Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Socialism an illusion or the real solution? Options · View
Kitanica
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:11:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
The soviet union and china were totalitarian states if not outrught dictatorship. A communist country has never existed.
all I have to say on this topic is communism, socialism, marxism, what have you will never work in implication because people are greedy by nature.
Until humans grow up and evolve beyond this need for recognition and reward we won't advance as a civilization.

Monetary reward shouldn't be the sole motivation for advancing. it should be that your helping your species to live a better life than they previously had, creating a better world for future generations. if people got over the feeling they're entitled to be rewarded.
we have the technology, and the resources to advance humans as a whole into a new age, people are just to greedy and petty to start working together and stop worrying about which side of an imaginary line on a piece of artificially manufactured paper they come from.
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:57:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Garza wrote:
people are just to greedy and petty to start working together and stop worrying about which side of an imaginary line on a piece of artificially manufactured paper they come from.


Says the guy who wants to use a might makes right morality to take away what others have a right to.




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Kitanica
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:39:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
1ball wrote:


Says the guy who wants to use a might makes right morality to take away what others have a right to.




Once again, everyone voluntarily working together is not might makes right lmao. Unless you consider 100% of people as a unified planet "might" then I would be happy to agree with you. laughing3 Do you even understand what your typing? Since I'm assuming your a mid 50s-60s baby boomer I'll merely interpret all further posts from you as "neener neener I have cotton paper and a narrow mind, neener neener" due to your growing up in a different age with different albeit antiquated views.

This was fun though. laughing9

Which reminds me I miss McCarthy.

Crapbag123
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:29:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/27/2012
Posts: 100
Location: United Kingdom
I am as close to a socialist you can get. I don't believe outright in hand outs and I'm certainly not a communist but I do believe that you should help those less fortunate than yourself and work on developing solutions to try and help people to better themselves.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:06:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Garza wrote:
Once again, everyone voluntarily working together is not might makes right lmao.


When it's coerced through democracy it is. What magical force is going to get everyone working together? Where does this hive mind producing universal agreement on goals and priorities come from? How does this herd mentality managed to innovate to adapt to changing conditions? We evolved to survive. We learned to articulate rights to seek agreement on peaceful coexistence, not to become sacrificial animals. No religion of "oneness" will be universally accepted and that isn't a lack of evolution. It's a lack of incentive to become drones.

Quote:
Unless you consider 100% of people as a unified planet "might" then I would be happy to agree with you. laughing3 Do you even understand what your typing? Since I'm assuming your a mid 50s-60s baby boomer I'll merely interpret all further posts from you as "neener neener I have cotton paper and a narrow mind, neener neener" due to your growing up in a different age with different albeit antiquated views.

This was fun though. laughing9

Which reminds me I miss McCarthy.


Using juvenile tactics and being dismissive when you can't articulate a logically coherent defense of your beliefs is denialism. Babbling about some kind of utopian ideal where people self-sacrifice for the benefit of others is selfish yearning for control over others.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:11:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Crapbag123 wrote:
I am as close to a socialist you can get. I don't believe outright in hand outs and I'm certainly not a communist but I do believe that you should help those less fortunate than yourself and work on developing solutions to try and help people to better themselves.


That's not socialism. A lot of capitalists believe in those goals. They just don't believe that government is a useful path to that. They believe that retaining the ability to choose what help to offer and who has the most potential to benefit from that help is a better way of allocating their resources. "Socialists" believe in taking control and dictating according to some dogma.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Kitanica
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:40:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
1ball wrote:


Using juvenile tactics and being dismissive when you can't articulate a logically coherent defense of your beliefs is denialism. Babbling about some kind of utopian ideal where people self-sacrifice for the benefit of others is selfish yearning for control over others.


It's the force called not being selfish, there's no sacrifice to it. Your just to narrow minded to comprehend it as you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding. And any unified society would have to exist well beyond any religion.

If you think it's a religion or me wanting to control people you need to go google up some of the subjects you so blatantly dont understand. better yet read up on the culture, its a brilliant basis for what we should have, scifi or not. and religion of oneness? Hahaha. religion is obsolete wow. I suppose its liberal media duping the masses into believing the earth is round as well. And the sun being the center of the earth must surely be a communist conspiracy to overthrow the theocratic republican freedom fighters for wealthy angry sexually repressed white congressmen yearning to help working America and minoritys.

