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

Socialism an illusion or the real solution? Options · View
latinfoxy
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:03:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
This question came to my mind while reading the Romney thread. I think a lot of people have confuse that if you dont believe socialism works (or at least not how its use in America), then you must have an ultra right set of mind.

I live in Venezuela with a "President" that says he is creating the 21st century socialism, well let me tell you a little bit about this socialism. He has been in power for the last 14 years, in this years that he has been president, we have gone from been one of the safest countries in Latin America to have the 3rd most dangerous city in the world, in this 14 yeas 160.000 people have died because of street violence, thats more than what people have died in wars that last the same time. The statistics shows that every 15 minutes someone gets kidnap in Caracas (The capital) and every 5 minutes someone gets mug. We are the 4th country with more oil in the world and we have 75% poverty, again we are the 4th country with more oil in the world and right now we are having to import Gas because our oil company is not working correctly (yes it is run by the government). We have more than 5.000 people involved in politics that have mysteriously disappear and around 20.000 political prisoners. We have power problems so there's some cities that goes at least 5 hours a day without electricity every day (again yes it is a company run by the government). In the past 6 month from our biggest Jails have escaped more than a 1000 prisoners and have result dead more than a 150 people inside the jails because of this. This month more than 250 people died inside one of the governments oil refineries because of bad maintenance of the machines and when the president talk to the nation instead of saying im sorry we screwed up, he said "the show most go on" What show? the one in which you are trying to hide the reality of the screw up you are as a president?

I could go on and on about all the things that are wrong in this country right now, but i think you get the idea.

I guess this whole ramble i just did was because, every time i read or hear someone saying what we need is socialism i cringe thinking i a long time ago thought the same thing and how wrong i was. Someone in the other thread said that socialism like Cuba works and all i could think was, if it works so good why does people risk their lives going to the states in a home made raft risking dying in the process if things in their country works so good?

so i just want to say grass looks greener on the other side till you get on the shoes of the other person.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:18:08 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,617
Location: Burrowed, Norway
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.

From what I've seen of reports Chavez has pretty much exterminated everything called democracy, thus you immediately stop being a socialist. Socialism is all about giving the power to the government who in turn will use it to improve the standard of living for the people, either it's by government controlling a lot or a bit less, but the key is that single individuals and/or private companies should not be able to dictate the agenda on what's needed. The people is to dictate and voice their opinion to the elected officials. The power is in the people, not the money, and the people will get it's just rewards from this.

That's sort of what socialism is IN THEORY! This is what teachers of political ideology and so forth will tell you when they lecture about socialism. Not the way Chavez runs your country. That is dictatorship. He just calls it socialism because that sounds a whole lot better than dictatorship.

Now whether socialism is ideal or not, is difficult to say. On one side pretty much every political ideology sounds pretty damn good, but the problem is that theory always differ from practice, and especially when it comes to politics.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
latinfoxy
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:23:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
elitfromnorth wrote:


Now whether socialism is ideal or not, is difficult to say. On one side pretty much every political ideology sounds pretty damn good, but the problem is that theory always differ from practice, and especially when it comes to politics.


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?
nazhinaz
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:25:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
latinfoxy wrote:
This question came to my mind while reading the Romney thread. I think a lot of people have confuse that if you dont believe socialism works (or at least not how its use in America), then you must have an ultra right set of mind.

I live in Venezuela with a "President" that says he is creating the 21st century socialism, well let me tell you a little bit about this socialism. He has been in power for the last 14 years, in this years that he has been president, we have gone from been one of the safest countries in Latin America to have the 3rd most dangerous city in the world, in this 14 yeas 160.000 people have died because of street violence, thats more than what people have died in wars that last the same time. The statistics shows that every 15 minutes someone gets kidnap in Caracas (The capital) and every 5 minutes someone gets mug. We are the 4th country with more oil in the world and we have 75% poverty, again we are the 4th country with more oil in the world and right now we are having to import Gas because our oil company is not working correctly (yes it is run by the government). We have more than 5.000 people involved in politics that have mysteriously disappear and around 20.000 political prisoners. We have power problems so there's some cities that goes at least 5 hours a day without electricity every day (again yes it is a company run by the government). In the past 6 month from our biggest Jails have escaped more than a 1000 prisoners and have result dead more than a 150 people inside the jails because of this. This month more than 250 people died inside one of the governments oil refineries because of bad maintenance of the machines and when the president talk to the nation instead of saying im sorry we screwed up, he said "the show most go on" What show? the one in which you are trying to hide the reality of the screw up you are as a president?


I guess this whole ramble i just did was because, every time i read or hear someone saying what we need is socialism i cringe thinking i a long time ago thought the same thing and how wrong i was. Someone in the other thread said that socialism like Cuba works and all i could think was, if it works so good why does people risk their lives going to the states in a home made raft risking dying in the process if things in their country works so good?

so i just want to say grass looks greener on the other side till you get on the shoes of the other person.


