First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Democratic Socialism
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 2/6/09 , edited 2/6/09

_Al_ wrote:


digs wrote:

Soviet Russia was socialist, it was just heavily enforced which would lead us to believe it was communist (as in mass conformity to the government). Capitalism isn't at fault for the current crisis, the banking industry is because of idiotic creditors (and they were this way because the government told them too, look at Freddie Mack[FHLMC] and Fannie Mae[FNMA] both are government institutions). We are in this shape because many many loans have gone sour, this is the government encouraged banks to lend large amounts of money to people who's income couldn't pay it back. Capitalism didn't fail, and if it was at fault you would see a different kind of problem. If the problem was due to unregulated capitalism the problem should be similar to the late 19th, early 20th century with companies becoming monopolies and having complete control over a specific industry. America's problem was caused by greedy bankers thinking they can milk massive interest from loans they know will probably go bad (the longer it takes to pay off, the more interest they make) and the government pressuring these banks to make these loans. Government stepped in and messing things up, to fix it government needs to step out (and by stepping out, they need to not spend, they need to remove tax burdens and make taxes overall lower, not this re-distribution of wealth garbage).


First of all, Soviet Russia was not socialist. Mass conformity to the government implies a totalitarianistic state, and socialism is about giving people freedoms, basically the opposite of totalitarianism. The reason that Soviet Russia, like many other communist states, is referred to as socialist is the fact that communism has been, and still is to an extent, viewed as a branch of socialism. There are distinct differences between communism and socialism though, and the majority of people fail to see that.

Second, FHLMC and FNMA were not government controlled until the collective takeover of both corporations by the FHFA this past September. They were government sponsored. The ownership of both companies lies with private shareholders, and there are legal provisions that allow the government to take a 79.9% ownership share if necessary. These companies are controlled by the shareholders and executives, and it was these people who made the decisions to give out those loans, not the government.

Now when you say that Capitalism is not at fault, but that the "idiotic creditors" in the banking industry are, you are essentially contradicting yourself. Those creditors are able to make those poor decisions because of the lack of restrictions on business in a Capitalist economy. They never would have had that kind of power in a socialist economy.

Also, I didn't want to bring this up if I could help it, but I feel that maybe you might take my opinion more seriously if I prove to you that I too have a higher level of intelligence. You say in the post I've quoted below that you scored a 28 on the ACT. Well FYI, I wrote the SAT, and got a 700 on the math section alone. After the conversion, my SAT score is the equivalent of about a 30 ACT score. My IQ has also been tested multiple times, and I've consistently scored in the 140's most times, with the exception of a 137 on the first test, which was done when I was 14. These are all tests of logic and reasoning, and indicate that I am at least as well educated as you are.


digs wrote:
I am a very opinionated person I don't want to brag, but my brain is fine. I scored a 28 on the ACT (ranking in the top 7% of the country and the top 1% by earning a 34 on the science portion) and I have a 3.75 college GPA. I don't say this to brag (because God gave me my abilities and all glory and thanks goes to Him) But I would argue that I am not uneducated or politically ignorant.


I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but Russia did declare themselves a socialist nation, but it was so heavily enforced that it could be called militant socialism (if that term can apply)

I know that FHLMC and FNMA were not government controlled (completely) until September, but the government had those organizations to try and give bad loans to people who can't afford them (or politically correct loans). FHLMC and FNMA were largely influenced by the government and had to be bailed out by them because of their poor greedy decisions (I believe they asked to be bailed out in 2006, but I may be wrong, I need to find the source of that information).

Capitalism is complete economic freedom. However, capitalism without any restrictions creates a wide GNI and corporate monopolies that are bad for the common consumer. The government was trying to positively influence the making of bad loans to lower income people and middle income people who dreamed to big. The concept of capitalism isn't at fault, what is at fault is the boards and CEO's of these companies who listened to the idiotic government. This is something that can happen either under socialism or capitalism, this issue is the matter of greed and corporate stupidity.

And I posted what I did about my grades because a user was telling me that I was unintelligent because of my conservative views. I didn't post them to try and brag or build myself up into an image of superiority (and I don't believe that you did either). I think intelligence plays a role in making good decision, but for individual opinions (as long as someone is informed on what they are speaking on) I don't think it is majorly important. Someone may have failed math yet be very educated politically on issues (for example, abortion, global warming, economics etc...). Haha I hope my previous post didn't put across the wrong message.