Oh and give animal farm a flipthrough.
and your actually wrong. The goal of animals is to reproduce and propagate the species. By working against each other as nations were killing each other off. Syria over 20,000 people have died because of a rightwing dictator, WHO WANTS TO CONTROL PEOPLE, now see if we were a unified society that could accept differences in believes we would have never had 9/11, no Iraq war, Rwanda genocide, no Serbian genocide. Bosnia would be a lovely European botanical mecca. and israelistine would be a lovely cultural mixing pot that is just architectural bliss. the conflict arises, from arrogance, money, and ignorance. Something all the current political parties (especially republicans) have in excess. we should be working together instead of blowing each other apart and that's common sense. not Coercion, not herd mentality, or proverbial Sacrificial lambs lined up for the slaughter. It's compassion, and empathy. Not anyone elses fault but your own that you let the green dye Tint your heart a soulless black.

but if you think that's a "magical" force: love and peace. you've already proven my point of corruption and greed being the root of our regression and rendered your entire argument invalid by reason of plethorum assitis. translation abundant assness.

naka Rawr caring about your brethren is black devil magic now I'm going to go hump a hundred dollar bill Rawr

Hehe I'll take juvenile over senile any day "neener" "neener"
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:36:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I asked: What magical force is going to get everyone working together?

Garza wrote:
It's the force called not being selfish, there's no sacrifice to it.


So it requires the death of self? Some kind of prevention of expression of individuality? This is your utopic vision? People will just set aside all their earthly concerns and work under the direction of what? A math wiz will be called upon to clean toilets and a pregnant mother will be called upon to jackhammer a hole in the street?

I asked: Where does this hive mind producing universal agreement on goals and priorities come from?

Quote:
<no answer>


I asked: How does this herd mentality manage to innovate to adapt to changing conditions?

Quote:
<no answer>


I stated: We evolved to survive. We learned to articulate rights to seek agreement on peaceful coexistence, not to become sacrificial animals. No religion of "oneness" will be universally accepted and that isn't a lack of evolution. It's a lack of incentive to become drones.

Quote:
any unified society would have to exist well beyond any religion.


So far beyond it that it makes even the worst of religions seem rational.

Quote:
If you think it's a religion or me wanting to control people you need to go google up some of the subjects you so blatantly dont understand. better yet read up on the culture, its a brilliant basis for what we should have, scifi or not.


So basically you can't articulate the path to this Utopia but I can find it somewhere on the Internet? And it tells how everything will be butterflys and rainbows once we all believe and the only thing in the way is old people who won't believe? Take a look at a movie called Logan's Run.

[/quote]Oh and give animal farm a flipthrough.
and your actually wrong. The goal of animals is to reproduce and propagate the species. By working against each other as nations were killing each other off. Syria over 20,000 people have died because of a rightwing dictator, WHO WANTS TO CONTROL PEOPLE, now see if we were a unified society that could accept differences in believes we would have never had 9/11, no Iraq war, Rwanda genocide, no Serbian genocide. Bosnia would be a lovely European botanical mecca. and israelistine would be a lovely cultural mixing pot that is just architectural bliss. the conflict arises, from arrogance, money, and ignorance. Something all the current political parties (especially republicans) have in excess. we should be working together instead of blowing each other apart and that's common sense. not Coercion, not herd mentality, or proverbial Sacrificial lambs lined up for the slaughter. It's compassion, and empathy. Not anyone elses fault but your own that you let the green dye Tint your heart a soulless black.[/quote]

You use all these examples of places where they don't believe in respecting fundamental selfish human rights as proof that fundamental selfish human rights are invalid?

Quote:
but if you think that's a "magical" force: love and peace. you've already proven my point of corruption and greed being the root of our regression and rendered your entire argument invalid by reason of plethorum assitis. translation abundant assness.

naka Rawr caring about your brethren is black devil magic now I'm going to go hump a hundred dollar bill Rawr

Hehe I'll take juvenile over senile any day "neener" "neener"


It appears you'll take juvenile over any kind of coherent discussion.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
keoloke
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:39:11 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 549
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
What you're describing isn't socialism. It's straight on corrupt dictatorship. It really doesn't matter what sort of ideology they say they stick it, it's always the same result; the population gets fucked over while there's a small percentage that gets filthy rich and they do what they can to get more money in their Swiss bankaccounts while the going is still good.


and to The Cayman Islands.

