Socialism is evil

[Neotrotsky]

No, it isn't.

That's a government providing services.

You or I might object and think that those services aren't needed, but that does not mean the government is socialist.

Socialism is the owership and control of a society's means of production by the central government.

Social services are NOT a means of production.

Yeah..it is socialism. The very idea of government doing anything..is socialism.

Of course it's socialism. Whenever the govt provides services to the people it's socialism

Govt ownership of the means of production is a form of COMMUNISM.

Technically, the end state of socialism is communism.
The gov't is suppose to "wither away"
Look it up


Most in the US do not understand the means- they just want the stated goals.

For the ones that do understand and still want socialism's goals but not necessarily full blown socialism, they believe that they can limit and control the power of the state to not over ride individual rights

Yeah good luck with that one....


For the rest who want the goals but do not understand the means, I dare say a lot of them would be more apprehensive if they understood the means better.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Karl Marx (who have heard of him -right)

Said that Socialism is the transitional stage required to get to Communism.

[...]

And Mussolini demonstrated how capitalism is a transitional stage in the slide toward fascism.

Take your pick.

Fascism, socialism are both Centrally Planned Economies.
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based on the Rousseauian vision
They have more in common than not


Mussolini liked to affirm that Marx was his spiritual father
(Mussolini y el Fascismo," in Que sais je. (in Spanish), page 31.)

Mussolini
also said:

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State,

and he said:

Everything in the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State."- Mussolini
(Der Nationalsozialismos, die Weltanschauung des 20. Jahrhunderts)


Speaking of Fascism

Hitler said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."




Statism is bad, no matter what you want to call it
It also shows what happens when the State has too much power
Stalin killed more people than Hitler

The problem is one of Statism; one can not argue that the Nazi were for real "free markets"


The fundamental problem is the overbearing intrusion of the gov't. History has shown us that time after time. It is, if you will. the "nature of the beast".

Regardless or what political jargon one wants to put on it, it is the "size" of the gov't.
Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the destruction of individual economic and personal freedom.

No matter how good the intentions. It is cliche but true, the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Unless, of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time

 

[Big Fitz]

Matthew 4:31-35 (The Believers Share Their Possessions)

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all

34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales

35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

- And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- the believers were one in heart and mind.

- No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own,

- but they shared everything they had.

- And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them

- it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need

I'm sure that this selection was just put in the New Testament as "filler," and has absolutely no relevance for us living in the 21stC.

It's easier to teach a pig to sing than to teach a xtian about what Christ preached

xtians couldn't care less about what Jesus thought

No Christian would ever refer to themselves or other Christians as an Xtian.

Once again, you prove how much of a fraud you are.

 

[MikeK]

We don't have enough real jobs for those who need an income so we have invented positions to put people in. Job welfare. Half of them could be laid of and we would see no decrease in production. Technology had taken over as predicted. Some people can and never will be able to compete in the market place. What are we going to do with them ?
I think socialism thinks they have the answer. It just doesn't take human nature into consideration.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

Presently - 15% (added by me)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

If the tax rate put in place by FDR's New Deal were left in place the government would have more than enough money to finance overhaul of the Nation's infrastructure and energy grid, projects which would create more jobs than we have people to fill. Instead, what we have is a growing number of multi-billionaires and an unmanageable national debt -- not to mention two major military boondoggles created by an appointed Republican president and functioning to enrich beneficiaries of the Military Industrial Complex.

The bottom line is this Nation produces more than enough wealth resources to adequately employ all of its capable workers. The problem is the system has been hijacked and manipulated to serve the interests of an emerging plutocracy.

 

[Neotrotsky]

people without jobs (as CEO's and the generals of capitalism move those jobs overseas)
should just shut up and die!

any governmental attempts to help them would be SOCIALISM!

and socialism is EVIL

unlike unfettered capitalism
which takes jobs away from Americans
and leaves them to die
which is GOOD!

we do not have unfettered capitalism In fact our economy is heavily regulated by the federal government. So much so that the federal government is in large part responsible for manufacturing by US companies to be done in other countries.
Would it interest an of liberals that here in the US we have the highest corporate tax (35%) in the industrialized world? No of course not....I suppose you are unaware that some countries in an attempt to entice businesses to relocate and existing business to stay, are lowering their corporate tax rates....Gee ,what a novel idea!!!!

What would interest me is corporations not being taxed or regulated at all, and being completely shut off from the government.

No cutting secret deals with the gov't would be better.
You know, like Papa Obama's secret deals with Big Pharma

 

[MikeK]

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities? Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community? The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

Because that will create a pandemonium of local conflicts. It simply is not a practical idea.

