• Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism
    250 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gastyne;48977234]Are you trying to imply there is no socialism is any European country? I know sweden has it and you do too.[/QUOTE] sobotnik is EXTREMELY anti-socialism, anti-communism and very pro-capitalism, this isn't a secret. you can see how he posts in literally every single thread criticizing capitalism and that happens to mention communism and socialism in any way. sobotnik must think that if he doesn't, the soviet union will rise from its ashes and go after him or something.
[QUOTE=proch;48978821]Even if they couldn't wvade them, why would the wealthy stay in a country that wants their money to run itself?[/QUOTE] They already have fled this country, no 1%er pays their full extent of taxes, they have it all stashed away in tax havens, this wasn't the fault of anyone but the loopholes they allowed into the tax code over the years
Capitalism is good short term as a way to kickstart everything. Long term it begins to hurt a lot of people.
[QUOTE=proch;48978821]Even if they couldn't wvade them, why would the wealthy stay in a country that wants their money to run itself?[/QUOTE] Because, depending on where the money comes from, you can just take their money from them before they get to "run" with them, so then you get no choice but staying if you still want to actually make the money in the first place. If your money comes from selling cable TV or telephone subscriptions you provide in United Kingdom good luck making that kind of cash doing that in Bahamas. The only income you can really take away from a high tax country is production of products you can export back into that country later, but even that can be fought through tolls, where the toll is practically a retroactive tax.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48978932][B]Because, depending on where they money come from, you can just take their money from them before they get to "run" with them, so then you get no choice but staying if you still want to actually get your money at all.[/B] The only income you can really take away from a high tax country is production of products you can export back into that country later, but even that can be fought through tolls, where the toll is practically a retroactive tax.[/QUOTE] ive been reading this sentence several times and i dont understand can you please expand on it?
the problem with socialism is there isn't a standard definition. I used to think it JUST meant the means of production is owned by the worker, but now people think it means the government runs everything? No, that's state capitalism.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48977688]Behave like an actual man of science for a second and bring actual proof that the way it went in past is the only way it can go, and all the books of how badly it all went will possibly have a value in deciding what to do about it in the future. "It went badly before" is not a proof of anything, ever. Democracy went badly before, free trade went badly before. It doesn't mean a thing.[/QUOTE] Behaving like a man of science was what initially drew me towards socialism, before later rejecting it. Subjecting socialism to scientific scrutiny and skepticism reveals flaws that dismisses it as a working model for society. Socialism is dead now, there are only socialists left.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979151]Behaving like a man of science was what initially drew me towards socialism, before later rejecting it. Subjecting socialism to scientific scrutiny and skepticism reveals flaws that dismisses it as a working model for society. Socialism is dead now, there are only socialists left.[/QUOTE] I like how you answered his argument in a way that not only validates his claims but is also essentially meaningless. You'd make a great politician.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979151]Behaving like a man of science was what initially drew me towards socialism, before later rejecting it. Subjecting socialism to scientific scrutiny and skepticism reveals flaws that dismisses it as a working model for society. Socialism is dead now, there are only socialists left.[/QUOTE] If you must insist on using the strictest definition of the word then go ahead stop using it, but there's no better word for a regulated economy with strong labor laws today. Just as Marxist communism and Stalinist communism are completely different, language changes
[QUOTE=Sableye;48979181]If you must insist on using the strictest definition of the word then go ahead stop using it, but there's no better word for a regulated economy with strong labor laws today. Just as Marxist communism and Stalinist communism are completely different, language changes[/QUOTE] I'd call it a mixed economy. none of this socialist/capitalist bullshit economics shouldn't be brought into the realm of politics, that's just calling for cancer to infect it
[QUOTE=Kentz;48978976]ive been reading this sentence several times and i dont understand can you please expand on it?[/QUOTE] Sorry, I made that post and then got interrupted before getting to edit it (I do multiple passes on most of all of my posts to at least somewhat remedy my dysgraphia). It should be little bit more understandable now. [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979151]Behaving like a man of science was what initially drew me towards socialism, before later rejecting it. Subjecting socialism to scientific scrutiny and skepticism reveals flaws that dismisses it as a working model for society. Socialism is dead now, there are only socialists left.[/QUOTE] I am glad you still didn't make an actual point and just keep parroting worthless catchphrases. [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979191]I'd call it a mixed economy. none of this socialist/capitalist bullshit economics shouldn't be brought into the realm of politics, that's just calling for cancer to infect it[/QUOTE] How does that make even the slightest amount of sense? Politics are about controlling and governing the society, and economy is one of the domains with biggest social impact on both the level of individuals and groups of them. You can't govern a society without governing its economy, that's utterly insane.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48979217]I am glad you still didn't make an actual point and just keep parroting worthless catchphrases.[/QUOTE] the point is that people who adhere to political ideologies don't respect science in the first place, and that using science to defend an ideology is dishonest. i'd say its exceptionally obvious that traditional socialism is dead (and has been for twenty years) due to the fact that virtually every mainstream socialist movement in the world now supports (or doesn't want to get rid of) the basic institutions that constitute a market economy, and that the ones which don't are politically dead i mean yeah you still have places like cuba which are ostensibly socialist but they're slowly jettisoning it in favour of market reforms [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48979217]You can't govern a society without governing its economy, that's utterly insane.[/QUOTE] the point is that economics shouldn't be subject to politics you do what works. you don't set an interest rate because a politician tells you to, you set it to ensure greater macroeconomic stability.
Basically, what ended happening with the USSR is they actually tried to establish communism but after the revolution and the civil war, some assholes (IE Stalin) decided that maybe it wasn't a good idea to give the people power in the government so they took it for themselves. Really, the USSR was more of a Fascist state than a true Communist.
[QUOTE=Octavius;48977473]I'd love to hear what makes you say communism doesn't work. [/QUOTE] Maybe the part where very communist nation on earth has devolved into a corrupted shithole in less than a century. [QUOTE=Octavius;48977473]Also, the party may be called the Socialist Party, but it advocates social democracy not socialism (for the most part). Yes, at one point in their history they sure did truly advocate socialism, but they no longer do and France is certainly not socialist.[/QUOTE] It's a practical application of socialism that relies on a functional albeit maybe cynical approach which dictates that, to the surprise of nobody, compromise is the best way to do politics. You can't run a fully open capitalist nation because it ends up corrupted to fuck (see the USA). You can't run a fully socialist nation because it also ends up corrupted to fuck. Both will cause bankruptcy. The best way to run a nation is with careful alchemy of these elements by creating a government that helps generate a free market and that alters its social and economic policies between a capitalist and a socialist approach depending on what people need at the time. Call it pragmatism, call it being cynical, it works and that's what matters. Clinging onto a preset list of ideals is retarded and has never worked from a practical standard, only makes people hate each other and argue instead of taking good decisions to help the people and the economy.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48979344]Basically, what ended happening with the USSR is they actually tried to establish communism but after the revolution and the civil war, some assholes (IE Stalin) decided that maybe it wasn't a good idea to give the people power in the government so they took it for themselves. Really, the USSR was more of a Fascist state than a true Communist.[/QUOTE] and we could have gotten away with it too... if it wasn't for that meddling Georgian i mean how deluded must one be to believe that's how it actually went down? it was a complex process whereby a repressive state broke down in the midst of war and revolution and was reconstituted by repressive and violent measures lenin established the gulags, the cheka, had peasants shot, innocent people arrested, genuine workers self-rule destroyed, etc all stalin did was take the process to its logical conclusion. the whole reason he managed to get into power is because the soviet state was built up in such a way that democratic participation was basically impossible if trotsky came to power you'd still see the ussr becoming a totalitarian shithole
socialism as an idea will never die because for a lot of - especially - young gullible people, it is a very pleasing idea since they have no income or education it pleases the lowest common denominator of society because it; establishes a scapegoat for all your problems (ie, the capitalists) and will "solve all your problems" by taking away their money its easy to sell the idea to people in politics and they will vote for whatever free stuff they can get people are lazy
[QUOTE=Kentz;48979467]socialism as an idea will never die because for a lot of - especially - young gullible people, it is a very pleasing idea since they have no income or education it pleases the lowest common denominator of society because it; establishes a scapegoat for all your problems (ie, the capitalists) and will "solve all your problems" by taking away their money its easy to sell the idea to people in politics and they will vote for whatever free stuff they can get people are lazy[/QUOTE] I love how you people all assume that all people with socialist beliefs are on the far left of the spectrum.
[QUOTE=Kentz;48979467]socialism as an idea will never die because for a lot of - especially - young gullible people, it is a very pleasing idea since they have no income or education it pleases the lowest common denominator of society because it; establishes a scapegoat for all your problems (ie, the capitalists) and will "solve all your problems" by taking away their money its easy to sell the idea to people in politics and they will vote for whatever free stuff they can get people are lazy[/QUOTE] This is a really great post because it shows the privilege blindness of someone who has benefitted from social-democratic and welfare institutions yet scoffs at them when the less privileged demand them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979191]I'd call it a mixed economy. none of this socialist/capitalist bullshit economics shouldn't be brought into the realm of politics, that's just calling for cancer to infect it[/QUOTE] That term means nothing, a mixed economy could refer to tons of different things, currently the US economy is partly manufacturing partly service based, that's a mixed economy, using the term socialism to emphasise the labor protections and market regulations that many European countries who already use the term, makes sense. Also politics and the economy have been intertwined since the dawn of time, there's no getting around that
[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;48979559]This is a really great post because it shows the privilege blindness of someone who has benefitted from social-democratic and welfare institutions yet scoffs at them when the less privileged demand them.[/QUOTE] how have i benefited from social democracy? by them stealing 75% of my income? by providing the worst education in europe? by financing an inept health care system with super long queues with said 75% of my money?
