Hey guys, one thing before we start, please keep it civilI know many of you heard of such debates where one side gave his word on Socialismwhile the other side gave the word for Capitalism, so this is a place to share your oppinion.and sorry for any mistakes, as English is far not my main language
Anyways, 3 days ago we had 1st May Day, the day of the workersI wont say where i am from, but i can say that i am from a democratic capitalistic countryand there were a whole lot of people comming out with red flags waving and shouting for socialism.I know many people in here are from USA, and USA education have a tendancy to teach the youththat socialism is in fact evil with no human rights or whatever...Sure both sides got thair ups and downs, but when it comes to "rights" socialism is just asgood as capitalism, just in a different way. So please avoid throwing in false facts.
Soon im planning on traveling to Cuba for like 5+ months, to live in thereto see how its like, to meet new people, to talk to them, to reserch about their lifei mean, one thing is what newspapers tell us, another thing is to interview true socialists.Both my parents are socialists by the way, and with time i find more and more interest in socialism myself.Mainly due the capitalist hostile world i see all around me, with the huge corporations that inslave workersand how my parents are scared as hell to loose thair job, and are rdy to do anything to keep it.Now i never was rich, in fact im more like middle class, but even today i see how my parentsfighting to survive, just so that we wont loose our house, just like many americans did.many blame the crisis but its a different topic, lets stay on this one.i spent some time today reserching the unknown world of socialismi say unknown because i find it difficult to trust media, yet its the only tool i havethrew which i can see the world around me, so i read international news, same news from diffrentpoints of view, and i found this page:http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/cuba0627.php
sure some may say its propoganda, others will shout blinldy against socialismbut i beliave that when people vote, they show the truth, and when i see 9 million cubansthat is out of 11 million cubans (remember there are undaraged childer who cant vote)when i see so many vote for socialism, i must admit, there must be a reason for it.some may say they vote so out of fear, yet if they were scared then they would of avoid voting at all.
I must admit, i think its better to live in a country where i dont have to be scared like shit to end up on the streetjust because my boss dont like my haircut, so he throw me out, i loose my home, and with it everything ales...I also admit that i prefare free health care, so that i know that when the time comes and i will end up with somereally nasty crap going on with me, i can trust my goverment to take care of me without it checking my insurace first.and in case i dont have it, to kick me out of the same door i came in, and to forget about me.
And i must admit, that equality starts with education, and when education is totaly freei know that i dont have to have rich father so that ill be able to register to Harward-like univercity.
Do i prefare to surcifice all the things above just so that ill have a sport car with LCD screens and 3 housesand a super computer? no, i prefare to live a simple life, where i can date a girl without worreing thati dont have a BMW to show her, or without worreing that i cant take her to some expancive restoraunt.a simple life where brands are not the focus of my life and my money, where all people are equal, even if somewhat poor!Thats me, please guys dont attack me because of my views on things, i went threw a lot in my lifeand i can trully say that i dont like capitalism at all.
Open your mind, and share
In the spirit of some of the more recreational posts in this thread, I'd like to seriously point out that 'capitalism' is every bit as much an ideology as socialism. Check the wiki and see if you can explain to me how capitalism does *not* fit the generally accepted use of the term ideology.
Perhaps some folks (suffering hangovers from Cold War rhetoric) still think that there is no such thing as a 'good' ideology, so they hate seeing their beloved capitalism put in that bucket. Stop being silly. The only way you can take or defend political turf in a peaceful fashion is through an ideology of some sort. Otherwise you're just a bunch of nattering nabobs who never get anything done. Or one of the two major parties in the US, where we seem insistent on substituting personality politics for reasonable ideologcial debates.
From the US standpoint, I find it hilarious that Republicans complain about taxes/biggovernment/Democrats/Obama/peopletheydon'tlike as being socialist when.... it's the Red (Republican) states that are the most socialist under that definition. http://j.photos.cx/redstatesocialism-c31.jpg
You likely are somehow biased for Cuban "situations"... but correct me if i'm wrong, a political Junta is still in power.