Charity is an essential component of civilization and, unless you are exceptionally well off, for you to assume you will never need it is presumptuous. As for the rate of freeloaders, there always is the ten percent. They come with the turf. But the vast majority of charity recipients are legitimately needy and deserving.

Be thankful you're not among them.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

You're in denial. It has already happened. The US is a socialist nation. One of many.

[...]

While there is no question that the New Deal did indeed impose certain significant socialist controls upon what essentially is a capitalist system the U.S. is far from being academically considered a socialist nation. In fact, the economic problems the U.S. presently is experiencing are the direct result of many of FDR's socialist policies being eliminated via reduced taxation, de-regulation of banking and finance practices and modified trade policies. (Thanks to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.)

If the U.S. were truly a socialist nation two percent of its population would not be permitted to control forty percent of its wealth.

Just keep telling yourself that the 2% has no hand in Government and current Government Policy.

It appears that you've misunderstood my comment. Please review it. There is no doubt in my mind that the super-rich are pulling the strings via a system of bribery called PACs.

 

[Intense]

While there is no question that the New Deal did indeed impose certain significant socialist controls upon what essentially is a capitalist system the U.S. is far from being academically considered a socialist nation. In fact, the economic problems the U.S. presently is experiencing are the direct result of many of FDR's socialist policies being eliminated via reduced taxation, de-regulation of banking and finance practices and modified trade policies. (Thanks to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.)

If the U.S. were truly a socialist nation two percent of its population would not be permitted to control forty percent of its wealth.

Just keep telling yourself that the 2% has no hand in Government and current Government Policy.

It appears that you've misunderstood my comment. Please review it. There is no doubt in my mind that the super-rich are pulling the strings.

My Point is that the Super Rich are Pulling Government Strings more easily than they pull Market Strings. It's called Oligarchy Rule. By empowering Central Government and Control, you simplify their task by eliminating all competition, through the force of law and regulation. You falsely presume that Government will save you from the effect of Business??? They are sleeping in the same bed. There is no substitute for the Free Market.

 

[MikeK]

Unless, of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time

I beg your pardon.

If you are suggesting that the left is responsible for America's current problems I would like to know what arithmetic you used to arrive at that conclusion. Our economy was having its usual and quite normal cyclical problems when Reagan, the right wing corporatist puppet, took Office in 1980 and it went downhill from there.

While Clinton is responsible for such devious concessions as NAFTA, he did leave the economy in relatively good condition.

And then came George W. Bush, the appointed son of a bitch who ravaged the economy and drove this Nation to the brink of collapse.

 

[Sallow]

Karl Marx (who have heard of him -right)

Said that Socialism is the transitional stage required to get to Communism.

[...]

And Mussolini demonstrated how capitalism is a transitional stage in the slide toward fascism.

Take your pick.

Fascism, socialism are both Centrally Planned Economies.
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based on the Rousseauian vision
They have more in common than not


Mussolini liked to affirm that Marx was his spiritual father
(Mussolini y el Fascismo," in Que sais je. (in Spanish), page 31.)

Mussolini
also said:

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State,

and he said:

Everything in the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State."- Mussolini
(Der Nationalsozialismos, die Weltanschauung des 20. Jahrhunderts)


Speaking of Fascism

Hitler said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."




Statism is bad, no matter what you want to call it
It also shows what happens when the State has too much power
Stalin killed more people than Hitler

The problem is one of Statism; one can not argue that the Nazi were for real "free markets"


The fundamental problem is the overbearing intrusion of the gov't. History has shown us that time after time. It is, if you will. the "nature of the beast".

Regardless or what political jargon one wants to put on it, it is the "size" of the gov't.
Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the destruction of individual economic and personal freedom.

No matter how good the intentions. It is cliche but true, the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Unless, of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time

Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic who was very much into the writings of Martin Luther, used religion to rally his people, sought and got a pact with the Catholic Church and the Pope.

So please..keep religion and Hitler out of this.

 

[Neotrotsky]

And Mussolini demonstrated how capitalism is a transitional stage in the slide toward fascism.

Take your pick.

Fascism, socialism are both Centrally Planned Economies.
They are part of the Rousseauian vision. It holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.


Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based on the Rousseauian vision
They have more in common than not


Mussolini liked to affirm that Marx was his spiritual father
(Mussolini y el Fascismo," in Que sais je. (in Spanish), page 31.)

Mussolini
also said:

Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State,

and he said:

Everything in the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State."- Mussolini
(Der Nationalsozialismos, die Weltanschauung des 20. Jahrhunderts)


Speaking of Fascism

Hitler said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."




