Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums - Reply to Topic
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Thread: socialism is bad because.... Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-31-08 10:04 AM
Red Orc I agree, state sanctioned theft is not right, and that's exactly what the deriving of profit is.

Workers, through their work, make wealth. Bosses, through their (state-sanctioned) ownership of the means of production, take that wealth and return... oooh, lest say 10% to the workers. The other 90% is therefore stolen. The fact that the state says it's OK doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

But it does mean it's OUR money not THEIRS.

This is why co-operatives (companies where all workers take part in management and ownership, in other words workers without bosses) can work, but no-one ever set up a company composed of all bosses and no workers. Workers create wealth, bosses steal it, it's that simple. It's called "extraction of surplus value".

As Proudhoun said: "Property is theft". This is why we need to destroy capitalism and the state at the time.

Yes, I understand how economics works. Do you?
10-31-08 02:12 AM
Son of mortarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
And I'd like to say, the poor do deserve the money the rich have, as the rich made their money by ripping off the poor. Wealth distribution is a zero-sum game. One person has a lot because very many have nothing.

Really? do yu really understand economics, because that isn't how it works. you are also advocating stealing from someone since they have more. Just because the theft is government-sanctioned, it still isn't right.


No the rich have no moral obligation to give the poor their money, that is precisely why society sees it a a respectable action. they have no obligation to do so, but do so anyways,

it is lazy to look to others for your money, even if it is ethically lazy to do so. very few people are truly unable to provide for themselves in the developed world, most simply do not want to do what is necessary.
10-30-08 11:10 PM
Red Orc If by "Socialism" you mean "electing a social-democratic government" then it certainly can lead to fascism. Look at Chile. Allende was elected on social-democratic ticket, the CIA and the Chilean military overthrew his governmet, 3,000 plus people were murdered by the fascists. Same thing happened in Spain in 1936; republican government overthrown by the army backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, leading to Franco's dictatorship. Fascist? It's a point one can quibble over. Authoritarian capitalist military dictatorship? Certainly.

On the other hand, I think Allende was a scumbag and a crook. I'm not glad he was murdered, and I'm certainly not glad thousands of others were murdered by the US and its fascist allies, but it wasn't all nice before Pinochet took over.

It doesn't lead to communism though, communism can only be brought about by a revolution. History has repeatedly demonstrated since 1870 that communism (or socialism) cannot be elected into power. "Socialist governments" are capitalist governments, because "socialist government" cannot exist. Socialism, as the end of states and classes, can only be brought about worldwide, without governments, countries or any other that unneccessary crap that retards the progress of the human race.

Even when communists have come to power, a capitalist dictatorship has rapidly re-asserted itself, such as Russia. Communism in one country is a nonsense - this is just "National Socialism" ie not socialism at all, it's national or state capitalism.

Communism and capitalism cannot exist at the same time. Communism (or socialism) can only exist once capitalism has been abolished. The disagreement between "communists" and "socialists" is effectively one of tactics; communists believe in the necessity of revolution, socialists belive that it is possible to conquer capitalism by seizing state power through elections. Both (claim to) seek to bring about a classless communal society.

And I'd like to say, the poor do deserve the money the rich have, as the rich made their money by ripping off the poor. Wealth distribution is a zero-sum game. One person has a lot because very many have nothing.
10-30-08 10:47 PM
EndangeredHuman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of mortarion View Post
all this nifty stuff costs money, socialism pays for it by taxing people. The reason ABBA left Sweden was the tax rate, which made them unable to make a living after paying the bills for doing a show and dividing the rest between the band members.
Socialism does promote mediocrity by discouraging excellence. Why would anyone work to make more money, if it was just going to be taken away so some lazy jerk could collect it. As for less poverty and socialills. Bull the primary effect is to make everyone poor, and new social ills would crop up. "My dispensation check isn't big enough" or the inequality of laboring for the same pay as the guy that works on a computer all day in an air-conditioned office.
Having a single country as a socialist state wouldn't work, as you've just proved by ABBA. If socialism was a general theme for goverments worldwide it would be a more valid system. You're talking about material excellence, which is needed by a capitalist state. How much money do psychology researchers get for writing papers about how schizophrenia affects the human mind? Not alot. Why would they do it for the money if there is no monetry gain? Why do people club together into sporting teams and strive to become the best in their town? For money? What money? People would simply find other means of asserting their intelligence. Capital gain is simply one excuse. A doctor in a hopital doesn't always work for money, do they? They simply need money to live, they want to spend their time saving lives.