Forget the socialistic or population conditions here for a minute. Embargoed (by the US, only btw) as much as they were in the past, they still managed to create or maintain the Sugar pipelines. After all, commercial trading can sustain their society partly as everyone else in the world must do with local assets to compete.
Look slightly to the east please... Haiti and Dominican Republic and Porto Rico.
Still part of the Carribean trio of big islands, AFAIC.
How do you explain, the sharp distinctions in "economics" whatever political systems are in place?
I'll give you a hint; Human egos and behavior against anyone wrongfully perceived as a threat to their sooooo precious common wealth (two words, not together). Sounds familiar? Jamaica or Martinique.
That friendly neighborhood (and many MORE!) is a pool of influences or abusive control, in cases.
None here said otherwise.
But ideologies serve a purpose in both economic and political terms.
I still stand on my initial argument that Socialism CANNOT be compared to Capitalism. Prove me wrong with as many links as you please.
You are right, Socialism and Capitalism cannot be compared, 2 whole different sistems2 whole different ways of controlling the economy and the people.while one is inslaved by his boss, scared he will loose his job and everything ales with itthe other is inslaved by his govermentThe reson i opened this thread is to fucus on the quality of life with all it taboos among the 2 goverment tipes.while some people are happy to focus thair entire life in thair job, inslaved by thair bossesas for me i prefare to be inslaved by the goverment.Yet you should remember that there is no "better" or "worse" its just 2 different waysthe reson why the quality of life in communist countrys is low, it due the fact that people are not forced to workwhile in the capitalist sistem if they dont work they end up on the streets starving.i beliave that is the reson why capitalism gain so much economical powerand countrys such as cuba, crowling somewhere far behind.
its a really good excample to the mentality of people, they dont want to be inslaved but they want to live goodand looks like its impossible to live good without beein inslaved by the sistem.BUT it is possible, when the day comes and Cubans will undarstand that work is what will raisethair life quality, they will work hard, and gain a very strong economical power.Excample: USSR, the people worked, USSR found a way to motivate them without paying them moreand without threatning! And if you remember USSR was VERY VERY powerfull both economicly and military
anyways, the sad part of it all is that people under capitalism think they are freewhile under socialism no one is free... and this makes really me angry sometimes.espacialy when they say "IM NOT INSLAVED!", sure tell it to your boss tommorow when you will ask for a day off :]
Dracil, you're kind of a tard on US politics. It's a nice idea, but the context is flawed. Naturally, CNN would put it out anyway with no idea what they're talking about. That chart says one thing, politicians are lying shits.
That map is from 2004. If another one is taken from 2008, it will show a more even trend, from 2010 it will be extensively biased in favor of blue states. It's simple math, the party in power gets more money. Generally speaking, politicians are low life scum sucking assholes trying to bribe their way into getting re-elected. The republicans rarely behave differently from the democrats as a result. They nearly lost power that year, and they did lose it two years later. Now they're in a solid minority position again, just like the last time they abandoned principles for vote buying. Democrats elect democrats that pretend the vote buying is part of a philosophy, republicans elect republicans that pretend they aren't going to buy votes to start with. Outside of rare exceptions, currently none of any relevance, all we get are scum.
Coke for brains, is anyone upstairs? They still haven't let the political prisoners out of jail to begin with, they can't lock them up for not voting when they're already there. Forget Cuba and look for an example that rational, thinking individuals wont laugh at you for. Even North Korea has fewer press in jail.
Two movies to watch.
"Century of Self"
"Power of Nightmares"
Under the current system we are all numbers, who we are and what we represent have no place in this world.
Who votes for military spending in the USofA, Congress or Political parties?
Sure the current *INTERNATIONAL* enemy is clearly defined; Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.
But in all fairness, is it at whatever the cost for more than a single country? Or is it about successive presidents taking the right decisions, crossing fingers others share the same fear of being destroyed?
