wing

[Pashalis]

The big thing about socialism (with the small "s"), is that it can represent any form of government. Socialism was created because of the suffering of the working classes during the industrial revolution. Communism took everything a step and a half further, instigating a corrupt, fanatical regime that encouraged people to rise up and destroy their own country.

~ Pashalis

[Juggernaut]

socialism can never represent liberalism, conservatism etc. what are you talking about?

[Lord_Davinator]

got a point unci...

btw whats the "wing" title got to do with socialism?

[KoalaBear33]

No socialism can't just be any form of government. The key thing with socialism is that social principles are valued more than anything else, and everything is done for the people as a whole. So things like training for unemployed, support for single parents, rights for workers and so on will be valued more than anything else.

Under capitalism for instance (capitalism is an economic system but I think it's fair to compare the two), what is valued is money. Also everything in capitalism is done for individuals as opposed to the community. This is why the govt will spend hundreads of millions of dollars supporting a sports team while people are still unemployed and suffering (this won't happen under socialism) (note: there are benefits to doing this but my point is that this is a individual decision as opposed to a social decision).

KoalaBear33

[Bereta_Eder]

Maybe Pashalis is using the term «socialism» to refer to the size of the social warfare?

I don't know just an idea.

[Kropotkin]

This is why the govt will spend hundreads of millions of dollars supporting a sports team while people are still unemployed and suffering (this won't happen under socialism)

There wasn't any unemployment in socialist countries. It's a capitalististic phenonomen remember, it can't happen in a socialist country, just like crime.

A bit more seriously; Ever heard of the the soviet hockeyteam (i could make a lot of more examples like Dynamo Berlin)?

Pashalis has a point in a rude form of way. Socialism is a pretty hard goverment to define. Not that others are very easy, but many forms of states, goverments and ideals have claimed the title of socialism. I wouldn't say that everything can be called socialism. However quite a few european states might be seen as socialistic from an american perspective and so forth. It's always a policial powercage to define socialism.

I'm not sure that pashalis have understood the historical defintion of socialism and communism however.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Pashalis
Communism took everything a step and a half further, instigating a corrupt, fanatical regime that encouraged people to rise up and destroy their own country.

~ Pashalis

What are you talking about???

Even if you count all the countries that claim(ed) to be communist as communist, the "revolutions" were headed by small groups of people, a vanguard party if you will, i.e. the Bolsheviks, Mao's followers, etc. Of course these countries are corrput; they ignored Marx's basic principles. It only makes sense to call Marxism communism. Otherwise, I could pick up a cardboard box and say "this is a telephone" even though it's completely different from Alexander Graham Bell's invention.

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
This is why the govt will spend hundreads of millions of dollars supporting a sports team while people are still unemployed and suffering (this won't happen under socialism).
KoalaBear33

what are you talking about? in capitalism the government don't take people's money and decide what do with them. this sound more like a socialist regim.

as far as the unemployment, socialism increases it, capitalism does not. in a market economy, it's much more easy to start your own business. and people will do so.

in planned economics (socialism) government decides if a new a company is needed. and lets people live through subsidies when the could have got a job if the company taxes weren't so high. mayeb not so highly paid, but atleast they're making society more efficient. under true capitalism, there's no unemployment. people, who can, have to work.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
what are you talking about? in capitalism the government don't take people's money and decide what do with them. this sound more like a socialist regime.

Every government takes your money. They just have different ideas about what laws should be enforced, how much tax they should take and what it is most important to spend it on.

[Juggernaut]

yeah, but it's a enourmous difference between planned and market economics.

im my society (social liberalism), the government only takes money to give them to social welfare, land maintenance and law enforcements. everything else is pure theft in my eyes.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by uncle_funk


what are you talking about? in capitalism the government don't take people's money and decide what do with them. this sound more like a socialist regim.

Every type of government has to take money from the people (except anarchy which doesn't have a government). Who pays for the policians, city planners, and so on? Under socialism, the money that is collected is spent on social programs first (or at least those are given higher priority), whereas under capitalism it is on projects that benefit capitalists.