You're forgetting that not everyone who requires money in a socialist state is a 'lazy jerk'. Do the people currently taking goverment aid because there is no work in their area lazy? Does somebody who can't work not deserve to live because they can't 'pull their weight for the greater good of capitalism'? Some people are lazy, some are genuinly downtrodden. Please remember that before making such a comment.

Yes, of coruse there will be different social ills, but the ones we have currently would disapate to some degree. If the balance came out for the better or worse, nobody can know.

People will always be bothered by somebody else living in 'better' conditions than they are. Be it money, enviroment, or whatever problem. This is not an ill of socialism, it is an ill of every form of goverment ever to exist, so the point is irrelevent. The only time this will be overridden is when people can choose their job and take and recieve pride for the job they do.
10-30-08 09:25 PM
cccp surely some of it boils down to a moral duty, if you have more money that you could ever spend, and there is a family starving in their house through no fault of their own, it would be the right thing to do to give them some money. the only dfference here is that it is taken from you by the government and given to them that way. obviously, there are limits on how much can be redistributed and how much you pay.
10-30-08 09:12 PM
Son of mortarion why should they have to pay more? to say that the rich need to pay more in taxes is not far from saying that the poor deserve the money that the rich have. the rich should simply be required to pay all of their burden, not have it increased.
10-30-08 09:04 PM
cccp but really, why should the rich pay less tax when there are no government controls stopping the poor from starving?
10-30-08 09:02 PM
Son of mortarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Panic View Post
Socialism is (in a capitalist nation) simply the expenditure of public funds on public property, state ownership of key industries & services and tax relief and maybe some benefit payments for low-income families/individuals. At the cost of some extra taxes & controls on private enterprise and the rich....
not quite, the taxes apply to all. In a "capitalist" society, the poor tent to pay for the tax burden, as the tax code allows for exemptions, and other loopholes that allow the rich to shirk their burden.
10-30-08 08:59 PM
General Panic Socialism is (in a capitalist nation) simply the expenditure of public funds on public property, state ownership of key industries & services and tax relief and maybe some benefit payments for low-income families/individuals. At the cost of some extra taxes & controls on private enterprise and the rich....
10-30-08 07:15 PM
Son of mortarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndangeredHuman View Post
Quoted from anouther thread:



Personally I find this idea absurd. Firstly, socialism does not stop you from reaching your intellectual potential. You have education for every student, and these students learn and develop the same as they would in a Capitalist state. You'll have bright people and not-so-bright people. Socialism is about sharing WEALTH, not forcing you what you can SPEND it on. If a commune of socialists wanted to build a space rocket, why couldn't they? But my point is no, you wouldn't have large mega-corperations, but you also would have a lot less poverty and social ills. Would you get children bullied at school for not affording the same clothing as you? Course not. Same style.. perhaps. But that can't be eroded out. Either way you'd get a greater abundance of people who are able to stimulate their minds rather than having to work two jobs to pay the gas bill. Because it HAPPENS. Capitalism ISNT all happy happy everyone gets their own way in life. It's about who has the best circumstances wins, be that wealthy parents or a strong will. Alot of people have neither, and in a world where extremes are taken out, people have the oppitunuty for education, research, art and expressing personal freedoms.

Because, yes, I truely love watching rich talentless rockstars daughters throw wild parties for thousands of pounds and then recieving money to tell us about it on television when I know people who can't afford to eat.

Socialism isn't fantastic, but there are times when it's better than what we have. Can't we just have both? *Sad face*



Pretty much. Labour are Tory as much as Tory is labour. It no longer matters who you support or vote for, you'll get exactly the same goverment. I'm defiantly voting Liberal for this election, not because I like their policies, but perhaps for somebody else who can challenge these two ruling parties.
all this nifty stuff costs money, socialism pays for it by taxing people. The reason ABBA left Sweden was the tax rate, which made them unable to make a living after paying the bills for doing a show and dividing the rest between the band members.
Socialism does promote mediocrity by discouraging excellence. Why would anyone work to make more money, if it was just going to be taken away so some lazy jerk could collect it. As for less poverty and socialills. Bull the primary effect is to make everyone poor, and new social ills would crop up. "My dispensation check isn't big enough" or the inequality of laboring for the same pay as the guy that works on a computer all day in an air-conditioned office.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome