Why Socialism is the key

[nickenburg]

I agree, we need to care more for people all over the world.
Everyone deserves a good home and health, But I also think borrowing money to do that is a bad thing!

But what is more wrong they spend so much money on war and weapons, we can use that money for way better things.

[1714930597]

1714930597

[1714930597]

1714930597

[1714930597]

1714930597

[kanazawa]

Socialism is good in the others country.

First of all, the expression "socialism" means that, people who work hard everyday and those who got money from their own effort will have to "finance" those who don't work and who take money or "social benefits" without making the same effort.

Theoretically it's a solidarity, because I have money and I'll "help" someone who don't have... but, what he gives in this situation? What I will win or take? Pratically it's "a poor sustaining another poor".

I worked for some money, and "he" don't. I work because I need money, it's not a matter of luxury. The vast majority (99.99%) work because they need. And they need each cent they are winning. So, I can't help other people, because I have debts to pay. But in the socialism, even if you got all of your sweaty money compromised by your debts, "fuc* you".

If somebody don't work because he or she don't want to work, because it's hard and wake up early it's not fun, I must pay for their medical treatment if he or she became sick. But they don't pay for my treatment if I became sick. This is not selfishness, this is fairness and unfairness.

First, if I gave money in your hand it would be less worse, but the money will end in the government hands. So why should I trust in the government?
Will "he" deliver exactly what is needed for those who need? What is the guarantee?

Why Latin America (the amusement park of socialism) has the higher migration rates in the world? And why countries like US or i.e Hong Kong, Cingapure, The Netherlands are very different in this point?

There are any socialist country where the "experience" was good? I can't remember...

Remember a phase of komrade Lenin: "The goal of socialism is communism".

If you think "modern socialism" from Frankfurt School is right, why Germany don't use this kind of "teaching" in their own country? Why the most developed countries aren't socialist and the must fu**ed up are? Want an example? take a look in the argentinian economy or the brasilian... Brasil has SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde), and it's one of the worse in the planet... want to see a picture of it:



Just write "sus brasil" on google images and you will see the classic socialist healthcare system.

It's easy to say "I live in a socilist country blablabla" and the true scenario and real life been "capitalist". I mean, analising it deeply, when you got socialism you're making a scheme like a Ponzi Scheme... taking money from one who don't have and give to another one who don't have either, but the administration is not in your hands, just in the "bank/state" hands...  it's the monopoly of power, the monopoly of means of production, the monopoly of education, etc. Do you wanna live a real "socialist" experience? Come to Latin America and you'll see.

[coldbound]

In the end, tried and didn't work. It makes no sense to keep thinking that it's the key. All there is left is listening to Imagine and keep dreaming.

[arbitrage]

Only good system is that system who care for its people not only for profit!
Capitalism is worst of all, especially free trade, and free market!
He is good only for big capital and you can't succeed in this environment if you are small player.

Communism is real power but many times was misused by those in power.

Socialism is not solution because this is old fashion system and needs some workout,
 I believe we must find better solution.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Why? France is socialist since 1789 and is leading in many technological development!

Like what exactly?

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is my all-time favorite book, and he was a die hard socialist and tried his damnedest to implement it in the US, but it was not to be.  I'm not saying capitalism is the best, but I don't think socialism is compatible with human nature, which contains elements of greed and altruism but in nowhere near equal proportions.

[yugo23]

...
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors!
...

"Nationalization" is just another word for "theft-by-government". If the only way socialism can succeed is by stealing, then it can't succeed because eventually the government will own everything and there will be nothing left to steal.

Sigh... But in the hypothesis of a direct democracy, government IS the people as there is nothing between them! Peope directly vote laws and constitution and take decisions. So it's not "theft-by-government".

[yugo23]

Only good system is that system who care for its people not only for profit!
Capitalism is worst of all, especially free trade, and free market!
He is good only for big capital and you can't succeed in this environment if you are small player.

Communism is real power but many times was misused by those in power.