This is a perfect example of dictatorship of a person in the name of dictatorship of proletariate.
This is what Stalin did and so does your President.
unless the personal initiative is unleashed and allowed to full play, your country will continue to have its issues.
We can all sympathize with you.
But it is you, the people of Venezula that have to change the course of future of your country.
Socialism as an ideology has failed and historically proved its futility after the collapse of Soviet Union.
China too is moving away from Socialism to let the Capital play its role in China.
People risk their lives to attain freedom, liberty and right to participate and run away from dictatorship of a person in the name of poor rule.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:00:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: 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?


In no country has more than a little bit of "socialism" (really any form of collectivism) worked for very long. If we'll agree to use the term socialism loosely, it suffers from being unable to compete against other societies that have less of it. In Europe, this led to two huge costly wars. The way out of a war cycle was to implement a libertarian form of government over the many socialist countries there. The key elements were that labor, capital and goods had to be allowed to flow freely away from excessive socialism and toward respect for individual rights to own property and retain created wealth. That's what the EU is. That's what the US was intended to be for the individual states of the union, but we got it wrong.

France doesn't really deserve to be called a country anymore. Other Europeans can freely move in and take advantage of their social generosity if they can find a job there. To prevent that, France would have to break the EU treaty.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Lord_MaFiJa
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 7:36:53 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/20/2012
Posts: 26
Location: Croatia
1ball wrote:


In no country has more than a little bit of "socialism" (really any form of collectivism) worked for very long. If we'll agree to use the term socialism loosely, it suffers from being unable to compete against other societies that have less of it. In Europe, this led to two huge costly wars. They way out of a war cycle was to implement a libertarian form of government over the many socialist countries there. The key elements were that labor, capital and goods had to be allowed to flow freely away from excessive socialism and toward respect for individual rights to own property and retain created wealth. That's what the EU is. That's what the US was intended to be for the individual states of the union, but we got it wrong.

France doesn't really deserve to be called a country anymore. Other Europeans can freely move in and take advantage of their social generosity if they can find a job there. To prevent that, France would have to break the EU treaty.


I wouldn't agree with you that that's what the EU union is all about. Granted, maybe that was the principle on which the EU union was founded, but that as relevant now as the "All men are created equal" part in your Declaration of Independence. The problem with the European Union, as seen by me, a lowly worker in one of the soon to be member countries. I, and some of my fellow compatriots, see the European Union as a staggering behemoth, fighting to sustain its own life by merging countries that aren't ready for such a leap (such as it is with my country).

I would now like to put forth the example of Sweden (and generally Nordic states, Denmark, Norway, Finland). I don't know if there are any swedes reading this, but if there are, maybe they could share some further insights into the working of the country, because as latinfoxy wrote, the grass is always greener on the other side.

As far as I know, and based on my conversation with people who lived there, Sweden has a very high tax rate, but through that tax the entire healthcare is funded, and no additional medical insurance is needed. In Denmark (or so I'm told), when a young person wants to move out, he/she can get a county owned apartment assigned to them with a randomly selected roommate.

Also, in Denmark, people can get unemployment benefits, but those benefits are strictly controlled. I've heard of a case of a family form my country that moved to Denmark, got on welfare, and then left for a month for a vacation in my homeland. When they got back, they were summoned by the county and their welfare revoked. The power company noticed a drop of electrical current consumption in their household, reported the inconsistency, and police were sent to investigate. They found an empty apartment. The question put forth to this family was, "How can you have a vacation if you are using welfare?".

In my education, European nordic stated were always praised as a good example of socialist goverment.

Thank you very much!
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 9:14:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Lord_MaFiJa wrote:
I wouldn't agree with you that that's what the EU union is all about. Granted, maybe that was the principle on which the EU union was founded, but that as relevant now as the "All men are created equal" part in your Declaration of Independence. The problem with the European Union, as seen by me, a lowly worker in one of the soon to be member countries. I, and some of my fellow compatriots, see the European Union as a staggering behemoth, fighting to sustain its own life by merging countries that aren't ready for such a leap (such as it is with my country).


All you're pointing out is that the EU is an imperfect implementation of the weak central government model. Welcome to the club. Whenever centralization occurs to protect individual rights, authoritarians and collectivists hate the competition it creates within the member states and try to subvert it. They've had some success at that. Time will tell how survivable the EU implementation of the supernation model is. Letting unstable countries in, especially countries that have weak work ethics is dangerous. This use of treaties to hold together a common labor market was never tried before on such a scale. But it served to reinvigorate local economies and make Europe more globally competitive. It somewhat stemmed the loss of talented and skilled workers to the US and attracted needed skilled labor from third world countries. It also kept capital investment within Europe.

