|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism
  |
| read 167 reaction(s) |
|---|
@ 03-03-2004 05:35 anoobis | 15,407 posts
| Just wanted to know what people thought about socialism. I'll start with my own little lecture.
Now there are many types of socialism, but the one with the most renown and infamy is Marxian socialism. The basis of this principle is the recurrence of class struggle throughout history, which culminates in the victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie, leading to initially a dictatorship, then a steady degradation of government until a purely anarchial and social society is achieved, sort of an equilibrium between chaos and division of power. Personally I find this absurd...firstly, the working class was utterly defeated by the bourgeoisie in a class conflict which never really occurred; it was more of a class conversion. with the industrial revolution, which was supposed to supply the tension and eventual conflict between middle and lower classes, living standards were raised instead of lowered and the working class found greater opportunity to advance its interests instead of being suppressed by the middle and upper classes. So, on that first point socialism was incorrect. On the hybrid of Marxian socialism and certain other doctrines, communism, it found a great trial in the Soviet Union, which really turned out to be a spectacular failure...capitalist nations enjoyed far greater standards of living and equity of opportunity, while the supposedly evil division of wealth was a product of a division of the inherent drive to work and succeed. albeit inheritance can provide a route to undeserving wealth and fame, which is why i say estate taxes should be close to punitive, since no person should be rich because of accident of birth, just as the aristocrats of earlier eras found their influence through accident of birth. equitable division of goods is a very nice dream, but it requires such universal and effective application that it is difficult to foresee such a system being implemented.
your turn! |
| Showing posts 26-50 of 167 | Page 2 of 7 |
| Discussion |
|---|
 0  @ 12-03-2004 05:25 anoobis | 15,407 posts
| yes it's a very good point that capitalism creates competition, and that it can be a destructive force.
alright, aside from the positive aspects of competition, it's very important as well to acknowledge that while it's a hinderance to the success of socialism there are other problems that in turn cripple it. beyond the flawed conception of the system, there has always been the issue of the drone, the parasite of society whose inutitlity has been discussed since aristotle, and undoubtedly before. the problem that the drone creates with socialism (and i'm using the same word as aristotle did, drone, just to sound puffed up and cultured) is that he or she leeches and takes advantage of the efforts and endeavors of his fellow countrymen. of course the problem is that since socialism is based on mutual support of the state, and the mutual enjoyment of prosperity, the drone will take and not give, leaving unrequited the labor of the hard-working socialists.
then let's consider the very nature of socialism itself, which is essentially the dedication of all efforts for the benefit of the greater good, like jeremy bentham said "the greatest good for the greatest number." so continuing with that line, a socialist sees that his aim is to benefit a thing so abstract and immense that it is difficult to appreciate (or perhaps depreciate) the scope of his goal. i know that doesn't really make sense...ok...it is difficult for a socialist to see what good he receives through his exertion if the fruition of his labor goes to the state, a thing so tremendously beyond the capacity of a person to conceive that there can be no return perceivable. the individual cannot possibly comprehend the incentive to work if his or her reward is not palpable, for how can one know what the state will give one, when the state is undefined by the man? because when did the socialist have a say in what his state is? he never voted; he is not a democrat (democrat with a lower-case d).
and that brings us to the final point of this post, that because the common socialist has no say in the state he cannot define the leaders and thus has no influence upon how his goods are distributed. who decides what an equal share is? an inventory accountant with a calculator? and what leader, with the force of an entire people in hand, would resist the temptation to weight his end of the "equal" division? george washington did; there was no clause in the constitution limiting his terms to two, but he chose to set the precedence for the future. but men die, leaders included, and there are not enough george washingtons to equitably rule a socialist society (well...socialist george washingtons). corruption, then, is the third point that i have rambled to; it is the combination of the drone and the overbroad state.
with these three inherent problems in hand, perhaps one should ask oneself if the allure of socialism is all it's cut out to be. | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 05:26 THEMariah | 2,083 posts
| why do you people talk so much in this thread? doo dee doo *skips off* | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 05:36 anoobis | 15,407 posts
| beats me  | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 05:39 THEMariah | 2,083 posts
| *doesn't say something bad* | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 05:43 anoobis | 15,407 posts
|   | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 17:14 hipster01cg | 337 posts
| Because Socialism and Communism are complicated subjects to talk about so you can't just say a couple of sentences about them.