About Democratic Socialism though... I think it can be a good form of government for small developed countries. Smaller government is alway best, and when you have a nation of roughly 10-50 million people the government doesn't have to be massive in order to successfully run a democratically socialist state. America has 300+ million people, and if we turned to socialism; government spending and the size of government (plus their power) would rise exponentially. Given the current crisis, the government can't afford to spend any more money and reach into an even deeper defect (and by this, I am also saying that the $900 billion stimulus bill will heavily damage the country and won't work, especially given what they want to fund with the bill). Government programs can be good, but when the government runs the private sector, your health care, your personal responsibility, and your personal freedoms, it can be too large to function properly and especially free of corruption. I strongly support small, libertarian, regulated capitalist, and "politically incorrect" form of government for a nation the size and power that the US holds.
1489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 2/6/09

StephyKot87 wrote:


mikejacobs wrote:


StephyKot87 wrote:




Okay, if you say so oh and theres a reason why, according to you, many people in US want socialism, because US is screwed up in many aspects, health, living standards, freedom et cetera. Can't be bothered to give you the statistics so just use google if you want.


Hold on, I told my reason based from one of the people I know and learned who used to lived in Socialist society and you just kick it away and suggest me to use statistics from google.

The reason why US was in a recession is those dickheads from Washington D.C. who aren't doing their jobs and waisted all the money for nothing and they are still doing it now (think spending bills). It's not Capitalism at fault, its childish game they try do make a excuse to have big government; again, they're not doing their jobs. Dear God, Thomas Jefferson is rolling in grave!

I may be one stubborn bitch, but how about talking to actual people who lived or once lived in a Socialist society, not google.



Umm, just so you know, I used to live in a socialist society and my family have spent nearly their whole life in a socialist society and they liked it though it all fell apart when wars came along. So, your retort is kind of nulled.



Which country or google are you referring to, or you just try to pull my leg? I also had relatives in Eastern Europe under Socialists society and they told me it was all bull of something like you said about Socialism.



Yugoslavia, before it broke up.
Posted 2/10/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:


superninjaboy wrote:


digs wrote:

Democratic socialism in my opinion is not best. It limits free markets, punishes the rich, and brings division in society. Democratic socialism has larger government, less perosnal freedom, and adhears to "political correctness" and liberalism. I support a Conservative free market economy with small government. I support conservative/libertarian laws and view liberalism as a highly flawed political ideology.


Yeah there are "NO" divisions in the current system, the rich get more and the poor get the shaft. Democratic socialism would actually cement the ideal that all men are created equal, not only the rich or lucky could live happy fulfilling lives but everyone could. The current economic situation has proven that the free market is full of greedy opportunistic assholes.


that is a flat out lie NO ONE IS EQUAL and ppl need to stop think such idealist nonsense. some people are smarter, stronger, more talkative ect... not to ppl are equal. they may have an equal right to the same possibilities.
once one make money they have the right to be greedy with with. but forcing ppl to be equal you are hurting the those who have work hard and rewarding those who have not.


I agree with your first statement, but still find that, yes some people do work really hard for all the money tehy earn but the problem with having too much money can make some above the law or can pretty much avoid it. Take Exxon mobil they still have not payed the 5. Billion they owe to all harmed in the spill they had years ago and they have been fighting it in court with their high priced lawyers and have said that they will fight as long as they can. If not democratic socialism then we should have at least a cap on how much money a pperson can make.
4439 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 2/10/09

superninjaboy wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:


superninjaboy wrote:


digs wrote:

Democratic socialism in my opinion is not best. It limits free markets, punishes the rich, and brings division in society. Democratic socialism has larger government, less perosnal freedom, and adhears to "political correctness" and liberalism. I support a Conservative free market economy with small government. I support conservative/libertarian laws and view liberalism as a highly flawed political ideology.


Yeah there are "NO" divisions in the current system, the rich get more and the poor get the shaft. Democratic socialism would actually cement the ideal that all men are created equal, not only the rich or lucky could live happy fulfilling lives but everyone could. The current economic situation has proven that the free market is full of greedy opportunistic assholes.


that is a flat out lie NO ONE IS EQUAL and ppl need to stop think such idealist nonsense. some people are smarter, stronger, more talkative ect... not to ppl are equal. they may have an equal right to the same possibilities.
once one make money they have the right to be greedy with with. but forcing ppl to be equal you are hurting the those who have work hard and rewarding those who have not.