Quote:
In my education, European nordic stated were always praised as a good example of socialist goverment.


And yet they felt compelled for some reason to join the EU, to open their borders and become more analogous to US states. Massachusetts is very generous to its un- and under-productive residents. They're having difficulty competing within the US for investment capital, jobs, and high skilled labor. Our states have a requirement that they have balanced budgets. They must not run deficits. But they can get around that by issuing bonds until their credit rating suffers. Then they start a series of budget cutting steps and austerity programs. When those run out, they have to become "business-friendly", which means anything from union-busting to shifting taxes away from businesses and onto real people.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Buz
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 10:14:00 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,778
Location: Atlanta, United States
Free western society is a capitalist-socialist mix, some countries a little more of one than the other. Capitalism without control leads to too much exploitation by business, while socialism without limits leads to too much exploitation and loss of freedom and human rights by government and almost always a lowering of the average standard of living. The trick is keeping the best balance that allows for a high average standard of living and freedom & rights. You can never totally eliminate some poverty. Think of 100 people. There are maybe 5 out of 100 who wouldn't lift a finger to work no matter what. What can you do? Hold a gun to their head? Mao Zedung and Joseph Stalin tried that already. They usually ended up eliminating them.

I am a capitalist by nature, self motivated and full of entrepreneurship spirit. I will work more aggressive, harder, more hours, and find ways to be more innovative than nearly anyone else around me. People like me gravitate to a more capitalistic approach. If you just want to put in your 32-40 hours of work and no more, feel safe and have someone else (government) take care of you, then socialism definitely is your ideal.

Everyone motivates differently and that must be accounted for. Too much control and you subvert talent, creativity, progress and cause massive poverty for everyone. Too little and you get exploitive chaos and an enormous gap between rich and poor.

My heroes are people like Apple's Steve Jobs, one of the greatest capitalists of our time.

I do not want to just survive within the economic food chain, I want to sit on top of it and I do not and will never apologize for that. But I do not believe in crushing or destroying anyone to get there. I am not a John D. Rockefeller, who bragged about how many business owners he caused to commit suicide by crushing them. I think a great capitalist is one that pulls everyone else up with them and that is what I want to be.

She
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 10:21:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,154
Location: Europe
1ball wrote:

France doesn't really deserve to be called a country anymore.

oh wow, quite a statement, huh? Can you be more specific, beside just because you said so and saying 'because other Europeans can move in'. Or is that the only argument you have for that kind of a statement? You do realize that your country as it is today, grow out because 'Europeans who just move in' and it is and was called country. rhetorical, dont bother

1ball wrote:
Other Europeans can freely move in and take advantage of their social generosity if they can find a job there. To prevent that, France would have to break the EU treaty..

Who is taking advantage of who? (rhetorical dont bother!) Don't you think that maybe, just maybe there are some laws that each country have, that people who are moving from country to country have to respect those laws, and not just taking advantage of as you are saying? Yes, France has some issues, but to call it " France doesn't really deserve to be called a country anymore." It's a bit too much even for you?


Why do you think France has this problem? and please don't answer because of the people who are moving in and taking advantage of the country.
EDIT: and what kind of a treaty will Franc exactly break?
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:09:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
oh wow, quite a statement, huh? Can you be more specific, beside just because you said so and saying 'because other Europeans can move in'. Or is that the only argument you have for that kind of a statement? You do realize that your country as it is today, grow out because 'Europeans who just move in' and it is and was called country. rhetorical, dont bother


When a country gives away control of its immigration limiting authority to an over-government, it becomes something less than a country. You can get all emotional about the semantics, but that's what sovereignity is all about. The EU member countries probably did the right thing by giving up that sovereignity, but that doesn't change what it makes the "country". Of course, since this was done by treaty and since it is easy to break a treaty, they can keep claiming to be countries, but as long as they have to answer to a higher level of government, they're more like provinces of an empire. They'll become truly sovereign nations again if the empire dissolves and then they will probably have wars.

Quote:
Who is taking advantage of who? (rhetorical dont bother!)


Asking questions and then trying to blind yourself to an answer you might not want to see suggests that you're afraid of the possibility of having your mind changed. The people of these member states are taking advantage of the individual rights they gain by joining the the EU. The people who want an easy life at the expense of others will be attracted to the places where that hasn't yet resulted in too much debt. The people who a great deal of autonomy will be attracted to places where they are paid more and their rights to liberty are enforced.

Quote:
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe there are some laws that each country have to, that people who are moving from country to country have to respect those laws, and not just taking advantage of as you are saying? Yes, France has some issues, but to call it " France doesn't really deserve to be called a country anymore." It's a bit too much even for you?


Why do you think France has this problem?