Socialism is not solution because this is old fashion system and needs some workout,
 I believe we must find better solution.

Of course the system is not perfect.
But imagine communism/socialism (I prefer socialism but both may be disputed) or another Marxism solution with DIRECT DEMOCRACY!!!

That would be the solution! That would mean they couldn't steal us anymore, they'd have to obey the 99% finally!

[yugo23]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Why? France is socialist since 1789 and is leading in many technological development!

Like what exactly?

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is my all-time favorite book, and he was a die hard socialist and tried his damnedest to implement it in the US, but it was not to be.  I'm not saying capitalism is the best, but I don't think socialism is compatible with human nature, which contains elements of greed and altruism but in nowhere near equal proportions.

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.
Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).
Of course it needs for every individual of the group to be able to decide freely. Not by the indirect pseudo shitty democracy we have that are nothing but big fat oligarchies.

We have yet to experiment true democracy that's for sure.
And if you're asking what technological development France is responsible for, seems like you don't know enough about our country ^^
Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

[BARR_Official]

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/emergencyeconomics.html

Central planning is supposed to prevent the free market's higher prices, shortages, and waiting in line.

But central planning cannot do anything without using higher prices, shortages, and/or waiting in line. 




The problem with the "government" running things is that no one is accountable.
There is no government.  There are only people with the power to decide what happens.
In a free market, the amount of money we have gives us power to decide what happens.
Government employees want to take our power and give it to themselves.

When people are allowed to provide goods and services without government interference,
they have to do a good job.  Otherwise they will lose money, lose their jobs, go out of business.
When a government employee controls goods and services,
and he doesn't do a good job, people suffer but that guy keeps his job.

In a free market, all of us are free to decide what happens with our money.
If something is too expensive, or if we don't need it, then we don't buy it.
But when we allow a government employee to tell us what we are allowed to buy,
that guy doesn't know or care what our needs are.  He just makes something up, and we have to do it.

A free market allows supply and demand to determine prices and the quality of goods and services.
Central planning means that no quality is too low,
and Florida gets shipped just as many snow shovels as Minnesota.  That's equality.

[BARR_Official]

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.

Groups don't work overtime.
Groups don't invent anything.
Groups don't take personal risks in order to make important progress.
Groups don't care about my children as much as I do.

Groups can't exist without individuals,
so why should individuals submit to your idea of "group" control to tell them what they're allowed to do?

Socialism requires the majority of individuals to submit to the control of a few individuals.

Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

That's a list of things invented by individuals.
Most of them were wealthy individuals who had the freedom to acquire as much money as they wanted,
and then they had the freedom to spend that money however they wanted on whatever they thought was important.
And that's how they invented those things, which wouldn't have been invented if you were in charge.

Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).

If groups aren't greedy, why do they vote for people who promise them free money?

And who is "the group"?  Everyone but me?

How can "the group" benefit by making every individual member of the group suffer?

Oh, that's right - what you mean is that it will always be best for the leaders of the group.

The things you're saying have been used to take away people's rights for over a hundred years.

Not only is everything you say wrong, it's also inherently evil.

[OROBTC]

...

Brazil: Has been trying Socialism for several years now, in their Socialist experiment (and their vanity to land the Olympics), their country is in a hard recession now.

Russia: While "nominally" not Socialist anymore, they indeed have State Capitalism and Crony Capitalism ruining their economy.

India: Been Socialist for decades (hence still very poor), they may be reforming their economy.

China: While until very recently showing fantastic growth, much of that has been powered by over-investment as well as Crony Capitalism.

South Africa: Trying Socialism with disasterous results...

^^^--- That takes care of the "BRICS"

VENEZUELA and Cuba are both being ground into the dirt economically.  Communism/Socialism too...

*   *   *

Poland has been growing nicely since the early 1990s (on the whole), they are getting close to W. European standards.  How?  Freedom (Capitalism).

Greece?  Socialist government for many years.

