Socialism leads to....?

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism is supposed to fail, its goal is to fill the plantation and keep it filled

 

[Old Rocks]

Lets go back to the late 1800's.

A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.

The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.

And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;

What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?

Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Socialism is supposed to fail, its goal is to fill the plantation and keep it filled

So that is why we had to whip those rebels, they were a bunch of socialists.

OK

 

[Old Rocks]

Lets go back to the late 1800's.

A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.

The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.

And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;

What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?

Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?

What do you call what Gates, Jobs and others in the hi-tech world have done? That's innovation that rivals anything done before. In the 60s and 70s aerospace got us to the moon and beyond. Innovation didn't end in the 1800s, it was just getting started.

I do love it when these 'Conservatives' start in on this Founding Father nonsense. Our founding fathers rebeled against almost all that was held dear and precious in that time. They stated that monarchies were not only wrong, but stupid. Most of them were Diests, rather than Christians. And there were all kinds of social experiments at that time. Most failed, but many gave us ideas that are still in place.

The America of that time was at the forefront of the enlightenment. Thomas Paine and many others were publishing books that were curling the hair on the aristicrats in Europe.

The Christian Nation Myth

 

[tooAlive]

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.

The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.

Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.

Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.

Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.

There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.

 

[g5000]

Switzerland is the most innovative country in the world – buoyed up by a high turnover of patent registrations – according to the latest Global Innovation Index (GII), heading a list dominated by Europe.

Swiss top Europe-dominated innovation index | EurActiv

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.

The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.

Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.

Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.

Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.

There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.

Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.

 

[tooAlive]

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.

The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.

Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.

Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.

Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.

There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.

Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.

There's not a single question mark in my entire post.

If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Socialism leads to the equal distribution of poverty.

The minute you take away a man's incentive to personal gains, you take away his incentive to produce along with it. Go into any retail store and tell a random employee you're going to lower his paycheck so his coworkers can all get a little bit more. Then see if he still works as hard.

Then you might say, that's not what socialism is about. Yes it is. At least, true socialism. We have all the things you mentioned, yet we're not a "socialist" country. Although they are socialist policies.

Socialists believe that a society is stronger when men work together for the common good.

Yeah, that sounds great. But men don't operate like that, and never will. Tell me about significant advancement and innovation that have taken place under a socialist regime.

There aren't any. Because sadly, man isn't as motivated to work as hard when he won't see a bigger slice of the pie.

Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.

There's not a single question mark in my entire post.

If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.

Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.

Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?

 

[tooAlive]

Whoever told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question.......was lying.

There's not a single question mark in my entire post.

If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.

Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.

Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?

Because pure socialism goes nowhere.

And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.

The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.

 

[OKTexas]

Lets go back to the late 1800's.

A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.

The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.

And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;

What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?

Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There's not a single question mark in my entire post.

If you're not going to provide a valid argument then don't bother posting at all. It just makes you look stupid.

Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.

Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?

Because pure socialism goes nowhere.

And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.

The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.

You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.

Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.

Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.

You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.

 

[regent]

Lets go back to the late 1800's.

A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.

The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.

And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;

What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?

Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.

A Republican president thought it a good idea so he withdrew 125 million acres for the public to use. Sure a lot thought it was illegal but the president thought it was OK.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lets go back to the late 1800's.

A period in our history where it's safe we experience the greatest innovation and growth the world has ever seen. If you've been watching The Men Who Built America you'll know what I'm referring to.

The railroad system, electric light, gasoline, the mass-produced automobile, steel, and more. All because a few men had a relentless desire to succeed, whether from good-will or greed.

And while working conditions did get pretty bad for the workers, the fact still remains that it was the greatest period of growth and innovation we've ever seen. My question is;

What would have happened under socialism? How would the innovation have come if the freedom of success and accumulation of wealth (or greed) that drove men like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford didn't exist?

Is it fair to say that under socialism, where people simply work for the collective good of others, that we'd probably still be taking horses to work and lighting candles at night?

Well, your straw dog won't hunt. There exists a middle ground between Socialism - as I infer you mean it - and unregulated lassiez faire capitalism, which existed in the Gilded Age (post Civil War until the Progressive Era).