It isn't just France. It's all the EU "countries". The people who having voting authority in these "countries" essentially said, "We assert the right to invest in the success of other places. We assert the right to go to other places when our government becomes too burdensome. We assert the right to buy from other places even if it hurts our economy to do so. And we are willing to risk our national sovereignity by welcoming foreigners and treating them as having equal economic rights in order to get these non-compliance rights. We do this to limit the burden our government can place on us."

Essentially, the governments of these member states gave up the right to control the things they used to use to limit the options of their people. It was a tremendous victory against the might-makes-right morality. Time will tell if it continues to be so.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:46:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
Capitalism without control leads to too much exploitation by business,


I'll see if I can clear up a common misconception. Capitalism without some control isn't really Capitalism. There has to be enforcement of rights to life, liberty and property in order to have Capitalism. But Capitalism is an ideal and, as long as there is nothing that can force anti-Capitalists to accept it, it can't exist in pure form. The idea that it is "exploitation by business" that prevents it ignores the fact that essentially every person is a business. People trade their time and effort for something they want. Their time and effort is their valuable property and how highly it is valued by someone else is not something they can dictate when the person they are attempting to dictate to has better options. It is only when those with capital or with the ability to influence lots of ignorant voters engage in cronyism with those in government to achieve the violation of valid individual rights that this is exploitational. That is not Capitalism. It is corruption of government.

What a government gives us is a trend toward Capitalism or away from it. Anything that increases the violation of the valid individual rights is away from it. But the validity of the individual rights enforced and the success of enforcement of the valid rights is what distinguishes governments. The ability of people to not comply when they feel their rights are not being enforced is a control on government. Net consumers simply have less value than net producers and when they don't have commensurately less political clout, competition from other societies for net producers limits the damage they can cause by staying in a society and voting for anti-Capitalism.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
elitfromnorth
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 11:54:58 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,617
Location: Burrowed, Norway
To give you a point of how the different membership countries related to Brussels:
The EU parliment decides a new rule or directive to be put in to action. Some of these are good, others not so good. If a country(say the UK) is 100% against it they'll either tell the parliment to fuck off in a very diplomatic way or they'll stall it and delay it as well as they can. And we're not talking months, we're talking years, which in practice means they only pick and choose the laws they want. If it's laws that are unpopular with the people they'll just blame Brussels. This isn't a one time thing that happens every now and then, it happens a lot. A whole lot.

And Norway is not a member of the EU. We recognise that it's not in our favour to be part of the EU, especially not in these economic times. We're very socialist in mind, with free health care, free education even on university level, welfare etc. etc.

But, that be said, I think what kind of political system is the best all depends on the size of the country along with what sort of natural resources are available. With Norway, we have 5 million inhabitants and we have a shitload of gas and oil. With all the income from gas and oil it's easy to bring the level of the entire country up on a very high standard of living. A lot of the income is from taxation, not of the middle class, but the upper class and especially the companies drilling up the oil, so instead of milking the middle class we're milking the upper class and the big companies, because even if we put on another percentage on their taxes they will still make enough money for it to be highly profitable to drill up oil and gas, especially when the oil prices keep rising.

I can't speak for other countries, and it is sadly all trial and error with what political system works. Maybe Venezuela would benefit very well from a more socialist model, considering you have a lot of natural resources. What you certainly can't do is give private companies full control of the oil and free hands to work it without any taxation at all, like the ideal capitalism dictates. Then the money will go straight into international co orperations and not to the people. DOn't believe me? Look at Africa...

And 1ball; if you're referring the two World Wars then you should have a look at history and think again before you blame it on socialism. I honestly can't see where you got that from, so please enlighten me.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
ElChupacabras
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 12:49:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/13/2012
Posts: 205
Location: Ibagué, Colombia
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.


Totally agree with Elit I'm your neighbor here in Colombia, and we all know how bad things are there. I even have family in Barquisimeto and Caracas, and friends in other cities, and they all agree in one thing. "He is a Dictator".

Socialism as I understand it, is the way they live in Kibuts (Kibutz ??) in Israel. They split duties, so you grow say potatoes and I grow tomatoes, and by harvest we interchange goods, and so on with everybody else; others make tables and then you exchange some good or service for the tables he makes (no money involved) that's Socialism. Right or wrong the goods and the services are split equally in a set up like that.

Socialism as conceived by Fidel Castro (who not long ago admitted that his model of socialism didn't work) is a fake. sheepholy



P.S. I certainly hope what I said makes sense at all lol
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 3:48:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
With Norway, we have 5 million inhabitants and we have a shitload of gas and oil. With all the income from gas and oil it's easy to bring the level of the entire country up on a very high standard of living.


Last I heard, the gas and oil royalties are largely invested in stocks of international companies based in other nations. In other words, in the success of other societies, rather than being used to pay for the government's largess.

