Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye

Tish said:
That is true, still, it was a wonderful experience.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it was! There were a lot of experiments in socialism in the US in the mid-1800s, including the Oneida Community and others. They didn't succeed in the end but many made significant contributions (the Oneida Community was famous for its silverware and for its steel traps.)
 

Timewise 60+ said:
Let's state this the way most economists talk about it. One of the disadvantages of free market capitalism is that you always have winners and losers. People move up and down the economic system.

Also, when talking about billionaires, all societies in the world have billionaires. It is not unique to free market systems.... Many times, they inherited wealth, in socialized countries only top powers in government have access to wealth...
Click to expand...
Is that what you want?
 
JimBob1952 said:
I'm sure it was! There were a lot of experiments in socialism in the US in the mid-1800s, including the Oneida Community and others. They didn't succeed in the end but many made significant contributions (the Oneida Community was famous for its silverware and for its steel traps.)
Click to expand...
Successful true Socialism would (I believe) require a continuity of population, one in which an almost universal racial, philosophical, religious, and political thought prevailed. Far easier to achieve in an Oneida, Sweden or Norway than a country of immigrants from literally all over the world.
 
SeniorBen said:
Socialism is where the people control the means of production, which may be the government if the country has a true democracy. It's not socialism when a dictator has control over everything and the people don't have a say.
Click to expand...
Socialism is based on a false assumption that a government, elected by “the people” will make wise and correct decisions. Manufacture this or that and charge X for it, or do we just give it to everyone “in need”? Yeah, sure, I‘m not holding my breath on that one. Why did it fail so spectacularly in Cuba, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Hitler’s National Socialism? Oh, but socialism has succeeded spectacularly in Scandinavia, or is it that simple? Here is an interesting discussion of that Scandinavian success. For those who worship it I would remind them that Scandinavia cannot necessarily be found in California, Texas, or Illinois.
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/
 
Verisure said:
This is very silly. You should be ashamed of making such a ridiculous statement. Some of the countries you mention are vastly superior to the US in:
* Democracy
* Freedom
* Education
* Medical availability
* Quality of life

Also, the American poverty level doesn't even exist in some of the countries you claim to be "below Amerian lifestyles". I suggest you drastically edit your post.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for that link. :)
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Let's state this the way most economists talk about it. One of the disadvantages of free market capitalism is that you always have winners and losers. People move up and down the economic system.

Also, when talking about billionaires, all societies in the world have billionaires. It is not unique to free market systems.... Many times, they inherited wealth, in socialized countries only top powers in government have access to wealth...
Click to expand...
Some win, some lose is supposed to inspire people to try harder or try smarter. Some just give up, but it can be a tough game.

In socialist societies there are always people directing the streams of goods from the manufacturers to the consumers and (most desirable) the flow of imports and exports. These people are in positions of power and invariably build chains of corruption to ensure the flow of money. They monetize their authority.

To me, that's not so different from how things work with some (probably most) members of the US Congress and Big Business. The biggest difference is that the US Congress can make their chains of corruption perfectly legal. It's **~*>magical<*~**
 
senior chef said:
Nothing wrong with Communism ???? You must live on a different planet than I do because the planet I live on Communism is a dictatorship where the great mass of people are prisoners in their own country. When Communism took over countries of Eastern Europe hundreds of thousands of people fled to democracies. The same thing happened in Cuba.

Additionally, citizens of Communism are/can be arrested, without any hope of a fair trial. People in those countries often disappear into the "Night and Fog" never to be seen again.

Moreover, tens of millions of people of the Soviet Union were deported to gulags of Siberia where they died horrible deaths. It is not often discussed but Stalin was responsible for more deaths of his own people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust.

It would be difficult to determine which country was the most monstrous in all of human history ... the USSR OR Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...
You're describing the problems with dictatorships — not with communism. Any country ruled by a brutal dictator is not going to be a pleasant place to live.
 