Of note, and in response to the History Channel production which I have mostly watched (I missed the first half of episode one and have not watched the last episode as of yet) your post that working conditions did get pretty bad for workers kinda minimizes the events wherein The Pinkerton's killed nine steel workers at the direction of Henry Clay Frick, does it not? Of course not mentioned in the series was the events at Haymarket Sq in 1886. And to suggest that we might still be working with candles at night kinda discounts how John D. Rockefeller attempted to thwart the efforts of Edison to light the country with electricity and how Edison himself was screwed by J. P. Morgan's power play. How Morgan screwed Westinghouse and Tesla is another side bar to the piracy of the Gilded Age and the lust for power which motivated these men who 'built' are country. The only one thus far to appear moral is Tesla, and of course he got screwed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.

A Republican president thought it a good idea so he withdrew 125 million acres for the public to use. Sure a lot thought it was illegal but the president thought it was OK.

Libertarians are nuts. The United States would be the East Coast only; France would own the middle of our nation and Mexico (or maybe France) the West if these fools has their way.

 

[Antares]

Question....challenge for info.....same thing. You want people to tell you about significant advancement and innovation taking place in a Socialist economy.

Stupid. There are TOO MANY to warrant the challenge. Responding to it seriously would be an exercise in IQ reduction. Get it now?

Because pure socialism goes nowhere.

And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.

The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.

You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.

Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.

Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.

You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.

Sorry, no.

First you deny this "absolutist" statement...

Now we are talking "purely" Socialist

Then you make your own.....

Socialism is an economic system...not a political one

Socialism is NEVER a "purely" economic system.

[COLOR=]"Red"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2]][/COLOR]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It ALWAYS a Government enterprise FIRST.
Always.

 

[AquaAthena]

"Socialism leads to....?"

Poverty of the soul, among other things, too sad to comment on.

 

[OKTexas]

Socialism leads to Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands. City Fire Departments. City Police Departments. City Water and Sewage Utilities. Public Utility Districts. Army. Navy. Air Force. Coast Guard. Social Security. MediCare. MediAid.

And worst of all. A Middle Class!!!!!!!!!

Natonal Parks. National Forests. National Grasslands, could you please show me the constitutional authority for these? I've looked, and can't find it.

A Republican president thought it a good idea so he withdrew 125 million acres for the public to use. Sure a lot thought it was illegal but the president thought it was OK.

No, all of it was and still is illegal, take a minute and read the next to the last clause in article 1, section 8, it describes in detail the lands the federal government has the authority to manage and for what purposes. It's not left to interpretation. Now the federal government controls more than 1/3 of the land in the US, there's no reason for that and most is illegal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Because pure socialism goes nowhere.

And communism goes backward. You've been arguing this for the length of this thread, yet can't explain how people living in a purely socialist society can bring forth any substantial growth and development.

The only worthy innovation brought to us by those regimes is a real-life time machine.

You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.

Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.

Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.

You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.

Sorry, no.

First you deny this "absolutist" statement...

Now we are talking "purely" Socialist

Then you make your own.....

Socialism is an economic system...not a political one

Socialism is NEVER a "purely" economic system.

[COLOR=]"Red"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2]][/COLOR]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It ALWAYS a Government enterprise FIRST.
Always.

What are you talking about? I denied nothing. You need to re-read for comprehension.

Socialism is not a political system. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship......are political systems. You can have a socialist economy in any one of those. You are wrong. Please try harder.

 

[Antares]

You keep adding qualifiers. Now we are talking "purely" Socialist. As if that ever existed.

Using the word "regime" also identifies you as someone who doesn't understand that Socialism is an economic system...not a political one. Which makes all of your contributions to the thread bogus.

Japan is a monarchy with a parliament....yet it has a national health care system, a national pension, nationally run industries and lots of other socialist economic attributes. It is incredibly innovative and advanced.

You are WRONG. Socialism does not kill innovation.

Sorry, no.

First you deny this "absolutist" statement...

Now we are talking "purely" Socialist

Then you make your own.....

Socialism is an economic system...not a political one

Socialism is NEVER a "purely" economic system.

[COLOR=]"Red"Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2]][/COLOR]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It ALWAYS a Government enterprise FIRST.
Always.

What are you talking about? I denied nothing. You need to re-read for comprehension.

Socialism is not a political system. Democracy, Monarchy, Dictatorship......are political systems. You can have a socialist economy in any one of those. You are wrong. Please try harder.

Socialism is ALWAYS a combination of Gov and Economic policies.

ALWAYS.

Can't have one without the other.