Quote:
A lot of the income is from taxation, not of the middle class, but the upper class and especially the companies drilling up the oil, so instead of milking the middle class we're milking the upper class and the big companies, because even if we put on another percentage on their taxes they will still make enough money for it to be highly profitable to drill up oil and gas, especially when the oil prices keep rising.


We wouldn't call the results of taxation income. We would call that revenue. But that's just semantics. It still amounts to shaking down the upper class and transferring your cost of government to the consumers of the products of the oil and gas companies. So, while your government is building a big portfolio of foreign stocks, it is also raising the world price of energy. That's not a bad system for as long as you can get away with it. You're extracting from your future oil and gas revenues to be like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, living off the rest of the world and as long as you make it a sweet deal for your upper classes, they don't take their capital elsewhere.

I was aware of the special exception of Norway from the EU. It is part of the common goods and capital markets and IIRC, its citizens can freely move into EU countries, but it retains control of immigration, which since it is too cold to be considered desirable for much of the rest of Europe, is not a big loss to the EU.

Quote:
And 1ball; if you're referring the two World Wars then you should have a look at history and think again before you blame it on socialism. I honestly can't see where you got that from, so please enlighten me.


Collectivism is pretty much collectivism. I said I would loosely call it socialism because it was the growth of "social" programs for the "working class" that helped sell the regimes that resulted in the wars. I've heard all kinds of argument that nazism and fascism and communism are not socialism, but they're all collectivism and the nitpicky little differences ignore the fact that they have little to no respect for the sovereignity of the individual. The US absorbed many many economic refugees from Europe after 1850 and it was the loss of many of the productive people who were seeking economic freedom that caused the stagnation that led to the cycle of wars.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
elitfromnorth
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 4:25:41 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,617
Location: Burrowed, Norway
1ball wrote:

Last I heard, the gas and oil royalties are largely invested in stocks of international companies based in other nations. In other words, in the success of other societies, rather than being used to pay for the government's largess.



Partly true. A percentage is being invested into the budget every year, while the rest is invested in stocks and other companies. Now tell me how far companies around the world would get without investors willing to put their money in for the business to grow. Add to the fact that many of these businesses are in third world countries are strictly supervised by an ethics council that will advise the government to stop investing in the company if they don't follow the terms given (no child labour, worker safety etc.), then tell me how making third world economies grow is a bad thing, from a neutral point of view that is.

1ball wrote:

It still amounts to shaking down the upper class and transferring your cost of government to the consumers of the products of the oil and gas companies. So, while your government is building a big portfolio of foreign stocks, it is also raising the world price of energy.



Norway is not a member of OPEC who controls the oilmarket. They control how much oil is to be put on the market which again controls the price. Not to mention that we don't shut down the cranes unless there's fire etc and we're pumping up as much oil and gas as is humanly possible from the sea. Don't try putting the blame on a country that isn't a member of the "elite". Look to your own government instead.

1ball wrote:


The US absorbed many many economic refugees from Europe after 1850 and it was the loss of many of the productive people who were seeking economic freedom that caused the stagnation that led to the cycle of wars.

Sure. Ignore the fact the tension growing between France and early Germany in the 1870's. Ignore the fact that Germay was growing so strong that British leaders were pissing their pants. Ignore Austria-Hungary's desire to engulf all of Balkan into their empire, not to mention the Tsar of Russia who considered himself "Guardian of Slavs" and came to Serbia's defence once Austria-Hungary attacked. The family ties that were between the different royal houses in Europe and so forth. If economy was the cause, it sure as hell wasn't socialism, simply because in practice there weren't any left wing movements of note until the Russian Revolution.

And why do you think NSDAP was easy to sell? You have a nation that has been given the blame for the entire war(Germans are a proud people, and that one stung like a bitch) as well as a shitloads of factories being dragged out of the country. A massive debt to France, UK and the US as damagerepayment as well as the necessity of loans to try and build it up. Add the global depression(assume that's caused by socialism too, huh?) and suddenly you have a country with an inflation that's so big that you need a wheelbarrow of notes to buy a bread. All you need then is a charismatic leader that can find someone to put the blame on and promise better times, a Germany back to it's former glory, and voila, either it's socialism, capitalism or whatever, he's still gonna get elected.


"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 4:40:24 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Buz wrote:

I am a capitalist by nature, self motivated and full of entrepreneurship spirit. I will work more aggressive, harder, more hours, and find ways to be more innovative than nearly anyone else around me. People like me gravitate to a more capitalistic approach. If you just want to put in your 32-40 hours of work and no more, feel safe and have someone else (government) take care of you, then socialism definitely is your ideal.