The tax rates might differ but it is really questionable whether there is a REAL difference for a normal citizen. Under socialism you pay higher taxes but more things are "free", while under capitalism you pay lower taxes but less things are "free". Those that are upper middle class or higher will benefit from capitalism while those that are poor will benefit from socialism. The middle class should not notice a big difference under either system.

as far as the unemployment, socialism increases it, capitalism does not. in a market economy, it's much more easy to start your own business. and people will do so.

Just because you start your business doesn't mean that everyone will have a job. Most new businesses actually bankrupt in the first 2 years (I'm not saying this is undesirable; just saying that jobs are not dependent on it).

Personally, I don't think the type of system affects the number of jobs (ie. unemployment rate). Jobs are dependent on need and the capabilities of the population. What the different systems do is to vary the wealth distribution and income earned. Under capitalism money is "overvalued" so those that are rich accrue wealth at a faster rate than those that are poorer.

under true capitalism, there's no unemployment. people, who can, have to work.

Not true! The notion that employment is dependent on govt system is totally false. If what you are saying is true, then the US (as capitalist as you get right now) should have lower unemployment rate than Canada (more socialist oriented). While Canada does have a higher unemployment rate, it is very close to the US rate. This pretty much shows that the type of system has nothing to do with the unemployment rate. And I haven't even started talking about South American countries (for example) that are more capitalism oriented than Canada yet have significantly higher unemployment rate.

You will have high employment rate if a country has lots of resources or has manpower, and has a good political climate. The type of govt system does not matter apart from dictating the wealth distribution...

KoalaBear33

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
im my society (social liberalism), the government only takes money to give them to social welfare, land maintenance and law enforcements. everything else is pure theft in my eyes.

How about when governments finance corporations? Bail out struggling corporations? Provide tax breaks? How do you view these activities?

KoalaBear33

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Under capitalism for instance (capitalism is an economic system but I think it's fair to compare the two)
KoalaBear33

Capitalism IS NOT a form of economy...it government, just like a republic or democracy.

Capitalism, in a quick sentence is step up from a republic, where there is one central government, and then states that rule themselves under the leadership of that one central government, and each state has its own representatives to both represent the state, and the people...alot like the U.S. government right now...except that the U.S. government has alot more power then it would under capitalism.

[Kropotkin]

Capitalism IS NOT a form of economy...it government, just like a republic or democracy.

I have to disagree. Capitalism is first and foremost an economic system. Although it has great impact on society and the government.

Many countries was more or less capitalistic and at the same time more or less autocratic during the 19th century. Hitlers Germany was pretty capitalistic for example.

There's no form of direct connection between capitalism and a central government with representatives.

[JMarks]

Capitalism and socialism (and fuedalism, etc) are economic and social values and beliefs. They can be set up in any form of government, though some would be harder than others.

Monarchy, Representative Parliments, etc are government FORMS. That is how the government is run. Albeit, Monarchies and despotisms tend to lean toward a fuedalistic society, and representative forms tend toward a freer capitalistic ideal.

But socialism is a wierd twist. Unfortunatly I have to take Fredrick Bastitate's position and say that it is basicly theft. You take from those who are well off, and give to those who aren't. Which of course brings us to a question, if your family was starving, would it be ok to steal a loaf of bread?

To all out there, please read Bastitate's 'The Law', you'll find it interesting.

Ioanes

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by JMarks
Which of course brings us to a question, if your family was starving, would it be ok to steal a loaf of bread?

Ioanes

I guess this is what seperates socialists from capitalists eh? Since I am a socialist I would say that it is all right to take from the rich and give to the poor. But this doens't mean that I support suddenly taking everything that the rich have and to give it to the poor. It has to be done over time at a slow pace.

In any case, that question oversimplifies the issue and turns into a morality issue when it really isn't. My opinion is that under socialism (or its derivatives like communism) there will a cap on income. So in reality you are not taking anything away from anyone; people are just heavily subsidizing each other. Capitalists would claim that people won't do anything and will rely on each other but I disagree. A lot of the advances in the world are actually due to people's personal sacrifice and dedication and has nothing to do with monetary rewards (think about all the scientific achievements (not engineering) and see if money was driving them. You'll find that nearly everything was a public project and the scientists weren't paid well).

