conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Paris Commune was essentially a direct democracy. Stalin: State Capitalism. The government was the sole capital-controller. Wage labor was in place. 'Surplus value' was extracted from the workers by the government and select businesses (see Fred Koch). The workers did not own nor did they control any of the means of production. Not socialist. Mao: State Capitalism. See above. Not socialist. He openly stated that China needed "several decades of capitalism". Hitler: Capitalism in Distress, supported by the rich and the small business owners to stave off the wave of socialist sentiment in Germany at the time. Refer to the letter Hitler released in 1927 reassuring the rich that he didn't want to actually fundamentally change the economic system in any way. Fascism was a far-right reaction to the socialist wave of sentiment in Italy, designed to distract the workers and secure capitalism's future. The original document The Doctrine of Fascism even states, flat-out, that it is a negation of Marxian socialism. Also, refer to the statements in the same document regarding the role of government in the economy and the reassurance that private enterprise is necessary. Fascism is a particularly brutal form of capitalism.
[quote name='"Pale Blue Dot"'] Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat was not what most people think of when they hear 'dictatorship'. It's the dictatorship of an economic class and was contrasted with the current system, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For more info on Marx's conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, see his work on the Paris Commune (in the larger work of The Civil War in France) where he referred to the Paris Commune as being his conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Paris Commune was essentially a direct democracy. Stalin: State Capitalism. The government was the sole capital-controller. Wage labor was in place. 'Surplus value' was extracted from the workers by the government and select businesses (see Fred Koch). The workers did not own nor did they control any of the means of production. Not socialist. Mao: State Capitalism. See above. Not socialist. He openly stated that China needed "several decades of capitalism". Hitler: Capitalism in Distress, supported by the rich and the small business owners to stave off the wave of socialist sentiment in Germany at the time. Refer to the letter Hitler released in 1927 reassuring the rich that he didn't want to actually fundamentally change the economic system in any way. Fascism was a far-right reaction to the socialist wave of sentiment in Italy, designed to distract the workers and secure capitalism's future. Hitler added anti-semitism to this ideology later. The original document The Doctrine of Fascism even states, flat-out, that it is a negation of Marxian socialism. Also, refer to the statements in the same document regarding the role of government in the economy and the reassurance that private enterprise is necessary. Fascism is a particularly brutal form of capitalism.[/quote] I agree that Marx's conception of Socialism/Communism has never been successfully set up, nor do I think it will within the next 200 years. However I disagree when you say Hitler added anti-semitism after 1927, which in my knowledge of Hitler is false. He was born in Austria, and grew up in Bavaria were anti semitism was common. Also his early adult years were spent in Vienna which was infamous for anti-semitism. Hitler was also a proud veteran of the Great War who, despite the horrors of the war, thought it was the single greatest experience of his life. Probably because he was a messenger bitch all four years of the war and only rose to the rank of Corporal.
I never said that? My post: Anti-semitism is not an economic system If you mean that Hitler added anti-semitism to fascism, then yes. Yes he did. Mussolini's fascism was based on nationalism and capitalism, but not necessarily anti-semitism. He was widely supported among the Italian Jewish population in his early days. Mussolini embraced anti-semitism after Hitler's coup, likely as a result of the alliance between the countries. [edit] Ohhh, I see the line you mean in my original post. It's just an out of place sentence, I'm stoned and forgot to re/move it. Here I'll fix it now
This You are so full of shit 0 tolerance for disrespect.. You can disagree without statements like this.. ~YODA ^^I give zero fucks.
[quote name='"Pale Blue Dot"'] I never said that? My post: Anti-semitism is not an economic system If you mean that Hitler added anti-semitism to fascism, then yes. Yes he did. Mussolini's fascism was based on nationalism and capitalism, but not necessarily anti-semitism. He was widely supported among the Italian Jewish population in his early days. Mussolini embraced anti-semitism after Hitler's coup, likely as a result of the alliance between the countries. [edit] Ohhh, I see the line you mean in my original post. It's just an out of place sentence, I'm stoned and forgot to re/move it. Here I'll fix it now[/quote] I see what you are saying now, I was all high and got confused.
Sound logic their buddy... Socilism on a large scale (already have/had many socialist programs in our country) could work, and is the direction this country is moving towards. I urge all that have not read Karl Marx communist manifesto to do so, he accurately predicted the life arc of capitalism.
There's no room for opinion in historical facts. It's a bit like "disagreeing" that Reagan was president in 1986 based on political bias. The communist manifesto was a period document addressed to the revolutionaries of the 1848 wave. It should not be taken out of context. Parts of it, most notably the section on "demands", Marx later deeply regretted writing. The teleological arc of capitalism is a bit deterministic and did not account for the level of government influence in and control over the economy. Combine that with 'social democracy' and 'welfare states' designed to placate workers and eliminate radical views among them (see Otto von Bismarck and his adoption of the welfare state in the wake of the Paris Commune to avoid the same thing happening in Germany). Capitalism's life-span has been increased indefinitely because of this. It should not be said that socialism is inevitable. Also, there are no "socialist programs" in the United States. The US is in no way "moving towards socialism". Well, the closest thing to a "socialist program" is the section of the open-source movement based specifically on the GPL license. Keynesian economics is not socialism
If socialism is democratic control of resources, and the US is a de facto democracy, then how are we NOT becoming increasingly "socialist"? Keynesianism is socialistic in the sense that it is central economic planning. We are certainly not moving away from socialism, like all past socialist countries are.