Everyone motivates differently and that must be accounted for. Too much control and you subvert talent, creativity, progress and cause massive poverty for everyone. Too little and you get exploitive chaos and an enormous gap between rich and poor.


A lot of this rings true to me. In short, I don't think anything that resembles the product of idealism would constitute the most practical system of economics and government for a large society. Here in the US, I see two sides cooperating less than perhaps ever in the history of our nation. And on an individual level, I have things I feel 'right' about, and others disagree with those things, holding other opinions and believing that they instead hold absolute truth. Everyone thinks they know best, but it's going to take a little bit of everyone's ideas, not all of one side's and none of the other's, to strike a good balance. I feel that many elements of what's loosely agreed to as 'socialism' are very good ideas for society, and I think others might not work so well. Same with elements of conservatism.

My advice is to look past those who talk in absolutes about socialism, good or bad, as well as those who believe that rulers, and governments, are inherently bad. I believe Venezuela's predicament to be about it's leader, not its self-labeled 'socialist' government.
ArtMan
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 7:14:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
Xuani is right about Venezuela, Chavez is about Chavez. He sees socialism as a way of giving him the excuse and the power for absolute rule. Venezuela is a wonderful country and I hope that before long they can have true freedom and true reform but it will not happen until they get rid of that egotistical tyrant.

Unfortunately not every nation in the world has the culture, education, and economy to operate under a democracy and if forced on them will only fail. Steps toward democratic government must evolve. It might have a real chance in Venezuela if given the opportunity.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 7:56:36 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
1ball wrote: Last I heard, the gas and oil royalties are largely invested in stocks of international companies based in other nations. In other words, in the success of other societies, rather than being used to pay for the government's largess.

Partly true. A percentage is being invested into the budget every year, while the rest is invested in stocks and other companies.


A large percentage or a small percentage?

Quote:
Now tell me how far companies around the world would get without investors willing to put their money in for the business to grow. Add to the fact that many of these businesses are in third world countries are strictly supervised by an ethics council that will advise the government to stop investing in the company if they don't follow the terms given (no child labour, worker safety etc.), then tell me how making third world economies grow is a bad thing, from a neutral point of view that is.


Is it really your government's responsibility to sell your resources with those goals in mind? Isn't it your government's responsibility to focus on the short term and long term best interests of your society and justify its policies on that basis?

1ball wrote:

It still amounts to shaking down the upper class and transferring your cost of government to the consumers of the products of the oil and gas companies. So, while your government is building a big portfolio of foreign stocks, it is also raising the world price of energy.

Quote:
Norway is not a member of OPEC who controls the oilmarket. They control how much oil is to be put on the market which again controls the price. Not to mention that we don't shut down the cranes unless there's fire etc and we're pumping up as much oil and gas as is humanly possible from the sea. Don't try putting the blame on a country that isn't a member of the "elite". Look to your own government instead.


Does not being a member of OPEC change the effect of producing an energy surplus on global prices? What Norway is doing both lowers and raises the price of petroleum products. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, unless it's wrong for the viability of your society. But what will your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids inherit?

1ball wrote:

The US absorbed many many economic refugees from Europe after 1850 and it was the loss of many of the productive people who were seeking economic freedom that caused the stagnation that led to the cycle of wars.

Quote:
Sure. Ignore the fact the tension growing between France and early Germany in the 1870's. Ignore the fact that Germany was growing so strong that British leaders were pissing their pants. Ignore Austria-Hungary's desire to engulf all of Balkan into their empire, not to mention the Tsar of Russia who considered himself "Guardian of Slavs" and came to Serbia's defence once Austria-Hungary attacked. The family ties that were between the different royal houses in Europe and so forth. If economy was the cause, it sure as hell wasn't socialism, simply because in practice there weren't any left wing movements of note until the Russian Revolution.


You honestly don't think that the first, third and fourth French revolutions were the result of left wing movements? What do they teach in those socialist schools? Never heard of the Paris Commune? Liberty-Equality-Brotherhood was a left wing contradiction and a clear example of why left wing ideology results in bankruptcy. It doesn't reward risk. The Franco-Prussian war was "growing tension between France and early Germany"? Never made the connection between that and WWI? I'm not surprised. Using democracy to vote for "bread and circuses" is what left wing ideology is all about. Growing empires was done for the sake of pacifying the masses. You choose not to call it socialism, but collectivism in any form still stinks.

Quote:
And why do you think NSDAP was easy to sell?


Because of the social reforms it promised and for the most part delivered, temporarily, along with a buttload of pain and death.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
latinfoxy
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:05:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here

elitfromnorth wrote:


I can't speak for other countries, and it is sadly all trial and error with what political system works. Maybe Venezuela would benefit very well from a more socialist model, considering you have a lot of natural resources. What you certainly can't do is give private companies full control of the oil and free hands to work it without any taxation at all, like the ideal capitalism dictates. Then the money will go straight into international co orperations and not to the people. DOn't believe me? Look at Africa...