Cat  | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 18:40 Masterful_Ally | 15,627 posts
| Noob I'll reply to your post when I gots more time on my hands, but your replies and posts in this thread sound like a textbook! have you already written this for an essay or something? Just the language and organisation, it's very....formal. | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 19:04 SPLIFFMAN | 2,702 posts
| well just to state my case, and im repeatin my debate on this with ally, so obviously we agree to disagree! luv u hun
Just to get things out into the open, I am a liberal. I guess because I'm quite individualistic, and in my opinion Socialism detracts from the individual. I don't want to be part of a faceless mass - a cog in the system.
As a liberal I'm all in favour of human rights, individual freedoms, and free enterprise. I believe in individual merit, and I don't think that my individual success should mean I am throwing time or money away to those in society who didn't earn it. I'm all for encouraging talent and competition, but I think socialism is all about stagnation and killing competition. Consequently I am a Capitalist.
Competition is good! Some win more than others, but competition is the only thing that ever drives progress in the world. Consequently, socialist (nationalised) economies perform poorly through lack of competition. I also believe Socialism stunts the rise of exceptional individuals, from the ranks of those who will never even have the motivation to achieve much with their lives. I believe everybody should get that chance, and I think that by taking the spotlight away from individuals and to the group as a whole, it encourages complacency, discourages competition, and prevents development.
Now, as for international relations theories, Globalisation is important for neo-liberal theory. The more the world is democratised, the more people have a say, and the more governments have to defend their interests. Add to this, an international 'structure', in which global markets create world wide trade, and encourage the spread of industry through out the world, and you have progress. The international system is anarchical. There is no world government and "national interest" is the key thing. States have to look after themselves because the system is one of "self help". This makes world socialism impossible, because states will always have differing aims and conflicting interests. Competition is key! The point is, that by globalisation, competition is removed from nationalist levels, to healthy co-operation, economic competition and increased trade and industries.
Globalisation is not the problem in the world today. The only problem is that democracy has not yet gained total supremacy as a system of government. The more democracy grows, the better. The only problems globalisation causes (exploiting people) is when the governments of the countries involved are too incompetent or interested in their own corrupt interests rather than their people.
Peace guys. | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 19:09 Masterful_Ally | 15,627 posts
| *cough*daveisnotLiberalhe'sConservative*cough*
heh | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 19:15 SPLIFFMAN | 2,702 posts
| cough *ally's an amazing girl* cough.
NB: This post has been edited by a moderator, 12-03-04 | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 19:19 SPLIFFMAN | 2,702 posts
| but you know i luv u reeeeally *puppy dog eyes* | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 19:57 Masterful_Ally | 15,627 posts
| Well, no one will read this, but it covers all I have to say on the issues Dave brought up, so I'm going to post it anyway. Just imagine it's a script! lol.
Dave: are u a fan of the E.U.?
Alex: as its place as an organisation that creates some form of buffer against america being too much of a superpower
Alex :but there are faults
Dave: indeed, but yeah i like it for that reason
Alex says:well thats the aspect that I approve of
Alex says:it is necessary, I wouldnt want it not to be there
Alex says:thats also why I want the Euro
Dave: im a big fan of globalisation tho. free enterprise, expanding free markets are good for the world. they make nations more dependent on structural factors, so less likely to go to war
Alex:but golobalisation? its just a purely economic phenomenon
Alex:and I never agree with that
Dave: id rather wait for the euro
Dave: but multinational corporations create jobs and industry across the world, so states require them.
Alex :hah
Dave:so basicaly, it stops states from going to war, because they cant risk losing the investment
Dave: global markets make the system less anarchic, the more structure there is the better
Alex :we dont need this worldwide drive towards an economic system dominated by mulitnationall corporate trade
Dave:what is the alternative?
Dave: this is why i wondered if u were marxist
Dave: worldwide socialism stuff
Dave: been proven not to work
Alex :its complicated, but golbaslisation is continuign to shift power from states and governments to undemocratic organisations
Alex :and how can anyone think that is healthy?!