I agree with your first statement, but still find that, yes some people do work really hard for all the money tehy earn but the problem with having too much money can make some above the law or can pretty much avoid it. Take Exxon mobil they still have not payed the 5. Billion they owe to all harmed in the spill they had years ago and they have been fighting it in court with their high priced lawyers and have said that they will fight as long as they can. If not democratic socialism then we should have at least a cap on how much money a pperson can make.


the Exxon is a legal problem and a different system that would have the same problem in socialism.
but its a constitutional right and the laws say that can use any legal means to do so. this is a case that the law needs to be fixed not the economics of it .
now i dont believe in capping privet companies salary because that how you get the best to work for the company. if they can get paid the same for less work why work harder then you have to. but any one who receives money from the government i agree should have a budget cap.
now maybe a minimal percent of earnings needing to go towards employees depending on total earning i can agree with.
Posted 2/14/09

Sleepneeded127 wrote:


superninjaboy wrote:


Sleepneeded127 wrote:


superninjaboy wrote:


digs wrote:

Democratic socialism in my opinion is not best. It limits free markets, punishes the rich, and brings division in society. Democratic socialism has larger government, less perosnal freedom, and adhears to "political correctness" and liberalism. I support a Conservative free market economy with small government. I support conservative/libertarian laws and view liberalism as a highly flawed political ideology.


Yeah there are "NO" divisions in the current system, the rich get more and the poor get the shaft. Democratic socialism would actually cement the ideal that all men are created equal, not only the rich or lucky could live happy fulfilling lives but everyone could. The current economic situation has proven that the free market is full of greedy opportunistic assholes.


that is a flat out lie NO ONE IS EQUAL and ppl need to stop think such idealist nonsense. some people are smarter, stronger, more talkative ect... not to ppl are equal. they may have an equal right to the same possibilities.
once one make money they have the right to be greedy with with. but forcing ppl to be equal you are hurting the those who have work hard and rewarding those who have not.


I agree with your first statement, but still find that, yes some people do work really hard for all the money tehy earn but the problem with having too much money can make some above the law or can pretty much avoid it. Take Exxon mobil they still have not payed the 5. Billion they owe to all harmed in the spill they had years ago and they have been fighting it in court with their high priced lawyers and have said that they will fight as long as they can. If not democratic socialism then we should have at least a cap on how much money a pperson can make.


the Exxon is a legal problem and a different system that would have the same problem in socialism.
but its a constitutional right and the laws say that can use any legal means to do so. this is a case that the law needs to be fixed not the economics of it .
now i dont believe in capping privet companies salary because that how you get the best to work for the company. if they can get paid the same for less work why work harder then you have to. but any one who receives money from the government i agree should have a budget cap.
now maybe a minimal percent of earnings needing to go towards employees depending on total earning i can agree with.


Yeah and I guess the current situation was caused by lack of oversight , I will admit capitalism has its good points, it has opened up China and made other countries more wealthy , the system is just a little hard on the average Joe when things go wrong and I kind of hate seeing the ones that caused this crash more or less getting off the hook. I feel that if you do a bad job and ruin many peoples lives in the process then you should be fired and replaced (With out the overly exuberant severance packages at least, or a neutered version of said severance).
Posted 4/17/10
It exists, that's all I can say about it. Kerala is a state in India (the largest democratic country in the world) and Kerala has a communist party in it's state government, that can be elected into power for their term, I believe.
55203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 4/17/10
I bet you can resolve all the world problems as well. Look at the third world where democracies turn into mas murders by one group. Look at Germany history and how Hitler used the democracy to gain power. A true democracy is just a train wreck That will Happen. When the stupid get to vote,( or the people who think life is unfair same thing) as I am concern. Taking from others to meet your own needs is not right. If you want a politician to make choice for you be my guest as time goes on the freedoms you took for granted will be gone.
55203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 4/17/10
India I feel for you that one beautiful but dangerous place to live. I had friends move from there between the social picking order (the Tier system)? In some parts females are burned to death.
82 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Berlin (Germany)
Offline
Posted 4/19/10 , edited 4/19/10
Oh my god. I didn't think it was true but do most Americans really think a democratic socialism is even nearly something like communism? It's something completely different. Oh my god, you know that democratic socialism is something pretty normal in Western-Europe? I even go so far and say that a democratic socialism is the best for countries with high immigration rate, like USA.