.


Our oil companies are all run by the goverment, this wasnt like this before Chavez and they used to work pretty good, like i said now they are doing a horrible job and we are actually importing Gas beause of the horrible management they are doing with the companies.

A little background to this: In 2001 all the big companies and all the workers from oil companies went to a strike, asking Chavez to leave the power. We also did a referendum asking for his resignation. He fired every single person that worked for the oil companies that signed the petition, around 40.000 people lost their jobs. This are people that have been working for this companies for years and actually know really good what they were doing. So now this companies are run by amateurs or people that know nothing about the business. If you research a little about the oil industry you will see that Canada and Colombia are doing really good and it is because they have hired most of the Venezuelan´s that were fired. yes a very sad situation.
latinfoxy
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:13:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
LadyX wrote:

My advice is to look past those who talk in absolutes about socialism, good or bad, as well as those who believe that rulers, and governments, are inherently bad. I believe Venezuela's predicament to be about it's leader, not its self-labeled 'socialist' government.


Yes thats very true, but still my question is the same, even if in Venezuela what Chavez is doing is not the real socialism it is what is concider socialism in most parts (Cuba, China, etc) people in power gets really rich while everyone else gets really poor. Yeah thats not the definition of socialism but thats how is treated in practice.

ArtMan wrote:
Xuani is right about Venezuela, Chavez is about Chavez. He sees socialism as a way of giving him the excuse and the power for absolute rule. Venezuela is a wonderful country and I hope that before long they can have true freedom and true reform but it will not happen until they get rid of that egotistical tyrant.

Unfortunately not every nation in the world has the culture, education, and economy to operate under a democracy and if forced on them will only fail. Steps toward democratic government must evolve. It might have a real chance in Venezuela if given the opportunity.


Yep hopefully it will all change in October when we have our elections and hopefully it will be peacefull even though i dont think it will.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:19:46 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
You're right, that totalitarian governments often call themselves 'socialist republics' as a cheap way to give off the appearance of running a government 'for the people', in addition to all the lying rhetoric they spout to their own people, while of course they're stealing the country blind. Socialism, taken to an extreme, puts those in charge in the position to steal easily, and that's why socialism in it's pure form is, in my opinion, not very practical for most societies. Hell, an 'ism' of any kind in pure form's going to probably fail, because societies, economies, and cultures are complex. Theories applied purely into practice won't often work as planned.
Lord_MaFiJa
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:13:51 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/20/2012
Posts: 26
Location: Croatia
LadyX wrote:
Hell, an 'ism' of any kind in pure form's going to probably fail, because societies, economies, and cultures are complex. Theories applied purely into practice won't often work as planned.


Damn right. Socialism is an ideology. And as such it's nothing more than a set of _ideas_ that constitute goals. The goal would be a classless society. In order to have a classless society everyone must forfeit their personal ambitions, or at least limit them to serve a greater good. Not many people can do that.

Politicians the least of all, in my experience.

Thank you very much!
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:56:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Lord_MaFiJa wrote:
Damn right. Socialism is an ideology. And as such it's nothing more than a set of _ideas_ that constitute goals. The goal would be a classless society. In order to have a classless society everyone must forfeit their personal ambitions, or at least limit them to serve a greater good. Not many people can do that.


The more important point is that some people absolutely won't do that. They don't and won't buy into the belief that it is moral to require them to sacrifice themselves to a 'greater good'. They are no more selfish than others, they are just selfish in different ways. A classless society could mean that everyone is equally poor and unready to face challenges that require the expenditure of surplus, because nobody is rewarded for producing surplus. Those who have the ability to produce surplus will inevitably insist on control of how that surplus is allocated. They won't buy into the belief that it is common wealth. they consider that belief to be immoral and they would rather not produce than be a slave to non-producers.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
elitfromnorth
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:15:09 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,617
Location: Burrowed, Norway
1ball wrote:


The more important point is that some people absolutely won't do that. They don't and won't buy into the belief that it is moral to require them to sacrifice themselves to a 'greater good'. They are no more selfish than others, they are just selfish in different ways. A classless society could mean that everyone is equally poor and unready to face challenges that require the expenditure of surplus, because nobody is rewarded for producing surplus. Those who have the ability to produce surplus will inevitably insist on control of how that surplus is allocated. They won't buy into the belief that it is common wealth. they consider that belief to be immoral and they would rather not produce than be a slave to non-producers.