See, back in a loop.
Protect Irak from itself, mission done. Guantanamo prison, mission done.
Rebuild Irak, profits ahead. No prisoners in Cuba, less military personel to keep tabs on suspected terrorists.
The rule of Law has different meanings for Republicans & Democrats, i hear this all the time. Truth be said, neither are right unless it protects their own interests.
But, in effect... both follow the same principle of protectionism for a price to the people. Tax them, they'd keep hating the world unless someone else can prove superiority for the same or the wrong reasons.
Disarm nuclear arsenals or lose that slim but stupid edge from rational thinking... sadly that money is gone, too.
Psychoak, sorry, on this you are wrong on the facts.
The vast majority of the 'redistribution of wealth' under federal taxes is from the 'Blue' to the 'Red' - this is easily documented, but probably the best source is the "Tax Foundation"; they're a right of center think tank, but although some of their studies have been challenged (The ever popular "The rich are being wiped out by high taxes" while ignoring the regressive taxes originates there) but my impression is that they keep their basic facts in the reality based community unlike say AEI or 'Club for growth'.
In any case, based on Tax foundation: There are exceptions (examples: Hawaii and Maine (I'm not sure - *is* Maine a Blue state?)have consistently received more in taxes than they gave, Texas, Wyoming, and Indiana have consistently received less in taxes than they gave.), and of course most states have had individual years where they received over and under, with many states driftin between 90% and 110%.
All that said, by and large, the extremes on either side are pretty definite - from 1980 to 2005 the pattern of federal taxes has been to redistribute monies from the blue states towards the red states, with no particular large scale changes administration to administration based on party politics. You might be able to do some good regresion analysis to pick of more subtle patterns, but to note the big one, it's hardly necessary.
Personally, I've thought for years the smartest thing the Democrats could do would be to actually give the GOP what they want: drop federal taxes through the floor - and let those GOP state governments actually explain why they can't do anything.
Jonnan
Come on, Zyxp... It's US and A. Get it right, man.
For my 'fellow travellers,' you really do a disservice by saying there's 'no comparison' of capitalism and socialism.
First, the whole point of the discussion is to compare and contrast ideas as a part of getting ready to do some voting that's at least loosely connected to those ideas. Second, you can't sound like a 'serious' lefty without being able to at least do some cocktail-party level talk that shows you understand dialectical analysis, which is really far, far older than Marx and Engels but an essential part of their theories.
On the blue-to-red wealth transfer table, I'm enough of an academic to want to see a long-term data series, not a jpg of a spreadsheet. We're doubtless voting booth opponents, but I strongly suspect psychoak is correct that the 'truth' being told there is more about our dysfunctional two-party system than it might be about Republican greed subtly gaining from Democratic willingness to pay taxes.
Basically you need to have some balance. In the USA. It is apparent that the balance is shifting heavily towards what some say is Socialism. I believe it is more like Facism. Any massive shift to one or the other is going to hurt a lot and isn't healthy. Obviously, any system in its purest sense would not work. A balance needs to be maintained. I believe the USA had come pretty close. Now it is moving drastically away. What everyone needs to do is put aside what he/she learned in school or have heard from the media. Now, pretend you and a small group of people leave whatever country you are currently in and go to an entirely new land. Where there is no existing form of government. Imagine what happens when the group gets bigger. Problems start to arise, etc. Decide for yourself what the best course of action is. I believe every honest open-minded and freedom loving person will come to the same conclusion. Thomas Paine, the author of "Common Sense" does a pretty good job explaining the process. The book was published in 1776. He is knowned as the The Father of the American Revolution in the United States of America. It is a must read!
No offense, but I linked directly to a right of center think tank that has data going back to 1981, individually segregated out by state. If you can crunch those numbers and show my first impression based on a cursory review of that data is wrong, by all means. If you can show that the data itself is inaccurate, then I happily concede that I will put the Tax Foundation on my lists of 'Data Sources I cannot assume are accurate' (Well, it already is, but in general, I've found their data is accurate, it's their analysis that exhibits bias).