KoalaBear33

[Juggernaut]

In reality you ARE taking from one and giving to another. That's fine when it comes to social welfare, but the governemt shouldn't be so much bigger than that.

The government shall absolutley not take peoples tax money and invest in stocks, decide what's "culture", own every production mean, etc. The most absurd part relies in that you tax money goes to alot of things you actually never use!.

So privatizing will give almost everyone more money, not the opposite, like all socialists claim. I mean , why shall you pay for road maintenance when you don't have a car? does this make sense? No.

[Kropotkin]

[W]hy shall you pay for road maintenance when you don't have a car?

1) You might use different forms of public transportation
2) Roads are essential for a number of public services
3) A good infrastructure helps the economy as a whole

Besides, people with cars usually pay taxes on petrol and the car itself thus financing much of the infrastructure. Roads is such a thing that is very hard to leave to the private sector since competition is quite impossible and/or absurd. I find this standpoint a bit odd since most people that advocate a small state usually includes infrastructure into the few things the state should do.

Furthermore I find 'shallow' debates like thus when people just say what the state should and shouldn't do somewhat futile. Do there really exist categorical imperatives for the state?

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
In reality you ARE taking from one and giving to another.

Imagine a system where income is capped. In such a case, the government is not taking anything away from anyone. THe only people that have capped incomes (that I can think of) are some professional sports athletes. These athletes aren't a really good example because the cap is really high but in any case look at them. I am not exactly sure but an NBA player can't make more than around $30million per year (team salary cap is around $50 million). Socialism would be kind of like that except it won't be a very high cap like that. In this eample, are the NBA teams stealing from the players?

I mean , why shall you pay for road maintenance when you don't have a car? does this make sense? No.

This only makes sense if you are very selfish or if you live in an isolated environment. If you live in a community with others, you have to subsidize others to better your life.

Consider what happens in the States. The rich and the poor are segregated and the gap is widening. Right now, the rich live in gated communities and only go to "rich areas". In 50 years, the rich won't even be able to travel outside their community because things would have deteriorated. One thing that capitalists don't realize is that there is a connection between everyone--the rich are affected by the poor even if they live a sheltered life.

To really answer your question, let me be a capitalist and say this. I don't want to pay for law enforcement either. I mean, no one ever threatens me and I don't think I will be harmed. While I'm at it, I don't want to pay for ambulences (neither me nor my family has ever used it) either. Hmm.. don't want to pay for sports teams either... and so on... I'm sure that you will be very happy in such a world.. or will you?

KoalaBear33

[JMarks]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33


Imagine a system where income is capped. In such a case, the government is not taking anything away from anyone.

What do you mean they take nothing? By saying you can't make more than x amount, you are in affect taking away what more they could have earned. Ok, now imagine a system where man himself was sinnless, perfect. No matter what system, no matter what government, it would work well for all included, no matter how despotic.

Mabey socialism isn't a moral issue, not if you take the following parallism between fuedalism and socialism.

Fuedalism: Everything is owned (more or less) by a monarch.
Socialism: Everything is owned by society (sure there may be private property, but just follow along)

Fuedalism: Everyone who lives on the monarch's land supports the monarch
Socialism: Everyone who lives in that society supports the society.

Fuedalism: The poor support the rich
Socialism: The rich support the poor (and the beaurocrat)

Of course this is fairly simplified, but thats the basic idea. Besides, don't the rich, assuming they came by the money legally, entitled to purchase whatever they want? Sure, everything is effected by everything else, but what isn't?

Oh, by the way, its supposed to be Fredrick Bastiat who wrote 'The Law', not whatever I posted earlier. Please read it if you haven't, it isn't that long.

Ioanes

[JMarks]

OK, let me guess, the topic is called wing because it is meant to be a debate between 'left' and 'right' wingers.