Alex :human rights are ignored and its overlooked
Alex :its overlooked by governments because they are relying on these companies
Alex: how the hell is that healthy?
Alex it shouldnt be like that
Dave: the internal systems of states are still heirarchical. like the government/law is still at the top, and has jurisdiction.
Alex :when a countires economy is in tatters
Dave: so it is still in charge of law, moral stuff, welfare
Alex  f yeah sure it is
Alex :but it cant rebel and rule against a company that is supplying half the jobs
Alex :surely you see my point
Dave: but the companies are not in charge of human rights, that is the state's jobs. all it has to do is decide the laws
Dave: so long as the state is democratic, there will be no problem
Dave: the governments cant make unpopular policy...
Alex :globalisation would be all good and pretty is the world consisted off strong governments with no economical problems and sound legal systems and state institiutions
Alex :but that just isn't the case
Alex :many companies have been PROVEN to ignore basic human rights laws
Dave: the main problem is democracy is not well founded in some parts
Alex :as I;m sure you know, but I dont see anything done about it
Dave: that is the problem, not globalisation
Alex :I see people like me shouting out, but, lets be honest, what the hell can we really do about anything
Alex:yes but cant you see that globalisation contributes to the porblem?
Alex: why chuck salt in the wound
Dave: well it contributes to peace
Alex:no it doesn;t
Alex :if democracy is not founded, how is the setting up of a large coorporation with no aims but to make as much money as possible help?
Alex :do you think those people really give a shit about their employees?
Dave: well okay, it doesnt so much for the U.S.A. right now, because since the cold war the world has become uni-polar
Alex :large companies are bent on subverting governments.
Alex: simple as.
Dave: because it transcends national boundaries, so states cannot afford to just go to war, they are interdependent, and the MNCs create jobs. if governments neglect to care for their people then that is the government's fault. democracy is all that is needed. globalisation has its problems at the moment, but it is the only way forward
Dave: there is no alternative to it
Dave: nationalised industry is nowhere near competitive or productive enough, so you need free-enterprise, and the only way 4wd is globalisation
Alex :"transcends national boundaries, so states cannot afford to just go to war, they are interdependent, and the MNCs create jobs. if governments neglect to care for their people then that is the government's fault. democracy is all that is needed. globalisation has its problems at the moment, but it is the only way forward
"
Alex :My god Dave listen to yourself
Alex :you sound like you've been brainwashed
Alex :you sound like textbhook propaganda, to be honest
Dave: lol no.
Dave: well theres no need to be a rebel without a cause
Alex:you think governments have a fair chance of improving their situation
Alex :WHEN they rely almost completely on a non democratic instituition
Dave: i dont see any credible alternative to it in the real world
Dave: and without it, there would be a lot more suffering
Alex :Instead of just saying this: "globalisation has its problems at the moment, but it is the only way forward
"
Alex :how about trying to explain it
Alex :what do you see as these minor 'problems' that can be so easily overcome
Alex :without inducing more poverty and suffering
Alex :because I'd like to know, hey, maybe you can be the next president and transform the world
Alex :I dont mean to sound rude but to me it appears someone has spoon fed you an opinion
Dave: hah, well the problem is lack of democracy. the gap between the developing/developed world has got a lot less in recent times, and democracy is on the up in the world, so im optimistic. and globalisation, while as you say can undermine democracy (and sometimes does), it provides jobs, makes states more peaceful, and creates markets/trade/commerce, which are all good. there is no alternative
Alex :it provides jobs
Alex :that bordser slave labour
Dave: well i have to do a lot of reading, but ofcourse i have to come to my own conclusions
Alex :it provides jobs for the desperate that how no other alternative, then keeps them down
Alex :doesn;t let them up
Alex :it supresses the poor, it abuses its power
Alex :people are not nice
Alex :they dont give a shit what happens to those below them as long as they can make money
Alex :so I wouldnt be so optimistic if I were you
Dave: well short of marxism, do you have an alternative?>
Alex :it isnt bridging the lessening gap being MEDC's and LEDC's
Alex :its simply holding it
Alex :preventing it from closing in
Alex :it's all very well saying ' globalisation works! It's good for everyone and it isn't going away, whats the alternative'
Alex :but is that really the way you want to start looking at life?