Timewise 60+ said:
You only are displaying your own ignorance! Move on...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but if “ignorance” is measured in knowledge & experience (mine compared with yours) then you are out of luck. I can say this because I’ve read what you’ve written about your “experience” and mine far exceeds yours.
Timewise 60+ said:
God, as I laugh, falling out of my chair! The USA is and never has been a "Democracy"! We are a Constitutional Republic...! Back to the books for you....
Click to expand...
And yet you challenge the point about America’s failure to compare with world DEMOCRACIES? It’s probably a good idea for you to make up your mind about what it is you want to achieve before you enter into a debate.
senior chef said:
...... the planet I live on Communism is a dictatorship where the great mass of people are prisoners in their own country ...
Click to expand...
Now, this is a completely nonsensical statement. It's the sort of "pseudo-knowledge" one gleans from eavesdropping on Friday night drunks at the bowling alley Snack & Tap.
ElCastor said:
Still waiting for that link. :)
Click to expand...
FYI:
https://gisgeography.com/world-time-zone-map/
ElCastor said:
Interesting ... But it is customary to provide links to pieces you copy from the internet. Please provide a link.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
 
SeniorBen said:
You're describing the problems with dictatorships — not with communism. Any country ruled by a brutal dictator is not going to be a pleasant place to live.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely true and it doesn't matter what sort of self-proclaimed, politically grounded philosophy the nation/leader tries to profess. A dictator - is a dictator - is a dictator no matter if he's called the country Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, Fascist, Democratic or (ahem) a Republic.
 
Last edited:
A hybrid socialistic-capitalistic system, if structured efficiently, is the best system.

Capitalism is great when there is fair competition and it involves goods and labor that aren't essential to our existence. It fails miserably when it comes to things like healthcare, security, and a social safety net. Capitalism only works when it's well regulated since the only thing that matters with capitalism is profits.

Socialism is best for the necessities in life, such as healthcare, utilities, water, police, fire dept, military... Too many necessities have been privatized with disastrous results. You wind up with people at the top getting paid millions while the workers are paid the bare minimum. Corners are cut to save money and increase profits.

Granted, when an organization is run by government employees, that's often disastrous, also, but at least the workers are earning a decent living. It can also be reformed by state and local leaders to become more efficient whereas with private enterprise, we don't have a say. And the owners of those privatized entities pay politicians to not interfere with their operations.

When an industry is privatized, one of the selling points is that with competition, prices will decrease and quality of services will increase. And that may be true, initially, until mergers and buyouts limit competition until you're left with an oligopoly, so gone is the competition. And of course, the CEOs get paid millions of dollars which has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is people who use those services.
 
SeniorBen said:
A hybrid socialistic-capitalistic system, if structured efficiently, is the best system.

Capitalism is great when there is fair competition and it involves goods and labor that aren't essential to our existence. It fails miserably when it comes to things like healthcare, security, and a social safety net. Capitalism only works when it's well regulated since the only thing that matters with capitalism is profits.

Socialism is best for the necessities in life, such as healthcare, utilities, water, police, fire dept, military... Too many necessities have been privatized with disastrous results. You wind up with people at the top getting paid millions while the workers are paid the bare minimum. Corners are cut to save money and increase profits.

Granted, when an organization is run by government employees, that's often disastrous, also, but at least the workers are earning a decent living. It can also be reformed by state and local leaders to become more efficient whereas with private enterprise, we don't have a say. And the owners of those privatized entities pay politicians to not interfere with their operations.

When an industry is privatized, one of the selling points is that with competition, prices will decrease and quality of services will increase. And that may be true, initially, until mergers and buyouts limit competition until you're left with an oligopoly, so gone is the competition. And of course, the CEOs get paid millions of dollars which has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is people who use those services.
Click to expand...
Woe is me! :cry: Why must life & politics be so darned complicated? Reading only the headlines or listening to MSM is never enough ... for anyone 🙂
 
Verisure said:
Yes, absolutely true and it doesn't matter what sort of self-proclaimed, politically grounded philosophy the nation/leader tries to profess. A dictator - is a dictator - is a dictator no matter if he's called the country Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, Fascist, Democratic or (ahem) a Republic.
Click to expand...
I am reminded that Julius Gaius Caesar was given the title Dictator of Rome. It had been a republic since the last king, Tarquin the Terrible. Following Caesar's assassination it became an empire, ruled by emperors who were members of Caesar's family.