[Sabre2th]

Good guess JMarks. We'll have to wait for Pash to tell us for sure though.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by JMarks
What do you mean they take nothing? By saying you can't make more than x amount, you are in affect taking away what more they could have earned.

You are assuming that people gain something tangible (espeically money) when they work. Why does it have to be this way? You have to think differently when you look at socialism. Everyone should gain something so you can't say that you are losing some of your earnings. It's just that what you gain is not obvious since it will be social welfare as opposed to material wealth.

So basically what I am saying is that you will only lose something if you count material wealth and ignore social intagibles. But as you and I know, social welfare, which is hard to value using a dollar value, is very important.

Of course this is fairly simplified, but thats the basic idea. Besides, don't the rich, assuming they came by the money legally, entitled to purchase whatever they want?

No one will be rich under socialism! Initially, there will be wealth discrepancy, especially if going from capitalism, but after a period wealth should be similar for all people.

Lastly, it is not the rich that will support socialism. Rich never support anyone during capitalism either (unless you count corporations as rich "people" ie. corporate taxes). The group that will support everyone is the middle class and the working class. That is how it is now and that is how it will always be. The vast majority of the population belongs to this group and that's where all the tax revenues come from. The taxes collected from the rich is a small fraction in Western countries.

KoalaBear33

[JMarks]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33


You are assuming that people gain something tangible (espeically money) when they work. Why does it have to be this way? You have to think differently when you look at socialism. Everyone should gain something so you can't say that you are losing some of your earnings. It's just that what you gain is not obvious since it will be social welfare as opposed to material wealth.

So basically what I am saying is that you will only lose something if you count material wealth and ignore social intagibles. But as you and I know, social welfare, which is hard to value using a dollar value, is very important.

Yeah, not everything is money, but to say these things make up for not being payed? So the goof offs who do enough of the job not to get fired are to be payed roughly the amount I get? Now, if my boss wishes to do that, that is HIS choice, but for the government to say so is totalitarian. (hope I'm using the right word)

A problem is, who defines this social welfare? A society who turns to socialism, tends, over time, to throw out the family and church, for some utopian 'society' which everyone is supposed to feel as close to as one's own family. Ugh. I mean, nothing wrong with patriatism (when sober in body and mind).

No one will be rich under socialism! Initially, there will be wealth discrepancy, especially if going from capitalism, but after a period wealth should be similar for all people.

Lastly, it is not the rich that will support socialism. Rich never support anyone during capitalism either (unless you count corporations as rich "people" ie. corporate taxes). The group that will support everyone is the middle class and the working class. That is how it is now and that is how it will always be. The vast majority of the population belongs to this group and that's where all the tax revenues come from. The taxes collected from the rich is a small fraction in Western countries.

KoalaBear33

Didn't the pigs say that in 'Animal Farm'? I don't know where you come from, but 'the rich' who are only 10% or less of the poplulation pay 75% or more of the taxes. We already have a socialistic society here, albeit not as advanced into it as you. So to say that it is only the middle class is ludicrious. Besides, there are actually a lot of people here who are 'the rich' and not even know it. I'm talking largely of the hardworking folks who climbed their way up, often those who are euntripeneurs (I could never spell that word). And that miniscule tax clip 'W' signed doesn't change that either.

Oh, and by making everyone 'equal' in the aspects of money, you are making people unequal. If person A is better than person B at something, lets say running, then person A will probably win all the races. But they are equal, not in results, but as human beings. Equal under the law. But, under socialism, you could (not in all areas, but it still applies) be in effect, either making person B run a shorter distance, or weigh down person A, so that person B has an 'equal' chance. Now, though the results will be 'equal', the people aren't. Person A has to struggle, work hard to be able to do the same amount as person B. So he can either continue under the unequal system, or he can become a laggard and let the track be shortened for him too. Now if the runners agree to do that stuff volintarily, it would be perfectly fine, it is their business.

Koala, please read Bastiat's 'The Law'. It shouldn't take more than an afternoon's read. If you can speed read, probably not more than an hour. I guess.