Alex :if people didn't look for other ways out of a situation, we weould never have progressed
Alex :we;d still be cavemen for godssake
Alex :globalisation, in principal, walks hand in hand with other ideas such as privatisation
Alex :how is this healthy?
Alex: it takes more and more power AWAY from the state
Alex :and that is not democratic
Alex :its the opposite
Dave: its been said that it stagnates the less developed states, but generally, the governments have caused that. instead of opening up industries, they poured away money into outdated local small scale stuff because of groups (like farming) and in the long term their countries dont develop or get enough investment
Alex :we can see it happening under our noses - look at thre trains
Alex :these things are one and the same, we can see the negative effects of globalisation on our doorsteps, never mind all over the world
Dave: i dont believe in privatisation of public services, transport, health, welfare, its all the states job
Alex :SO WHAT if the governments have caused that?! and even if the governments caused those siutations, why the hell does it then make it alright to keeps countries down?
Dave: industry/trade arent though
Alex :I just dont get it, surely if a government has made mistakes we'd want to do the oppostie
Dave: but its the countries who became part of the international markets which are more prosperous now...
Alex :not monopolise on those mistakes
Alex :which is what we are doing
Alex :we are using and abusing people who have no means to complain and to get back up once they've been kicked down
Alex :and it disgusts me
Alex :and you cant be completely for all aspects of globalisation because it is true that privatisation of previousley state controlled services walks hand in hand with the concept
Dave:before MNCs started to industrialise developing countries, those countries could only export raw materials and stuff, while importing technology at higher prices. so they stagnated and couldnt develop. its the countries which have international investment/setting up of industries, through globalisation, which have prospered
Alex :jesus
Alex kay, look as this quote here:
Alex :
[i]""The simple fact is that globalisation makes us richer -- or makes
enough of us richer to make the whole process worthwhile."
Alex :doesn;t that say it all to you
Alex :makes ENOUGH of us richer to make it worthwhile
Dave: thats now what im arguing
Alex :is that right? its all right to treat people like shit as long as SOME of us benefit
Alex :because to me that shows a lack of humanity in a person
Alex :did you read that Dollar-Kraay World Bank study stuff, I had to do it for Geography?
Alex :that report?
Dave: i would argue that through moving away from 'national' interests, industry spreads because MNCs can develop markets and invest anywhere, so the gap lessens
Alex :hah, that report, that world bank report, basically stated that if you aren;t in on the act now its too late
Alex :ir proved some economies had sufferent under globalisation
Alex :and it clearly didn;t give a shit
Alex :it was a 'HAHA! to late' attitude
Alex :and it make me sick
Dave: but the world cant just be humanitarian, its a fact that we compete. some win more than others, but i see the competition as positive generally. the alternative is uncompetitive stagnation.
Alex:from where I'm standing globalisation is creating a few winners and way too many losers, particularly marginalising the poor in the developing world!
Alex :why do people accept that? its pure greed
Dave:i think its a shame that there are still winners/losers. where we differ i think is that i think without it there would be no progress, and that the losers would never develop at all.
Alex :essentially, by weakening the capacity of the state in a country/nation, we are making it even harder for that state to then address problems we have less issues with in MEDC's such as AIDS, job losses, education and more.
Alex :yeah Dave, thats the problem with the way people like you thinl
Alex :you 'thinks its a shame'
Alex :but you're not gonna get off your arse and do anything or say anything
Dave: i see no other way, or atleast no other better way, without getting into fantasy
Alex :see no other way....
Alex :hah
Dave: well what is your alternative to globalisation?
Alex :its something that needs to be built
Alex :not everthing is in black and white
Alex :its like, you couldnt invent a television before we had electricity, right/
Alex :things need to change BEFORE we come up with an end solution
Dave: the only alternative apart from a marxist socialist revolutionary view, is of nations competing individually.
Alex :we need to start reversing the unhealthy practives we've started, repressing people and keeping the poor poor
Dave: would you prefer if nations did that? that would kind of make you a nationalist. competition would still exist, except the world would be a lot more wartorn
Alex :before we can then adress the next issue of how we're going to start building up a different solution
Alex :no of course I dont approve of that
Alex :thats extremist
Alex :you seem to be only interested in extremes
Alex :as I said, not everything is a simple as you like to make it out to be
Dave: well apart from nations, the only other players are private bodies
Alex :yes but whats this attitude of states having to be 'against' each other?!