For a while it flourished but eventually corruption within led to its decline and fall.

History doesn't repeat but it does sometimes rhyme.
 
Last edited:
Verisure said:
Sorry, but if “ignorance” is measured in knowledge & experience (mine compared with yours) then you are out of luck. I can say this because I’ve read what you’ve written about your “experience” and mine far exceeds yours.

And yet you challenge the point about America’s failure to compare with world DEMOCRACIES? It’s probably a good idea for you to make up your mind about what it is you want to achieve before you enter into a debate.

Now, this is a completely nonsensical statement. It's the sort of "pseudo-knowledge" one gleans from eavesdropping on Friday night drunks at the bowling alley Snack & Tap.

FYI:
https://gisgeography.com/world-time-zone-map/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. In the future I hope you will take care to supply links to your quoted sources.

I gather that your source for the judgment of the flawed nature of US democracy is the Economist, a Brit newspaper or magazine, which in turn derives its rather severe judgment from unnamed (insofar as I can determine) sources. The UK has been awarded a perfect score, despite a hereditary aristocracy and King or Queen who, as I understand it, routinely confer with, and advise Parliamentary leaders. I am overwhelmed by the superior Brit system. Would you recommend that we in the US get ourselves an hereditary monarch who can advise our President and Congressional leaders?
 
ElCastor said:
... In the future I hope you will take care to supply links to your quoted sources.
Click to expand...
I have my methods of "giving enough rope".
ElCastor said:
I gather that your source for the judgment of the flawed nature of US democracy is the Economist, a Brit newspaper or magazine, which in turn derives its rather severe judgment from unnamed (insofar as I can determine) sources. The UK has been awarded a perfect score, despite a hereditary aristocracy and King or Queen who, as I understand it, routinely confer with, and advise Parliamentary leaders.
Click to expand...
You can debate the credibility and long-term standing of The Economist all you want but it sounds more like they haven’t provided the statistics you were hoping for much like the doctor informing you that the tumour is indeed cancerous. But you have to ask yourself, if their ranking doesn’t please you where would you place the US if you were given the task? At the top? I think not. Not even the UK (despite your insinuating comments to the contrary) finds itself at the number one slot.
ElCastor said:
I am overwhelmed by the superior Brit system. Would you recommend that we in the US get ourselves an hereditary monarch who can advise our President and Congressional leaders?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that you’ve been too influenced by Hollywood’s depiction of Royalty. Many/most royal figures in the world have little/nothing to do with politics. But, again, if you think it really matters (and it is that which taints the Economist’s ranking) then you can take it up with your conscience.
 
Verisure said:
I have my methods of "giving enough rope".

You can debate the credibility and long-term standing of The Economist all you want but it sounds more like they haven’t provided the statistics you were hoping for much like the doctor informing you that the tumour is indeed cancerous. But you have to ask yourself, if their ranking doesn’t please you where would you place the US if you were given the task? At the top? I think not. Not even the UK (despite your insinuating comments to the contrary) finds itself at the number one slot.

I’m afraid that you’ve been too influenced by Hollywood’s depiction of Royalty. Many/most royal figures in the world have little/nothing to do with politics. But, again, if you think it really matters (and it is that which taints the Economist’s ranking) then you can take it up with your conscience.
Click to expand...
In UseNet discussion groups we have a term we use when we dump an unpleasant member -- PLONK! Consider yourself PLONKED.
 
ElCastor said:
In UseNet discussion groups we have a term we use when we dump an unpleasant member -- PLONK! Consider yourself PLONKED.
Click to expand...
I could sense (by your increasing side-stepping in the face of my kind, intelligent and earnest logic) that you would soon be 'bailing out'. I was right. 🥱
 
SeniorBen said:
You're describing the problems with dictatorships — not with communism. Any country ruled by a brutal dictator is not going to be a pleasant place to live.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to come up with an example of a communist democracy but I'm having a hard time. Maybe you can help me out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top