Ioanes

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by JMarks
Yeah, not everything is money, but to say these things make up for not being payed? So the goof offs who do enough of the job not to get fired are to be payed roughly the amount I get? Now, if my boss wishes to do that, that is HIS choice, but for the government to say so is totalitarian. (hope I'm using the right word)

First of all, there is little difference between government and corporations when it comes to jobs. Secondly, what you are describing (ie. some people don't work hard) is already happening right now. The people that have good jobs aren't necessarily the ones that worked hard or knew what they were doing. Often the people get promoted because of contacts, and their relationship with senior people (ie. friends). You would have to be very naiive to think that only those that "deserve" it get promoted. Lastly, success is totally arbitrary. There could be two identical people behaving the same way yet one might fail while other succeeds. This has to do with luck. A lot of successful entrepreneurs actually attribute their success to luck.

So what you are saying will not change under socialism. I will admit that there will be a greater incentive to "slow down" and perhaps not try as hard. But that shouldn't matter. Human progress comes from dedication and committment. As I said before, look at a lot of the discoveries and progress (I'm talking about science but you can look at other fields like music, human rights, and so on too) that has been made in the past. You'll see that all the significant discoveries are due to individual dedication. You can even look at all the discoveries in Civilization and you'll find that virtually every one was done out of passion or something like that.

A problem is, who defines this social welfare? A society who turns to socialism, tends, over time, to throw out the family and church...

Socialism throws out the family? What are you talking about? Socialism will actually STRENGTHEN the family. How could the family be weakened when the system values social principles? I think you have capitalism and socialism mixed up.

As far as religion is concerned, that is being weakened because of human nature. Religion is static while humans are not. It is inevitable for religion to weaken...

Didn't the pigs say that in 'Animal Farm'? I don't know where you come from, but 'the rich' who are only 10% or less of the poplulation pay 75% or more of the taxes.

I'm sure that is not correct. Don't forget that I am not counting corporate taxes as coming from the rich. I'll try to get some statistics.

We already have a socialistic society here, albeit not as advanced into it as you.

To say the US is socialist is to say that China is capitalist... just isn't true..

So to say that it is only the middle class is ludicrious.

Not all but a large portion of it. Even if the personal tax is low then the middle class will still pay the most because of sales tax (middle class spending outnumbers rich spending by a huge margin). If the rich actually mattered, you would see more television ads (for example) for Ferrari, Benz, and other luxury goods. Anyway, I'll try getting some statistics (only problem is that sometimes you have to pay to get his info so don't know how hard this will be )

I'm talking largely of the hardworking folks who climbed their way up, often those who are euntripeneurs.

Yep, and I'm not trying to take anything away from them. But the thing is that the vast majority of the wealth is not earned; instead it is inherited.

Oh, and by making everyone 'equal' in the aspects of money, you are making people unequal.

Regarding your running example, I don't think what you are saying about socialism is correct. Socialism does not disadvantage one person and try to make them equal (at least from a job perspective). Here is what socialism will do in your example: Both runners would still run the same distance and win using the same conditions. Let's say under capitalism, the winner gets $90,000 and the loser gets $10,000. The difference under socialism will be that the winner will get say $50,000 and the loser will get $50,000 too. Ther would have to be some minimum conditions (eg. the loser has to finish the race--can't just quit in the middle or something).

Now, you might ask why even have a race if everyone gets the same amount. Well in my opinion, this is the only legitimate attack against socialism and communism. But there is a reason why the system will work (I think). It has to do with love, passion, and desire to do something. My personal opinion is that people will perform jobs because they like it, or want to accomplish something--not because they are forced to do it or because of money! People will do something because they like it (doesn't mean you will get first choice but nevertheless you will do something that you like or are good at).

The real question with socialism and communism is: who is going to do jobs that no one wants to do (eg. cleaner)? I have been thinking about this and I don't have an ideal solution though there is hope. What I see is that desirability of jobs is purely arbitray. That is, there is no logical reason why job A is worse than job B (ignore risky jobs). Is a garbagemen really worse than an engineer? The true answer is NO! The only reason people think badly of the garbagemen is due to historical reasons. You can argue that certain jobs require intelligence, responsibility or whatever but this is all artificial.