Dave: well, apart from NGOs, but the world isnt so universalist. we arent all about to join together
Alex :why the hell do the words 'compromise' and 'co-existance' if we're never going to use the ideas?
Dave: because states are against eachother!!
Alex :why?!
Alex :why are you being so negative??!
Dave: they have to operate on self-interest first
Alex :self interest and greed are two seperate things
Alex :we need a more activist role for governments ACROSS THE WORLD exercising policy choice tailored to local circumstances...
Alex :you cant work on a basic 'one size fits all' assumption
Dave: :states are concerned with their own people, their own security, bettering themselves economically, whether that is by co-operation where others benefit too, or by competing on a zero sum basis, where 1 state loses and 1 wins, and that often leads to war, and more losers. which is why i am more into globalisation. states competing is historically bad.
Alex :States now are
Alex :we're not all George.W.Bush
Dave: states can be humanitarian, but it isnt human nature. 1st priority is always self interest and security, self gains
Alex :and thats the kind of attitude that sickens me, tis self destuctive
Dave: i encourage some humanitarianism, but it is unrealistic for it to be anything other than a secondary priority. OK... the 1990s saw a lot of UN humanitarianism, but now the US has been shown to have underestimated its own vulnerability, notice how obvious it is that security is ALWAYS a state's 1st priority.
Alex  ight
Alex :against extremist organisations
Alex :doing what america did
Alex :underining the UN
Alex :what WE did
Alex :how does that solve anything? that rejects all humanitarian prinicples
Alex :which is just going to cause destruction
Dave: :i didnt back the war on iraq. it was very political, but in terms of america's obsession with security/terrorism, its kinda obvious
Alex :at the end of the day globalisation is just the idea of exploiting economically weak countries by connecting the economies of the world, forcing dependence on the western capitalist machine.
Alex :and it is sick
Dave: im all for the UN, it makes the world peaceful
Alex :exactly
Dave: but states have to look after themselves, its the way it is
Alex :but when I spoke to you back at the early stages of war proposals you were all for it
Dave: international relations is anarchic, its a system of 'self help' or die
Dave: well i believe in human rights, im a liberal. but intervention like that is considered illegal, and their arguments were inadequate. it was more about flag waving and bush appearing strong, not much to do with that i was talkin about
Dave:afghanistan/al quaeda is more that i mean.
Alex :look, economic growth and social developmen tetc etc can be achieved in the WITHOUT everyone worshipping and indulging the western world, (mainly the US) to the encouragement of the idea of profit holding importance over social responsibility, to the improvement of shareholder value over the improvement of human value, to this nutty indulgence in cut-throat competition over political cooperation!
Alex :but we need to reevaluate the way we look at things
Alex :perfect economic efficiency CAN'T t be the primary goal of society; economics must once again be approached as a means to an end, not the end itself
Dave: if 1 nation has policies which benefit itself, then another nation cant have the same policy unless it benefits it too. nations gotta look after themselves, sometimes they co-operate. sometimes they cant, it all depends on their own interests
Alex :"well i believe in human rights, " You cant believe in human rights AND globalisation without contradicting yourself at some point
Alex :because they dont happily coexist
Alex :you cannot believe in equal rights and then argue what you are arguing
Dave: but through globalisation, and bodies like the UN, the EU, states have less independence. it makes the world more peaceful because through interdependent interests, they all need eachother to prosper
Alex :no, not all tates have less independance
Alex OORER states have less independance
Dave: and co-operation is always more constructive
Alex :its just another sick way of keeping those who are already down down
Alex :the western world will share these so called interdependant interests
Alex :and they will continue to abuse the less developed world for their own good
Alex :just like they are now
Alex :I mean, of all the points I've made, are you going to tell me that none are valid?
Alex :because what is sad is you seem to agree with me
Alex :but in some misguided pessimism and defeatist attitude, you support a situation that really, deep down, you can see is wrong
Alex :and that is whats wrong with people.
Dave: basically, i believe in democracy, global markets, international bodies like the UN, EU. i recognise that the balance is not equal in all states, but im no idealist
Alex :hah....democracy. You believe in democracy but you also support giving increasing emounts of power to non-democratic organisations
Alex :how....strange.