But if, in general, you find 25 years of data, covering four presidents and 12 election cycles, somehow insufficient, then either you are taking responsibility for either producing further raw data, sufficient and verifiable to you need, or being writ off as a crank in the same vein as climate denial.
Unfortunately long experience has shown that the latter category will always have an excuse for why the current data is somehow insufficient, but never actually holds to whatever they say in a given conversation would be sufficient. No Olympic sprinter has a chance to catch those goalposts once they really get going.
If you're speaking to me, I take no offense and apologize for not making clear that I was talking about the jpg link from Dracil. Re the 'data quality' question, well, trust relationships are probably the fundamental question for 21st-century democratic thinkers. I vacillate wildly between mad-beyond-Mulder moments and coulda-been-a-Coulterite moments, but I'm happier in the middle. Trusting no one is miserable and being absolutely certain about everything is even more miserable.
Brilliant Jonnan, show a table of less than thirty years that ends before democrats take back the house and senate. The democrats have only had eight years in there.
Compare them year by year with seniority and power balance if you have nothing to do with your time. Get rid of the military spending too, that will solve some of the oddities like Hawaii. The largest naval base in the pacific in a relatively small state tends to skew things.
I must say, that a capitlist system seems to work better. If some people won't get off their lazy asses and work, then why should we provide everything for them? I think that both end up having major problems with corruption. I don't trust most of the politicians that run, and even when you vote, it doesn't really matter. The person who managed to get the most morons (while America has many smart people, it also has some of the dumbest people in the world. And you can't blame it on the education system. There are some great teachers here, but you can't cure stupidity. As my band teacher says, "You can give someone every peice of information they'll ever need, but you can't make them do something".) to vote for them wins.
Personally, I think that Socialism is the worse of the 2 evils. It is another step on the road to Communism (And when the next American supports Communism, then my generation, which began not to long before the end of the Cold War, will all be dead.) Socialism will work for smaller nations, with less wealth to distribute, but the massive entity that is the USA wouldn't be able to function like that.
AFAIC, enslavering the workforce is as widely used as there is non-unionized businesses filing exaggerated profits and using fiscal evasions to NOT pay reasonable taxes to the state.
Distribute the rest to ANY investors and what you get is generalized ***much*** lower salaries.
In the same vein, if you are unhappy at your current job - find another BETTER one as soon as you can or even switch carreer plans altogether.
Trust me, i got tortured enough by over privileged staff and co- -workers (family edges of ownership, anyone?) while waiting for offers to escape poverty line conditions at work 50+ hours per week no less. Nobody ever tried bossing me around since, it's not the money you have and own - it's what you DO for a living.
United States of America? But, to me it all looks like a wordly joke... Universal hopes for a better Sofa.
We even call the *U*K on their bluff a strike a few Chin for stealing OUR jobs.
Your humo_u_rs may differ.
If you put it that way, but i don't have a right to vote in US!A elections... while closely watching the upcoming embargo by Europe on Maritime Seal hunts by-products.
Capitalist trading has its own "strange" rules, it seems.
-- They'll start complaining about depleting fish stocks in the St-Lawrence gulf.
-- They'll even stop eating meat.
-- Don't try taking away their leather coats when winter strikes though.
Lobby me this, Animal rights activists... you're as dependant on ecologistics than anyone invaded by wolves and bears in your own forests or lobsters & shrimps delivered by containers to your luxury restaurants & hotels. I'll bet they want trouts & salmons too, fresh & cheap.
Seals reproduce and please DO come again in a few years or less to watch out for the next uncontrollable spike(s).
Socialism on tables.
Hold it, i always figured Guam was the modern pivot overthere.
Lemme check some satellites records. Yup, it's still mobile enough if you look underneath the truths and find some happy trigger silos.
It's not that international waters are clear property, but that Polynesia isn't.