Well put Elinfromnorth. Seriously.

Allow me this however.
I just smile though thinking to find the difference of that "socialism" and many democracies where instead of the governments, a single person (at times appointed by it) can make millions per month, when their employees make and raise a family with less than a million in their lifetime.

I remember a millionaire years ago said "is good to have monies, but more than a certain amount which is not a lot, you don't really need it. You're just taking it from other people because it's legal and because you can"


Practice Happiness, it is a choice

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is not much needed.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:00:49 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
keoloke wrote:
I remember a millionaire years ago said "is good to have monies, but more than a certain amount which is not a lot, you don't really need it. You're just taking it from other people because it's legal and because you can"


Which only proves that millionaires can say some pretty dumb things. Taking it from other people? That's not remotely true. Accepting it from the market and feeding it back into the market through investment, consumption or gift. It's all about allocation of surplus. Trusting the government to allocate surplus responsibly is like giving it to a crack addict. The market lets everyone choose how to allocate their surplus. Those who do not wish to build more wealth with it are free to spend it frivolously, which at least stimulates the economy. Those who choose to build more wealth with it through investment have every right to do so, because they did not acquire it by "taking" it away from a rightful owner. In 2-3 generations it gets diluted either way, but in the meantime, charitable trusts get huge chunks and those trusts invest it where it will self-perpetuate the charitable purpose of the trust.

A government that fails to enable domestic productivity will fail a society just as much as a dictatorship that siphons wealth to foreign bank accounts. Millionaires will invest in the country where they make their millions as long as the government makes that a sound investment.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:16:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
Socialism is when some ones house catches fire, and the towns people help put it out, when a community gathers to raise a barn for a neighbor, when people band together to achieve a goal for the common good. The Amish are socialists in a sense.
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:49:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
tazznjazz wrote:
Socialism is when some ones house catches fire, and the towns people help put it out, when a community gathers to raise a barn for a neighbor, when people band together to achieve a goal for the common good. The Amish are socialists in a sense.


Wish only that was Socialism.
It also kills indiviual initiative and drive.
It allows to transfer one's responsibility to the collective whole.
It may be strange for you but Moscowites during Soviet Union could not have access to BBC or for that matter any other broadcasting, radio or tv.
Maybe you will laugh but almost the whole country used to have just 2 or three options of shoes as the socialist hierachcy used to decide upon the designs and fashions their men & women should wear.
There was no banking system as prevalent in non socialist countries.
They had just one system of schooling which was revised say after decade.
They spent heavily on atomic wepons and armaments.
They directed all other socialist countries to follow them in all matters and those (China) disagreed got their wrath.
It was thus a totalitarian system.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:48:13 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,588
Location: Burrowed, Norway
nazhinaz wrote:


Wish only that was Socialism.
It also kills indiviual initiative and drive.
It allows to transfer one's responsibility to the collective whole.
It may be strange for you but Moscowites during Soviet Union could not have access to BBC or for that matter any other broadcasting, radio or tv.
Maybe you will laugh but almost the whole country used to have just 2 or three options of shoes as the socialist hierachcy used to decide upon the designs and fashions their men & women should wear.
There was no banking system as prevalent in non socialist countries.
They had just one system of schooling which was revised say after decade.
They spent heavily on atomic wepons and armaments.
They directed all other socialist countries to follow them in all matters and those (China) disagreed got their wrath.
It was thus a totalitarian system.


You're talking about wrongfully communism, not socialism. The government controlling everything and deciding how many different pairs of shoes you can have has nothing to do with socialism. Bringing up totalitarian countries in a discussion is pointless as the points you bring up against socialism simply aren't true.

Norway is quite socialist or at least social democratic. Even with several steps to the left we'd still have a privatised banking system and industry. Sure, the state holds stocks in many businesses, but that doesn't mean they dictate every move. Plenty of private schools, even if the government set up a general education plan.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
fpalmo
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:40:23 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 11/18/2012
Posts: 3
Location: Winona area, United States
Socailism, a great idea till you run out of other peoples money
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:45:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


You're talking about wrongfully communism, not socialism. The government controlling everything and deciding how many different pairs of shoes you can have has nothing to do with socialism. Bringing up totalitarian countries in a discussion is pointless as the points you bring up against socialism simply aren't true.