Dave: no, i believe they play their role. the state and bodies like the UN are the ones with responsibilities for welfare and their people
Alex :"not equal in all states" well do you 'recognise' further that the balance is not only not equal, but distictly against those already in undesirable finiancial and politcal situations?
Alex :"no, i believe they play their role. the state and bodies like the UN are the ones with responsibilities for welfare and their people"
Alex :but cant you see this isn;t possible if one or two companies are providing half the employment in a country?
Dave: and yes i know international corps can undermine democracy, and its a fault of the system, but it still leads to economic development worldwide, through global markets, and i see no alternative anyway.
Alex :it doesn't lead to economic development WORLD WIDE!
Alex :you keep contradicting yourseld
Dave: it does, MNCs dont have to invest in any one country.
Alex :you keep using the fact that you 'see no alternative' as some kind of excuse for going against what, not to be cheesy, your morals seem to tell you
Dave: im not naive enough to claim its such a happy clappy solution, i recognise it as the most successful, the most natural and one leading to more stability in the world
Alex :you're not some evil money grabber, I can see that you see the faults and that you know crappy stuff is going on out there that is bad, but you are using your own short sightedness and defeatist attitude to convince yourself that'll itll all be alrught in the end
Alex :I'm not naive, I have little faith in humanity, but I'm not about to let circumstances defeat my morals and my beliefs
Alex :and my instinct as to what is wrong
Dave: no, it wont be alright in the end. but it never will be "alright" in the way i think you see it.
Alex :because you should never support something you do not fully believe is right, no matter what the situation is
Alex h I know we're never going to reach what I want
Alex :but that is NEVER going to stop me fighting for it
Alex :back when the world was run by men, women fought, against all odds, for their own rights
Alex :and in the developed world, it worked
Alex :when it looked like it never would
Dave: but i support democracy too, i have admitted in places there is an imbalance. i would argue that global markets + democracy is as near perfect as u can get
Alex :its all about faith and persistance
Dave: im not denying democracy is sometimes the weaker force
Alex :and liberal my arse
Alex :dave, you are still a tory, haha!
Dave: lol no im not | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 20:01 rawkerNoNagal | 9,981 posts
| thats really long. but i agree with ally. | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 21:04 SPLIFFMAN | 2,702 posts
| "Dave: thats now what im arguing"
hmm either a dirty trick from ally or a typo from me, but i meant "thats not* what im arguing"
it seems ally has been democratic enough to censor my posts. especially after she just accused me of being a tory! I think she is a Marxist. Are you gonna edit my post again oh democratic one?
Dave! cheeky git! I did not! Ally [12-03-04] | | 0 @ 12-03-2004 21:09 SPLIFFMAN | 2,702 posts
| if you did, i wonder what your reasons would be...
1) I am encouraging "competition" (see our posts)
2) I am a bourgoise threat to the socialist revolution and only the true, uniting, socialist will is allowed - enabling the proletariat to overthrow the capitalist oppressors.
| | 0 @ 12-03-2004 21:13 Masterful_Ally | 15,627 posts
| lol Dave, talk about suspicious minds, I have edited NOTHING I assure you, that was your typo - go check your chat log if you don't believe me! I just knocked the begining and end off the convo coz it was mainly us taking the piss out of each other's politics, lol! | | 0 @ 13-03-2004 02:49 nymante | 2 posts
| first of all, someone earlier mentioned canada as socialist.. and the only socialist thing they have is national healthcare, which the librals have been trying to get in america forever.
but generally there shouldnt be even this discussion, y'all all sound like the international noise conspiracy... if you look at counties and and thier wealth capitalist counties are far betetr to do than communist or socialist countries, which the two share the same ideals. if you dont give people the chance to exceed then what gives them the motivation to work at all? | | 0 @ 13-03-2004 05:22 AndyFnJ | 5,439 posts
| Hey, I don't really feel like getting into debating Capitalism vs. Socialism for the millionth time in my life, but I did want to throw out a few facts that I may have missed, but didn't seem to be in the debate here... Firstly, most philosophers will agree that the original concept of some sort of Socialist thought was by Plato in his book, the Republic, so it's not exactly a new idea, secondly, Communism is not the same as Socialism, it is an extension.... according to Marx, Capitalism will one day fall into Socialism, which will then develop itself into COmmunism, which is where the money goes away, and there is no leader, etc. etc. While Communism may not be achievable, Socialism seems much more realistic, Cuba being a good example, where despite what the U.S. government would have you believe, the country does allright for itself. In Cuba, a doctor makes the same as a janitor, and they seem to be fine with that. In Fact, more medical research goes on per capita in Cuba than any other country in the world.