QED

[arbitrage]

I wonder how much of you ever had some experience
with socialism except in school books? I was born and raised in one such system
and i know what can happen after socialism.
Democracy has delivered by NATO with bombs  in "Merciful angel"  action!

[partysaurus]

I live in sweden and i say here we have a good system the Wellfare  checks wont make you rich but it will make you get the minimum. So you still want to get a job. And free health care and free schools for me is a must have. If a country don't have it or any kind of safety net for their citizen they don't really care for them at all. And yes we have high taxes here but it's ok I guess, your not rant to get rich from your job anyway you do that with your spare time.sweden is a hybrid I guess with socialist views and capitalist views at the same time

[arbitrage]

I live in sweden and i say here we have a good system the Wellfare  checks wont make you rich but it will make you get the minimum. So you still want to get a job. And free health care and free schools for me is a must have. If a country don't have it or any kind of safety net for their citizen they don't really care for them at all. And yes we have high taxes here but it's ok I guess, your not rant to get rich from your job anyway you do that with your spare time.sweden is a hybrid I guess with socialist views and capitalist views at the same time

Yes if country does not support their citizens then there is no need for existence of such. I think we must learn from those who have achieved some kind of equilibrium as Sweden did. US system where people starving on the streets is worst of it kind, and cannot be authoritative for further comparisons.

[yugo23]

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.

Groups don't work overtime.
Groups don't invent anything.
Groups don't take personal risks in order to make important progress.
Groups don't care about my children as much as I do.

Groups can't exist without individuals,
so why should individuals submit to your idea of "group" control to tell them what they're allowed to do?

Socialism requires the majority of individuals to submit to the control of a few individuals.

Again, you have the old fashion illusion of socialism. Socialism doesn't mean a majority has to bow in front of a few. With current technology the group can choses for itself. Each individual can have a direct voice, we don't need to go through elite individuals like now.

Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

That's a list of things invented by individuals.
Most of them were wealthy individuals who had the freedom to acquire as much money as they wanted,
and then they had the freedom to spend that money however they wanted on whatever they thought was important.
And that's how they invented those things, which wouldn't have been invented if you were in charge.

Where the fuck did you see that personal behaviour was not compatible with socialism?
Seems like you're strongly confused. I'm talking about socialism not pure and absolute equalism. The goal is not to give everyone exactly the same thing but to reduce inequalities through group control that's all. It doesn't mean personal behaviour shouldn't be encouraged and rewarded! It's not all black or white you know?

Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).

If groups aren't greedy, why do they vote for people who promise them free money?

And who is "the group"?  Everyone but me?

How can "the group" benefit by making every individual member of the group suffer?

Oh, that's right - what you mean is that it will always be best for the leaders of the group.

The things you're saying have been used to take away people's rights for over a hundred years.

Not only is everything you say wrong, it's also inherently evil.

No again no no and no. You don't understand there is NO NEED for a "supreme leader" or whatever.
This is not democracy and this would lead only to the "elite" to rape the people! This is not what I want neither what I'm talking about!!!
I'm talking about the possibility to directly chose your laws and your rules by proposing and voting them.

[yugo23]

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/emergencyeconomics.html

Central planning is supposed to prevent the free market's higher prices, shortages, and waiting in line.

But central planning cannot do anything without using higher prices, shortages, and/or waiting in line. 




The problem with the "government" running things is that no one is accountable.
There is no government.  There are only people with the power to decide what happens.
In a free market, the amount of money we have gives us power to decide what happens.
Government employees want to take our power and give it to themselves.

When people are allowed to provide goods and services without government interference,
they have to do a good job.  Otherwise they will lose money, lose their jobs, go out of business.
When a government employee controls goods and services,
and he doesn't do a good job, people suffer but that guy keeps his job.

In a free market, all of us are free to decide what happens with our money.
If something is too expensive, or if we don't need it, then we don't buy it.
But when we allow a government employee to tell us what we are allowed to buy,
that guy doesn't know or care what our needs are.  He just makes something up, and we have to do it.