Now let's come to the only problem that can't be solved: risky jobs that no one wnats to do. Some risky jobs will actually be done by people. Perhaps this will be because these people don't value their life as much, or perhaps they like the risk or the thrill. Well whatever it is, the vast majority of the risky jobs wont' be a problem. How about the really really really risky jobs? Well, I think what will happen is that once socialism takes over, those jobs will be eliminated. How can this happen? The most obvious choice is to use technology. Right now, human life is actually cheaper than developing technolgoy to solve these problems. But under socialism, life will be highly valued and money won't be. So I'm sure solutions can be developed. An example would be the military. Solidiers are cheap and human lives are not valued as much right now (that's why armies are like that). If you think we REALLY can't replace soliders with robots you are too naiive (if we can develop a stealth bomber and can design sophisticated satellites, we can build an armed humanless vehicle). Under socialism, I am 100% sure that people will develop a robot or something that will replace soliders.

Koala, please read Bastiat's 'The Law'. It shouldn't take more than an afternoon's read. If you can speed read, probably not more than an hour. I guess.

I don't read books but I'll see if I can find anything about it online. Since you have recommened it several times, I'll look at it

Anyway, this was a really long post. I think it covers everything that I have to say about socialism. Thanks for reading

KoalaBear33

[JMarks]

Wow, this is getting fun! Is there such a thing as an OT Topic?

Originally posted by KoalaBear33


First of all, there is little difference between government and corporations when it comes to jobs. Secondly, what you are describing (ie. some people don't work hard) is already happening right now. The people that have good jobs aren't necessarily the ones that worked hard or knew what they were doing. Often the people get promoted because of contacts, and their relationship with senior people (ie. friends). You would have to be very naiive to think that only those that "deserve" it get promoted. Lastly, success is totally arbitrary. There could be two identical people behaving the same way yet one might fail while other succeeds. This has to do with luck. A lot of successful entrepreneurs actually attribute their success to luck.

No, I'm not saying that the people in top jobs always deserve their position. What I am saying is that any buisiness manager with half a brain would get the best person for the job. You hire mediocre people, you get mediocre performance. (always exceptions of course) Oh, and no two people are exactly identicle. there is no such thing. Any influence, no matter how small, or done in any seemingly insignificant way, can have great impact. Anyway, life is unfare, but, hey, thats because we are sinful. You'd be naiive not to know that.

So what you are saying will not change under socialism. I will admit that there will be a greater incentive to "slow down" and perhaps not try as hard. But that shouldn't matter. Human progress comes from dedication and committment. As I said before, look at a lot of the discoveries and progress (I'm talking about science but you can look at other fields like music, human rights, and so on too) that has been made in the past. You'll see that all the significant discoveries are due to individual dedication. You can even look at all the discoveries in Civilization and you'll find that virtually every one was done out of passion or something like that.

I will agree that personal commitment and passion will drive someone to do something, no matter what the pay. But what does this have to do with socialism, or a common guy who wants to pay the bills? Socialism can't inspire someone to create or discover anymore than capitalism. The discoverors and creators are the dreamers, the inelectually 'elite' who can see things most others can't. Of course, a lot of things were just flukes made by non extraordinary people (penacilin).

Socialism throws out the family? What are you talking about? Socialism will actually STRENGTHEN the family. How could the family be weakened when the system values social principles? I think you have capitalism and socialism mixed up.

Yes, it does. Now a strong family can still mantain its cohesion, but it will be an uphill battle. Lets see, in socialistic countries, the younguns are ripped from their mothers arms and placed in pre-school and continue up till they are graduated, encouraged to learn from their 'peers' and to not grow in the family. Their minds are filled with propoganda and the like, all of which the parents, even the more 'active' ones, usually know nothing of. The society based culture (overpassing the family) lacks the mutual, even agape love that is the sign of a true community. Albeit, Capitalism isn't much better in this respect. Here I am bashing both, though in capitalism you have a better chance, there it is completely up to the family.