No, of course not... they'd rather keep that wealth just in case someone comes in to turn it into progress rather than acquisition by force. But that has more to do with the means than the usefulness, right?
If it's massive, the reason falls into the concept of foreign resources control (Oil being just one of many more) and certainly not by local functionality (Depleted Oil or lack of anything else).
Arrogance (big and small) led to more wars than you could remember however overly superior you might somehow get.
Oooh - *THAT's* the Pschoak I know and love. The one whose excuse for the fact that the conservative states are net receivers of tax funds is that the fiscslly conservative conservatives were in charge . . . hypocrisy in action. .
Listen you want to find better data, you go to it Psychoak. The fact is, you, once again announced a premise ("It's simple math, the party in power gets more money") you can't support - there were periods of democrat congresses, GOP congress, and divided presidencies - and yet the pattern of taxes from the blue states supporting the red states continued during that entire period. To be fair, there's a simple reason for that - during that entire period, red state population was poorer than blue state population - and so, most income taxes came from people and companies that were in blue states, while most welfare was used in red states.
ONE MIGHT THINK THAT WOULD *TELL* YOU SOMETHING!!!!
But probably not - Jonnan
Being from maine, I can assure you that we're.. kind of purple? We have a democrat governor, voted for Obama, but we have 2 republican senators and we love them because they're awesome (snowe and collins). I've personally voted for both republicans and democrats on the same ticket, and I hold pretty strong ideological views. I guess you could say both our democrats and our republicans are moderate... we are pretty consistently anti-business with high taxes and regulations though, and we're probably about to legislatively approve gay marriage.
eh, I say we but I don't live there anymore.
You know guys, i had a converstation with my dad yesturday about Democracythe same democracy USA and preety much the rest of the world is based on.So he gave me an excample: Imagine a chess game, the black is played by an internationalproffesional player, the white is played by the entire world.while the proffesional player do as he like, and move as he choosethe white have to vote for every move in a democratic wayand then he asked me: who will win?
the black will win ofcource, not because it is played by a proffesionalbut because most of the world (that plays white) have no idea how to playand even if the white side got some proffesionals on its side, they are minoraty and will loose in a democratic vote.
So as we can see from this excample, the very base of freedome, is what ruins the overall outcomesure sometimes the white will lead, but the black will move in consideration for the feautureso maybe if it may look like the black are falling behind, the overall outcome is that eventualy the black will win.
Now imagine that the black are a goverment rules by one manwhile the white are a goverment rules by democratic votes
the main problem here is that todays countrys that are rules by one manthis man sometimes have no idea how to play the game, most of them are former soldiers with noidea on how economy works, or much of anything ales.and that is why socialism and communism have such a bad imagebut it only takes time for to learn how to play, and USSR is a good excamplethey start poorly with lots of problems, and end up beeing the most powerull nation and the mostrich nation on the planet, the reason why it fall is a different topic.
That 'Chess Game' really doesn't seem like a good analogy to me.
The 'white' team does not vote on things on a move by move basis, nor does the 'black' player get pulled from the pool of professional chess players.
Just building a better analogy, imagine instead a chess game where white is played by six guys that campaigned to get the job one expert each in the use of each piece, from pawn to king. No one of them may be the best chess player, but each of them had to convince people (s)he was the best expert at this available. On the other side is a guy the could beat up the other chess players and take the job. He may be a chessplayer, but the system he won under had absolutely no effective system to gauge whether or not he was a good chess player or not.
And after each game, win or lose, the people on each side get to try and replace their team under the rules available - if our side is unsatisfied with the way the pawns are being used, we may vote a different guy in, if the black team is unsatisfied with his game, they beat him up and take his job - if they can.
In the long run, I think that game probably favors the white team.
As for Maine - oh yeah, Indiana is Weird that way too - for a state that has been Republican presidentially for so long, our *state* government has definitely not been a one party system - but it was still a surprise when we went for Obama this year. *that* was cool - {G}.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