Statism is bad, no matter what you want to call it
It also shows what happens when the State has too much power
Stalin killed more people than Hitler

The problem is one of Statism; one can not argue that the Nazi were for real "free markets"


The fundamental problem is the overbearing intrusion of the gov't. History has shown us that time after time. It is, if you will. the "nature of the beast".

Regardless or what political jargon one wants to put on it, it is the "size" of the gov't.
Dismantling of the free market system by any kind of gov't will always end in the destruction of individual economic and personal freedom.

No matter how good the intentions. It is cliche but true, the "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Unless, of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time

Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic who was very much into the writings of Martin Luther, used religion to rally his people, sought and got a pact with the Catholic Church and the Pope.

So please..keep religion and Hitler out of this.

By the Koran, Papa Obama was born a Muslim

What's your point
I am not bringing up religion

 

[Neotrotsky]

Unless, of course you want to argue that the left will get it right this time

I beg your pardon.

If you are suggesting that the left is responsible for America's current problems I would like to know what arithmetic you used to arrive at that conclusion. Our economy was having its usual and quite normal cyclical problems when Reagan, the right wing corporatist puppet, took Office in 1980 and it went downhill from there.

While Clinton is responsible for such devious concessions as NAFTA, he did leave the economy in relatively good condition.

And then came George W. Bush, the appointed son of a bitch who ravaged the economy and drove this Nation to the brink of collapse.

I hear you! Papa Obama cutting secret deals with Big Pharma
and giving all those waivers to corporations to get out of Papa Obama Care

This has to stop!


"to the brink" perhaps

but it looks like the Papa Obama will put us over the brink with his radical leftist policies

 

[Flagwavrusa]

There's different types of Socialism. Marxism is the most often misused and even that has many different variations. The Soviet Union started out as the main example and Vietnam, China, Laos, N. Korea, and Cuba copied a lot of it but practically all of them have made their own changes and reforms to the Marxist system with some of them actually have free markets which makes them really just Fascist Capitalists.

Another example of real life examples of Socialism is the Democratic Socialists. Most of Europe has a democratic socialist party though most of them are just minor parties with little seats in their governments. UK's labour party pre-tony blair is another example of democratic socialists. Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party and is highly rated in opinion polls.

The other type is Social Democracy, which granted changed shaped and purpose over time but has modernly become really the Capitalist Welfare state. Most of the best countries in Europe have had huge social democratic influence and programs.


The thing about Capitalism is that it really could be good if people weren't evil. The same could be said about Socialism by Capitalists, as greed and power can corrupt any system. Capitalism has now become a game of dog eat dog, and usually there's one giant dog who will eat the tiny puppies in our world. Without Socialist influence, if someone can't pay rent their forced out into the streets, if they can't pay for food they go hungry, if they get sick they won't get treated, and if their children grow up they wont' get a proper education.

Even Republican's faith in Jesus should show them that even he didn't believe anything good about rich people. If unregulated they will cut hard working people's pay, hike prices, give no benefits, makes hours longer, make work even harder, make products that do not work or are harmful, and do everything in their power to keep money out of the poor's hand and keep the rest for themselves. Trickle down economics is just a rich man grabbing a huge pile of money and a few people managed to collect a few coins and bills that managed to drop out of his hands while running off with it.


Bill Gates and Warren Buffet already said that it is okay to tax the rich. It's merely taking away money that goes for the greater good, and for the people who have too little. If giving everyone a proper education, healthcare, housing, food, and anything else they can't afford under their Capitalistic machine is evil then there is no word to describe how malevolent Capitalism is.

I don't think a full picture of socialism is drawn until one understands that it fundamentally does not work. You forgot to mention that most of the countries of Europe are on the verge of bankruptcy, are implementing austerity measures to avoid it, and are trending away from the welfare socialism that has caused their predicament.

Its amazing to me that only 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union the scourge of collectivism is again rearing its ugly head. The lesson of history is very clear that an economy based upon the idea of government economic control and wealth distribution is hopelessly flawed and cannot work. Pursuing the siren song of socialism destroyed Russia, set China back 50 years, and continues to make make the natural paradise Cuba a hellhole. Go ahead and criticize capitalism, theres lots to complain about, but at least there is wealth available to distribute, which is something you cannot say about any truly socialist society.

 

[Londoner]

Socialism is evil
Socialism is evil

The author begs the main question, that is, he assumes that Locke's view of property has moral efficacy, but he never explains or defends it, nor does he explain Marx's objection to Locke. He says nothing substantive or conceptual about property; he merely states a simplistic truism: it's immoral to take from one and give to another -- and then he uses that truism to smear his crude strawman version of [communism? welfare capitalism?].