Norway is quite socialist or at least social democratic. Even with several steps to the left we'd still have a privatised banking system and industry. Sure, the state holds stocks in many businesses, but that doesn't mean they dictate every move. Plenty of private schools, even if the government set up a general education plan.


Soviet Union itself named as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
China too named itself as Peoples Republic of China and Communist Party, the only party in China, which incidently also rules China declares itself
Socialist.
How can we term them as COMMUNIST?
I fully agree that Norway, Sweden and even Denmark have a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC system.
I respect them as they allow indiviual initiative and still care for human needs.
The example of shoes and not allowing any foreign broadcasting was to prove the totalitarianism that these countries presented.
Any system that does not allow right to choose another political party or leadership by indiviuals inhabiting these countries is bound to be totalitarian in its essence.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:57:18 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,588
Location: Burrowed, Norway
nazhinaz wrote:


Soviet Union itself named as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
China too named itself as Peoples Republic of China and Communist Party, the only party in China, which incidently also rules China declares itself
Socialist.


Right. From now on I'm going to start describing myself as the smartest man on the planet. From now on the rest of you and your little brains are inferior to mine!

See what I did there?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2012 9:24:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 538
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Socialism is the problem not the solution.
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:03:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:


Right. From now on I'm going to start describing myself as the smartest man on the planet. From now on the rest of you and your little brains are inferior to mine!

See what I did there?

Try it.
You will be inherting Stalin, Mao etc.
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:05:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
Socialism is the problem not the solution.

You hit the bull's eye.
MWAH
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:12:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
Socialism is the problem not the solution.

You hit the bull's eye.
MWAH
deadlogger
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:52:08 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/2/2012
Posts: 18
Location: United Kingdom
The human world does not operate on a political system; it obeys the discovery made by Darwin called survival of the fittest. Civilisation attempts to rule this basic instinct and fails. Conceited humanity refuses to believe that its actions can be explained by such a theory since it is far above the animal world.
latinlover
Posted: Saturday, December 01, 2012 11:36:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/2/2011
Posts: 180
Location: Santo Domingo
notworthy
deadlogger wrote:
The human world does not operate on a political system; it obeys the discovery made by Darwin called survival of the fittest. Civilisation attempts to rule this basic instinct and fails. Conceited humanity refuses to believe that its actions can be explained by such a theory since it is far above the animal world.


That sir! It´s genius
acicuc
Posted: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:31:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 2/28/2010
Posts: 66
Location: mumbai, India
socialism!
is that not the 1% sponsoring the 99%
and somehow managing to hide profits in their name?
Jack_42
Posted: Sunday, December 02, 2012 3:20:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 978
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
latinlover wrote:
notworthy

That sir! It´s genius


Taking this argument to it's ultimate conclusion there would be no allowance for the disabled, any emancipation of any kind etc there would probably be a smaller population though.
ByronLord
Posted: Sunday, December 02, 2012 9:05:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 716
Location: Massachusetts, United States
latinfoxy wrote:


exactly my point, so ill ask another question, in which country has socialism works? i guess in France works pretty good, but is it really socialism in there?


America, the UK. In fact much of what you now call capitalism is actually socialism. The socialist movement actually has rather little to do with Communism.

No seriously, socialism began in the industrial revolution with a guy called Robert Owen. He was the Bill Gates of his day. He is also known as the father of the factory system. Early on in the industrial revolution factory owners just put machines in a shed and tried to get agricultural laborers to work them 14 hours a day. Owen realized that people were actually more productive in a 10 hour day.

Until the second world war socialism was very skeptical of state control. The ideal was held to be a cooperative in which the workers owned the company. Then in the wake of the second world war the British government had to nationalize most of the remaining industry because it was on the verge of collapse due to the equipment having been worn out during war production. So the model changed rather.

But if you look at where we are now, capital is much less important in starting or running a company than it was in the 1800s when socialism began. So ownership is much less of an issue. Most of US industry is actually owned by most of the US people. There is a hug amount of inequality but the logic of worker share incentives is pretty much the same as the logic of cooperativism.

So for an idea that began over 200 years ago, it is not in bad shape. It is just that the actual goals of the original socialists are now met in very different ways. We have universal education and slavery is gone and the worst aspects of the factory system are long gone. We even have universal healthcare which the original socialists would not even have demanded as the doctors of the day tended to kill more patients than they cured.