As far as religion is concerned, that is being weakened because of human nature. Religion is static while humans are not. It is inevitable for religion to weaken...

Well, I guess it also depends on what one defines as religion. If one is talking about the true Christian humility and love part, human nature is against that naturally. If we're talking about what one's god is, then both socialism and capitalism actually strengthen that. It just depends on who your god is. Is it money? Is it fellow man? Is it nature? So I guess I put my foot in my mouth there. I think I was talking about the 'community' of a church, which is oft like an extended family. So I guess that would fall in what I said earlier in family.

I'm sure that is not correct. Don't forget that I am not counting corporate taxes as coming from the rich. I'll try to get some statistics.

Niether am I. I'm talking US income taxes. Now I'm sure the Kennedy's have found a complete loop hole but hey.

To say the US is socialist is to say that China is capitalist... just isn't true..

No, it is. What do you call Welfare, Medicare, Social Security? What do you call the (thankfully) failed universal healthcare was all about? The US IS Socialistic, though not completely, it still has a good deal of capitalism too. Of course, I guess Canada is just the opposite, mainly socialistic, with tinges of capitalism.

Not all but a large portion of it. Even if the personal tax is low then the middle class will still pay the most because of sales tax (middle class spending outnumbers rich spending by a huge margin). If the rich actually mattered, you would see more television ads (for example) for Ferrari, Benz, and other luxury goods. Anyway, I'll try getting some statistics (only problem is that sometimes you have to pay to get his info so don't know how hard this will be )

Uh, no you wouldn't. Those cars stand out by themselves, and when you advertise, you tend to reach more middle class Joes. At most (and I see it a lot here) is that they are aiming at upper middle class with luxury vehicles that they could 'afford'. No one really needs to advertise the Viper, everyone knows about and if they could (and even if they can't ) they will try to get it, assuming they like it. I think advertisment is just a bunch of BS, I'll give you one mark there, though I don't think that socialistic countries are bereft of commercials on their TV and radios.

Yep, and I'm not trying to take anything away from them. But the thing is that the vast majority of the wealth is not earned; instead it is inherited.

Is that any reason to say that one cannot become wealthy? Because most wealth is inherited? And furthermore, who says that, should I become rich that I have no right to will it to whomever I please? Even money that has been inherited gets back in the system. I think I hear class warfare, if I can't have it, neither should they. Unfortunalty I think too many people will join your manifesto for that reason, though few will admit it.

Regarding your running example, I don't think what you are saying about socialism is correct. Socialism does not disadvantage one person and try to make them equal (at least from a job perspective). Here is what socialism will do in your example: Both runners would still run the same distance and win using the same conditions. Let's say under capitalism, the winner gets $90,000 and the loser gets $10,000. The difference under socialism will be that the winner will get say $50,000 and the loser will get $50,000 too. Ther would have to be some minimum conditions (eg. the loser has to finish the race--can't just quit in the middle or something).

Hey, that works for my example too! (wish I had thought of it) Thats what I'm saying, your not making them equal, your making their results, no matter what was done (except for the actual failure to do something, though I guess you'd get a slightly lower reward for giving it a try) equal. Lets say the winner finished nine times faster than the loser. Who ever is hosting the race should get to define who gets what prize. Under capitalism, the host could give the winner $90,000 and the losser $10,000. He could give the winner all of it. He could, if he so chooses, to give them equal amounts. How could give the losser more, after all, it is often arbitrary. The thing is, it is up to the host to decide. In socialism, he CAN'T decide. The government decides for him. And there in lies the difference. The government, in capitalism, doesn't say you have to give this amount or that amount. They stay out. If you don't want to run in the race, fine.

Now, you might ask why even have a race if everyone gets the same amount. Well in my opinion, this is the only legitimate attack against socialism and communism. But there is a reason why the system will work (I think). It has to do with love, passion, and desire to do something. My personal opinion is that people will perform jobs because they like it, or want to accomplish something--not because they are forced to do it or because of money! People will do something because they like it (doesn't mean you will get first choice but nevertheless you will do something that you like or are good at).