[QUOTE=Kentz;48979467]socialism as an idea will never die because for a lot of - especially - young gullible people, it is a very pleasing idea since they have no income or education it pleases the lowest common denominator of society because it; establishes a scapegoat for all your problems (ie, the capitalists) and will "solve all your problems" by taking away their money its easy to sell the idea to people in politics and they will vote for whatever free stuff they can get people are lazy[/QUOTE] My income is fine, I have a degree in a very strong field, I'm worried about my family members, the people who aren't in college, and people I know who are crushed by the current economy. To not care about the lower class is amoral, the least I can do is try to get the people who do genuinely care about the downtrodden into office, if that means socialism than so be it, the alternative is a party that's more preoccupied with fetuses and firearms to see the crumbling middle class
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48979489]I love how you people all assume that all people with socialist beliefs are on the far left of the spectrum.[/QUOTE] i am not, but thats the political climate of sweden either its the capitalists fault or its the immigrants [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;48979607]My income is fine, I have a degree in a very strong field, I'm worried about my family members, the people who aren't in college, and people I know who are crushed by the current economy. To not care about the lower class is amoral, the least I can do is try to get the people who do genuinely care about the downtrodden into office, if that means socialism than so be it, the alternative is a party that's more preoccupied with fetuses and firearms to see the crumbling middle class[/QUOTE] you can care about the lower class without settling for a corrupt and amoral political system
[QUOTE=Kentz;48978780]how will services not based on profits end up paying for themselves? i wish that was the case, but the "wealthiest" can easily evade taxes and instead people like me have to pay 75% tax on what i earn....[/QUOTE] The government insurance company that operates in my province, is a government monopoply on insurance, AND also has made money EVERY year since 2008, and even saw 1% growth in 2008. How do you just generalize so widely?
[QUOTE=Sableye;48979582]That term means nothing, a mixed economy could refer to tons of different things, currently the US economy is partly manufacturing partly service based, that's a mixed economy, using the term socialism to emphasise the labor protections and market regulations that many European countries who already use the term, makes sense. Also politics and the economy have been intertwined since the dawn of time, there's no getting around that[/QUOTE] A mixed economy usually refers to a market economy with strong regulatory oversight and provision of public goods. Most countries in the world today are mixed economies. By keeping politics out of economics, I refer to keeping politicians away from the decisions of agencies tasked with management of the economy. Central banks don't (and shouldn't) modify interest rates because the party in power told them to. The National Health Service for instance (should) be in charge of its own decisions rather than having politicians fuck around with it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979670]A mixed economy usually refers to a market economy with strong regulatory oversight and provision of public goods. Most countries in the world today are mixed economies. By keeping politics out of economics, I refer to keeping politicians away from the decisions of agencies tasked with management of the economy. Central banks don't (and shouldn't) modify interest rates. The National Health Service for instance (should) be in charge of its own decisions rather than having politicians fuck around with it.[/QUOTE] so in your opinion, regulatory boards can go fuck themselves and stay out of their way? No thanks pal.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48979674]so in your opinion, regulatory boards can go fuck themselves and stay out of their way? No thanks pal.[/QUOTE] Oh no I want regulatory boards. It's just that civil servants or independent agencies should be running things instead of politicians. Accountable, professional people who are there because they know how to do the job, and are serving the public interest.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48979659]The government insurance company that operates in my province, is a government monopoply on insurance, AND also has made money EVERY year since 2008, and even saw 1% growth in 2008. How do you just generalize so widely?[/QUOTE] what about healthcare?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48979347]Maybe the part where very communist nation on earth has devolved into a corrupted shithole in less than a century.[/QUOTE] Good thing most people that are "socialist" aren't for planned economies, gulags and collectivized agriculture.
[QUOTE=Kentz;48979721]what about healthcare?[/QUOTE] Healthcare shouldn't be a for profit business, and our healthcare here is top notch.
[QUOTE=Kentz;48979608] you can care about the lower class without settling for a corrupt and amoral political system[/QUOTE] Socialism isn't inherently corrupt and amoral any more then capitalism is. [editline]25th October 2015[/editline] [quote]i am not, but thats the political climate of sweden either its the capitalists fault or its the immigrants[/quote] The microcosm isn't representative of the macrocosm.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.