But anyone who thinks that 'socialism' holds all the answers is as much a fool as anyone who thinks that Karl Marx or Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh has all the answers.

Guest
Posted: Sunday, December 02, 2012 11:20:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,067
Scialism has everything to do with Communism . Communisim is really a more radical form of socialisim. Modern socialist parties tend to believe in a strong, centralised, welfare state. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.
ByronLord
Posted: Sunday, December 02, 2012 11:41:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 716
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Angie57 wrote:
Scialism has everything to do with Communism . Communisim is really a more radical form of socialisim. Modern socialist parties tend to believe in a strong, centralised, welfare state. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.


Lumping them together makes as much sense as lumping the Republicans and the Democrats together. There is remarkably little difference between their platforms for all the screaming that the GOP does.

The real difference is ideology which is the belief in an absolute truth that explains everything. Communism and Libertarianism are both ideological, they claim to solve everything. So is Fascism. As Karl Popper pointed out, its the fact that the facts don't matter that is the cause of the problem, it is the absolutism with which the views are held, not the particular views.

Most of the time the 'socialist' parties and the conservative parties are both essentially pragmatic in outlook. But every so often one or the other goes off on an ideological binge like the UK labour party did in the 1970s-80s and the US Republican party is right now.

But right now there really aren't any socialist parties to speak of. Collective ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange simply isn't part of any mainstream party program in the developed world. Meanwhile every conservative party has to at least pay lip service to the idea of a welfare state. Note that at the last election the GOP attacked Obama for 'cutting Medicare' while demanding cuts in 'entitlements' (i.e. Medicare).

So there isn't really any call for a socialist party because it is a 200 year set of ideas and all the useful ones are accepted across the board and all the not-useful ones have been rejected. Collective ownership was meant as a means, not an end.

Of course look another 100 years into the future and maybe capitalism falls off the rails completely as capital is no longer a constrained resource and the cost of manufacturing comes down to essentially zero as does the need for labour input.

Computers and robots could easily destroy capitalism by eliminating scarcity. Once that goes there is no need to ration and economics itself loses its rationale. We are already starting to see that with the Web and with Open Source Software.

Jack_42
Posted: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:34:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 978
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Some form of socialism (the word is not an obscenity) has to be used as a fairer distribution 1 billion people in the world do not get enough to eat - never mind the means to have 2 cars in the famjly. So much for your individual freedom if you're born into a situation like that.
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:05:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 716
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Jack_42 wrote:
Some form of socialism (the word is not an obscenity) has to be used as a fairer distribution 1 billion people in the world do not get enough to eat - never mind the means to have 2 cars in the famjly. So much for your individual freedom if you're born into a situation like that.


One important point is that the economic system suitable for one country may not be the best for another.

Western democracies have free market systems because we can afford them. Many countries can't. Trying to move to a free market system requires the country to be at a certain state of economic development first. Note the total failure of Bush administration attempts to intervene in the Iraqi economy. Iraq is simply not in a place where it can afford a free market.

The countries that navigated the transition from a communist system to a free market system in Eastern Europe were the ones that took the process slowly. Russia tried to move faster and the result is that there is no free market there because the whole political system was corrupted by the oligarchs.

A command economy is often necessary in war time. The UK would be part of Germany today if it had not brought the whole manufacturing sector under state direction. But the short term benefit comes at a long term cost.

Buz
Posted: Monday, December 03, 2012 7:45:25 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,142
Location: Atlanta, United States
ByronLord wrote:


One important point is that the economic system suitable for one country may not be the best for another.

Western democracies have free market systems because we can afford them. Many countries can't. Trying to move to a free market system requires the country to be at a certain state of economic development first. Note the total failure of Bush administration attempts to intervene in the Iraqi economy. Iraq is simply not in a place where it can afford a free market.


I guess I have to agree with you on those points Byron.

Culture, education, religion or lack of are important factors in which economy works best for a nation. Bush made the same mistake the USA has made several times in the past in trying to institute both democracy and capitalism into countries that are in no way ready for that. Nothing wrong with helping them out but let them evolve in a way that suits them best. And helping them doesn't mean going in and telling them what to do. They will just resent that.

In reality capitalism and socialism can work well together and best benefit most well developed nations. Just keeping them in tune like a musical instrument, so to speak, where one does not overwhelm or completely hinder the other.

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.