Communism doesn't want to take property from one and give to another, it wants to abolish it altogether. It doesn't see the protection of property as the protection of freedom, quite the opposite. It sees property as an exploitative lever, which gives one class the power to extract surplus from a perpetual underclass -- who are born with less access to [things like] education and health care (making it impossible for them to compete with the property "owners"). Eventually the property owners buy the state and media, and they craft laws and opinion which protect and normalize their advantage. I'm not saying this view of property is "true"; I'm saying that the author merely assumes Locke has the final word. Hopefully, the poster recognizes the limits of his sources.

 

[Charles_Main]

Socialism on paper is not Evil that is silly. However often times in the past it's practical application has ended up so.

 

[Jroc]

Socialism is evil
Socialism is evil

The author begs the main question, that is, he assumes that Locke's view of property has moral efficacy, but he never explains or defends it, nor does he explain Marx's objection to Locke. He says nothing substantive or conceptual about property; he merely states a simplistic truism: it's immoral to take from one and give to another -- and then he uses that truism to smear his crude strawman version of [communism? welfare capitalism?].

That's actually The Brilliance of Dr. Williams, I heard him say himself "he as a simple view of the world". People tend to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Communism doesn't want to take property from one and give to another, it wants to abolish it altogether. It doesn't see the protection of property as the protection of freedom, quite the opposite. It sees property as an exploitative lever, which gives one class the power to extract surplus from a perpetual underclass -- who are born with less access to [things like] education and health care (making it impossible for them to compete with the property "owners"). Eventually the property owners buy the state and media, and they craft laws and opinion which protect and normalize their advantage. I'm not saying this view of property is "true"; I'm saying that the author merely assumes Locke has the final word. Hopefully, the poster recognizes the limits of his sources.

Humm.... "the limits of my sources"?

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.

Dr. Williams is the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader's Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He has authored six books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary "Good Intentions," All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa's War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks, and More Liberty Means Less Government.


Biography

 

[Neotrotsky]

Socialism is evil
Socialism is evil

The author begs the main question, that is, he assumes that Locke's view of property has moral efficacy, but he never explains or defends it, nor does he explain Marx's objection to Locke. He says nothing substantive or conceptual about property; he merely states a simplistic truism: it's immoral to take from one and give to another -- and then he uses that truism to smear his crude strawman version of [communism? welfare capitalism?].

Communism doesn't want to take property from one and give to another, it wants to abolish it altogether. It doesn't see the protection of property as the protection of freedom, quite the opposite. It sees property as an exploitative lever, which gives one class the power to extract surplus from a perpetual underclass -- who are born with less access to [things like] education and health care (making it impossible for them to compete with the property "owners"). Eventually the property owners buy the state and media, and they craft laws and opinion which protect and normalize their advantage. I'm not saying this view of property is "true"; I'm saying that the author merely assumes Locke has the final word. Hopefully, the poster recognizes the limits of his sources.

Where a gov't in a Free Market promotes market promoting competition is it best role. (enforcing anti-trust etc)

The gov't can exploit the individual better than anyone in the name of "equality" with the problem being who do you turn to help for then?

Which is what you always see in the more socialized countries, a structure where the masses have to suffer under the inefficiencies of socialism's inability to provide basic goods and the leaders or "inner party members " enjoy the best materials and goods that the society can offer to them. In effect, creating a state run "feudal state" is the end result.

Of course, in socialism they are all equal; some are just more equal than others.

 

[editec]

What most of you are confused about is the name of what you so hate.

What you guys hate is a WELFARE STATE.

One can have a welfare state in a land that practices capitalism.

Like for example, the United States.

But do carry on making yourselves look like ignoramouses if it amuses you.

 

[Intense]

What most of you are confused about is the name of what you so hate.

What you guys hate is a WELFARE STATE.

One can have a welfare state in a land that practices capitalism.

Like for example, the United States.

But do carry on making yourselves look like ignoramouses if it amuses you.

What most of you are confused about is the New Speak term "State Capitalism" where all the toy's belong to Government, all the control, all the reporting, all the accounting. Have a nice day.

 

[logical4u]

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

I will say 5.

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities?



Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community?




The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

Const.,Art.1,Sec.8, Gen Welf.

..........................

That would be "specific welfare", not "general welfare" to give individuals money/charity. That is not in the Constitution. That was not the intent. The founding fathers would have NEVER let "settlers" go into the wilderness if they were responsible for the "individual welfare". General welfare means the country is protected and the laws are applied equally. Keep stretching, and make sure that you "support" all your extended family so the government doesn't need to do it.