Well, it's partly true. I still believe that there are those that would put all of their efforts into something simply because they are governed by kindness rather than the greed for money. After all, you still have plenty of volunteers doing different things because they want to help other people. And most noticeably of all; Nicola Tesla that wanted to create power that wasn't just wireless but also free for everyone to enjoy. Shame he got shut down by such a greedy cunt that Edison was. So to say that the world would not move forward without the interest of profit being there is still wrong, but sadly, profit is the biggest motivator.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Christie
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:58:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/15/2010
Posts: 152
Location: USA, United States
The problem with socialism is that it always ends up requiring coercion or force in order to get people to participate. Yes, I know there are Utopian fantasies about the perfect socialist state but the failure of those ideas is what do you propose to do with the people who do not want to be part of your Utopia?

With a more libertarian model (like the US used to be as late as the 80's) you could form a non-profit commune if you wanted to and have your own little socialist Utopia.

But there's never been a socialist state that would tolerate people forming a capitalist, for-profit community.

Ultimately, you need to look at immigration patterns and you see net immigration moving FROM socialist states to more libertarian states.

The result of that exodus from socialist states? Places like Cuba and now Venezuela have to restrict emigration (or frustrate it with onerous regulations) in order to maintain their populations.

Fuck socialism. I'd rather have the freedom to fail then to have some cocksucking bureaucrat running my life for me.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:10:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
Well, it's partly true. I still believe that there are those that would put all of their efforts into something simply because they are governed by kindness rather than the greed for money.


If by that you mean that they are greedy for the feeling they get when they give, yes, there are people like that. Natural sacrificial lambs exist. But they almost always want to control who they give to. They do not want to be told by others who they must give to, so they aren't really sacrificing control of their lives. Socialism demands control in the hands of somebody else, a priesthood. Socialist societies empower the "mystics of muscle" just as religious societies empower the "mystics of faith".

Quote:
So to say that the world would not move forward without the interest of profit being there is still wrong, but sadly, profit is the biggest motivator.


Socialists would not be happy until we had a strong central global government requiring control in the hands of these "mystics of muscle". That's because socialist societies can't compete economically with individualist societies. But being able to compete economically is a combination of being more innovative, adaptable and flexible in the face of change, which is something socialist societies really suck at, because central control is limiting, not liberating.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:34:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,713
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."-Thomas Jefferson


nazhinaz
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:05:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Christie wrote:
The problem with socialism is that it always ends up requiring coercion or force in order to get people to participate. Yes, I know there are Utopian fantasies about the perfect socialist state but the failure of those ideas is what do you propose to do with the people who do not want to be part of your Utopia?

With a more libertarian model (like the US used to be as late as the 80's) you could form a non-profit commune if you wanted to and have your own little socialist Utopia.

But there's never been a socialist state that would tolerate people forming a capitalist, for-profit community.

Ultimately, you need to look at immigration patterns and you see net immigration moving FROM socialist states to more libertarian states.

The result of that exodus from socialist states? Places like Cuba and now Venezuela have to restrict emigration (or frustrate it with onerous regulations) in order to maintain their populations.

Fuck socialism. I'd rather have the freedom to fail then to have some cocksucking bureaucrat running my life for me.

I agree.
May I add? Bill Gates has formed a trust donating almost $ 30 billions of his wealth.
Bill Clinton's foundation has done a wonderful job by persuading pharma companies to provide Anti Retrovial Drugs (anti HIV) at a much reduced cost.
And all those education trusts all over the World are a glittering examle of human beings trying their best to help less fortunate ones.
And let me assure you, freedoms are not destined to fail; they are destined to be enhanced all over the World.
Look at the World it was immediately after WWII and now.
Freedoms all over have enhanced, may it be Russia, China or other so called socialist countries of the World.
Humanity never relinquishes any positive right it has attained. This is proven by the record of history.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:37:12 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
nazhinaz wrote:


Humanity never relinquishes any positive right it has attained. This is proven by the record of history.


Not true.

Examine the photo below.



This is Afghanistan in the 1950s. Notice women, not covered in headscarves and burqas? In school?

Now, women get shot for attending school, and especially by shaming their family for appearing in scandalous clothing like you see in the photo. Thank you, radical Islam, for your exemplary human rights.

The same is true in a growing number of African countries. This is a widening trend, unfortunately.
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2012 7:57:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

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


Not true.

Examine the photo below.



This is Afghanistan in the 1950s. Notice women, not covered in headscarves and burqas? In school?

Now, women get shot for attending school, and especially by shaming their family for appearing in scandalous clothing like you see in the photo. Thank you, radical Islam, for your exemplary human rights.

The same is true in a growing number of African countries. This is a widening trend, unfortunately.


I know its a temporary set back.
As the Communist/Socialist revolutions in Soviet Union, China and many other countries did put the humanity back in the freedom of expression and other fundamental rights attained there.
But it finally did help the mankind as now even African, middle eastern & other backward parts of the World are strongly coming up with greater fundamental rights.
Lets place confidence into human resilience and forward march.
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.