Just try to not think of Socialism and communism as being related in any way to the USSR, and you will be allright  | | 0 @ 13-03-2004 22:52 anoobis | 15,407 posts
| no i don't write essays if i don't have to, and i write like that because it's the only way i know of to present the information | | 0 @ 21-03-2004 06:37 anoobis | 15,407 posts
| cmon ally, i want to hear what you have to say! | | 0 @ 28-03-2004 21:23 anoobis | 15,407 posts
|  sticky!!!!!! | | 0 @ 05-04-2004 08:56 InternetMan00 | 115 posts
| Communism, tried in the Soviet Union, failed when it went bankrupt in the arms race and the space race with the Democratic Capitalistic United States. Communism and the theories divised by Marx are perfect, flawless plans, but the society and the species they govern are not perfect nor flawless. Communism, headed at first by a dictator to enforce equality and wealth distribution and material distribution, cannot function unless the dictator relieves themself of power after that goal is accomplished. Lenin or Stalin, however, were reluctant to relinquish their power. They became seekers of power, turning Communism back onto Communism to feed off of it.
Socialism, based on similar ideas, calls for a government that owns all land and all public facilities and all business. The government controls prices, productivity, and supports the public. No perfect government for suited Socialism has never been found.
One can analyze the system and theories behind Communism and Socialism, but they have failed before. Of course people out there are honest and sincere enough, but different someone will always come around and invade the system like viruses. They will move in and take over.
America itself under free enterprise and a Federal Republic government is not perfect either, but it is still around after 200 years. America does seem to be getting stronger too, for it is the strongest nation in the world. That is why governments that support the majority outlast those that support the perfects. Survival of the fittest. | | 0 @ 12-04-2004 12:36 KingJeZter | 9,999 posts
| Communism was not a perfect flawless plan, it was made on economical assumptions that did not hold up. Karl Marx based all things on the Labour valuation assumption, which means that only labour and not other things had value, which neglects other things like information and land and possession and intangible advantages. It basically removed them from everyone and transfered partly if not most to the state. | | 0 @ 17-04-2004 23:14 socalperson | 54 posts
| Socialism seems to work well in Sweden. They have cradle-to-grave health-care, much better than Bush's version of "care".
The only problem with Sweden (the example) is it isn't the biggest fish out there, and government officals seem to be assassinated for no reason there. | | 0 @ 20-04-2004 00:36 AlienationEd | 9,757 posts
| Joe..... you're real good with your words huh? Really, you got some good words in there... but..
you are such a nerd. I love it.    |
| |
|
|
|
TOP ARTISTS:
Coldplay, Rihanna, Jonas Brothers, Jason Mraz, Miley Cyrus, Lil Wayne, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Chris Brown, Paramore, Linkin Park, Mariah Carey, Katy Perry, Pussycat Dolls, The, Britney Spears, Jordin Sparks, Taylor Swift, Demi Lovato, Akon, Secondhand Serenade, Eminem, Usher, Nickelback, Colbie Caillat, Lifehouse, Sara Bareilles, Ne-Yo, Simple Plan, Evanescence, Lars Winnerbäck, Kanye West, Takida, Metro Station, Jesse McCartney, Natasha Bedingfield, Håkan Hellström, One Republic, John Mayer, Boys Like Girls, Christina Aguilera, Death Cab For Cutie, Alanis Morissette, Fall Out Boy, Carrie Underwood, Kelly Clarkson, Avenged Sevenfold, Celine Dion, Beatles, The, Camp Rock Cast, Aerosmith |
| Copyright © 1998-2008 LetsSingIt | add to bookmarks | disclaimer | privacy policy | advertise on this site |
|
|