A free market allows supply and demand to determine prices and the quality of goods and services.
Central planning means that no quality is too low,
and Florida gets shipped just as many snow shovels as Minnesota.  That's equality.

Do you even read the OP? First thing it says is that socialism is now possible because WE NO LONGER NEED THE ELITE LEADERS!!!!

[BARR_Official]

Who will enforce the laws?

Who will come to your house with guns if you don't pay your taxes, and shoot you if you resist?

People won't pay your taxes if you don't threaten to shoot them.

Government can only exist when elites have the authority to kill people and take their money.

The main question is whether you allow individuals to have their own power,
or whether you want to take power away from individuals
and give it to other individuals who call themselves "the group" or "the government".

You want to take power away from some people and give it to other people,
so your system will result in elites killing more people and taking more money.

[yugo23]

Who will enforce the laws?

Who will come to your house with guns if you don't pay your taxes, and shoot you if you resist?

People won't pay your taxes if you don't threaten to shoot them.

Government can only exist when elites have the authority to kill people and take their money.

The main question is whether you allow individuals to have their own power,
or whether you want to take power away from individuals
and give it to other individuals who call themselves "the group" or "the government".

You want to take power away from some people and give it to other people,
so your system will result in elites killing more people and taking more money.

Absolutely not.

The police will still be here to enforce the law and so will the government.
But the law will be decided by the population. By direct vote.
There is no power given to an "elite". If the "elite" tries to fool you, you have the power to change the constitution and the law.
Individuals have to bow in front of the group, not the contrary.
You don't want to pay a tax? Well create a law deleting the tax and convince a majority of the population that this tax is useless or unfair. Then you won't have to pay it.

This is the closest thing to individual power we can have. Current capitalism give infinitely less power than that to the people!

[BARR_Official]

The police will still be here to enforce the law and so will the government.

So the "police" and "government" are individuals
with more power and extra privileges that the rest of us don't have.

How are they not an elite?

Individuals have to bow in front of the group

Yes, we all know that your ideas require us to bow down in front of the rulers.

You don't want to pay a tax? Well create a law deleting the tax and convince a majority of the population that this tax is useless or unfair. Then you won't have to pay it.

So when your system creates tyranny and oppression for a minority of people,
"all they have to do is convince the majority to stop raping them". 
Great plan.

This is the closest thing to individual power we can have. Current capitalism give infinitely less power than that to the people!

Right now we can work and use our own money to protect our own children.
We are allowed to use as much power as we can get.

You want to take that power away from us and tell us to
"trust millions of strangers to do what's best for our children".

Since you want to increase required trust and points of failure, you must think Ripple is better than Bitcoin.

[mOgliE]

I've read all your answers and (some of them) are interesting.

First thing, it seems you didn't all bother to read so I'll write it down again: the important part for a working socialism is a true democracy, which means that people should vote themselves the laws and the consitution. Which means the people are able to decide what should be taken and what should not, what are the priorities and where the money should be spent.

Second important thing, seems like there are a lot of Americans that don't get a clue about what is socialism. Socialism isn't communism. It doesn't mean you'll be taken everything you earn! It doesn't mean you'll no longer have the right to express yourself or to create a company! It doesn't mean you'll get oppressed or anything like that! Socialism is the idea that the government shall be careful about wealth inequalities, and do what is needed in order to not see 1% of the population own more than the 99%. That's all.

Finally it seems like you believe polices should be some kind of overpowered being in a dictatorial state...
What the heck? Police of a socialist country have no more power than police in the USA you know? Even a bit less!

The important part of socialism is that you would be abe to control companies and see that THEY ARE THE TRUE THREAT! They are the ones that ruin our world! They are the ones that get 99% of the wealth in the world and have NO OBLIGATION to give it back.

The main goal of a socialist country is to go see those companies and make them pay for what they do. The goal is not to take the money from the people but from where the money is. Hence, big companies and rich people.