That isn't an arguement for socialism. Nor is it for capitalism. That is just the way things are. But in one, such a person (theorecticly) gets a 'prize'. But, if I were you, I'd bash capitalism because such people aren't always the ones who get the 'prize'. Often its people who had nothing to do with it. Either way, it is the passion, but has nothing to do with either system. Lets keep this arguement relavent.

The real question with socialism and communism is: who is going to do jobs that no one wants to do (eg. cleaner)? I have been thinking about this and I don't have an ideal solution though there is hope. What I see is that desirability of jobs is purely arbitray. That is, there is no logical reason why job A is worse than job B (ignore risky jobs). Is a garbagemen really worse than an engineer? The true answer is NO! The only reason people think badly of the garbagemen is due to historical reasons. You can argue that certain jobs require intelligence, responsibility or whatever but this is all artificial.

Personal oppinion. Each person has, and often changes, an ideal of what one likes. Some people hate paper work. Some actually like it. It seems arbitrary to us, but hey, we aren't God. Is a garbageman really worse than an engineer? Not the people, no. The jobs, mabey. Most people, I can probably safely say, don't like touching gross and disgueting stuff, especially if it belongs to someone else. Now, there may be a few that enjoy it, and probably more who can stand it to make a living. Engineering is 'respected' because it is closer to the creative and intelectual side. Which in turn is one of the reasons it tends to be a good paying job. It depends on one's preferences. Some people actually enjoy arcane languages that no one knows today. Artificiality has nothing to do with anything. Artificiality is something someones says to avoid the truth. Besides, wouldn't people want to tend AWAY from repsonsibility laden positions (except those with the passion)?

Now let's come to the only problem that can't be solved: risky jobs that no one wnats to do. Some risky jobs will actually be done by people. Perhaps this will be because these people don't value their life as much, or perhaps they like the risk or the thrill. Well whatever it is, the vast majority of the risky jobs wont' be a problem. How about the really really really risky jobs? Well, I think what will happen is that once socialism takes over, those jobs will be eliminated. How can this happen? The most obvious choice is to use technology. Right now, human life is actually cheaper than developing technolgoy to solve these problems. But under socialism, life will be highly valued and money won't be. So I'm sure solutions can be developed. An example would be the military. Solidiers are cheap and human lives are not valued as much right now (that's why armies are like that). If you think we REALLY can't replace soliders with robots you are too naiive (if we can develop a stealth bomber and can design sophisticated satellites, we can build an armed humanless vehicle). Under socialism, I am 100% sure that people will develop a robot or something that will replace soliders.

Interesting stuff. I have no idea where you are going with this. Lets see, such a thing probably would happen in capatilistic countries too. Thats what is happening in the US, but Europe doesn't seem to like it. Of course there is always the moral issues dependant on all this. Not the lack of killing lives, but, what happens if someone gets behind all the robots and takes control of them. But this is what science fiction is made of.

Now I could go on about the idealism behind capitalism, that businesses would conserve for the future because it is in their best interest. But man is sinfull, so there is no point in doing so, but socialists tend to keep on wanting to ingore that aspect.

I don't read books but I'll see if I can find anything about it online. Since you have recommened it several times, I'll look at it

This puzzles me greatly. How can you not read books? Where is the cultivation of beauty and knowlege? Get a true classical education, persue useless knowledge, get a passion! Please, try to make time to develope a love of reading, particularly classical authors. I see that the lack of doing so is ubiquitous in both capitalistic and socialistic countries.

Anyway, this was a really long post. I think it covers everything that I have to say about socialism. Thanks for reading

KoalaBear33

Yes, but I guess that makes mine even longer. I don't think I've covered everything, only that which came to mind. Thanks for reading too.

Ioanes

[KoalaBear33]

I will respond to your post at another time (within 3 days)... don't feel like typing up a big post now besides, what you said requires some thought

KoalaBear33

[jake03]

[jake03]

Nice post Jon mark, Paul would have been proud

[JMarks]

Koala,

Waiting patiently. Man this is fun!

Ioanes