Germany seems to have the strongest socialsm system in Western Europe. Sorry for my poor English but I'm pretty stunned of how "uneducated" ppl still are. You absolutely can have capitalism _and_ socialsm.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/19/10
Socialism, I think, can only work in the most developed of countries. As Digs stated before me, small developed countries are an example. You need a great overall income, which then will be spent about equally on all classes to everyone's benefit. Creating uniform security, both financial, social and physical. Imposing much higher taxes on those with a higher income and so on and so forth. The problem with this is that it requires a rich country and as things are today, rich countries don't really need to experiment with revolutionary new methods of governance, simply because they're already enjoying a relative degree of wealth, the citizens, that is, irrespective of social class or whatever. America, since America is presumed in a discussion on these boards, could, in my view, use some more socialist elements. From a foreigner's viewpoint, America truly seems to be a country of infinite opportunities, for a select few who happened to be lucky or cunning. The price the average person pays, again, almost irrespective of class, so in other words, all classes excluding only the highest ones, is a bit too high. It's kill or be killed and sink or swim, no one cares and if you've f*cked up, you're on your own. Europe, historically, had to deal with it's own leading classes and nobility and whatnot. Our conflict was slightly different from the conflict between the US in colonial times and GB. European democracies were, for the most part born out of a conflict between the nobility and the commoners of all classes. This obviously led to a tension between the two groups concerned which reflected on the legislative process, where the powers of the nobility were corroded away in exchange for the liberty and security of the common people. America, officially anyway, was supposed to be a much more equal society with none of the feudal stuff and whatnot. Looking back after a couple of centuries, yes, America certainly has great potential, much of which comes from allowing her own people to exploit each other and f*ck each other over whenever they truly wish to.
82 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Berlin (Germany)
Offline
Posted 4/19/10 , edited 4/19/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Socialism, I think, can only work in the most developed of countries. As Digs stated before me, small developed countries are an example. You need a great overall income, which then will be spent about equally on all classes to everyone's benefit. Creating uniform security, both financial, social and physical. Imposing much higher taxes on those with a higher income and so on and so forth. The problem with this is that it requires a rich country and as things are today, rich countries don't really need to experiment with revolutionary new methods of governance, simply because they're already enjoying a relative degree of wealth, the citizens, that is, irrespective of social class or whatever. America, since America is presumed in a discussion on these boards, could, in my view, use some more socialist elements. From a foreigner's viewpoint, America truly seems to be a country of infinite opportunities, for a select few who happened to be lucky or cunning. The price the average person pays, again, almost irrespective of class, so in other words, all classes excluding only the highest ones, is a bit too high. It's kill or be killed and sink or swim, no one cares and if you've f*cked up, you're on your own. Europe, historically, had to deal with it's own leading classes and nobility and whatnot. Our conflict was slightly different from the conflict between the US in colonial times and GB. European democracies were, for the most part born out of a conflict between the nobility and the commoners of all classes. This obviously led to a tension between the two groups concerned which reflected on the legislative process, where the powers of the nobility were corroded away in exchange for the liberty and security of the common people. America, officially anyway, was supposed to be a much more equal society with none of the feudal stuff and whatnot. Looking back after a couple of centuries, yes, America certainly has great potential, much of which comes from allowing her own people to exploit each other and f*ck each other over whenever they truly wish to.


Nice sayed. But in America it seems for a foreigner like me that the propaganda from the cold war is still in effect and that the Americans won't forget that so fast. Socialism was allways brandmarked as the enemy of free economy what of course is bullshit, a lot of European countries prove it every day. But it's something engraved in people's mind and how mankind generally works it is hard for people, especially old ones to discard the old way of thinking. I experience it also every day in Germany, that is not something only the Americans have to fight with.
Posted 4/19/10 , edited 4/19/10

mironator wrote:

Oh my god. I didn't think it was true but do most Americans really think a democratic socialism is even nearly something like communism? It's something completely different. Oh my god, you know that democratic socialism is something pretty normal in Western-Europe? I even go so far and say that a democratic socialism is the best for countries with high immigration rate, like USA.

Germany seems to have the strongest socialsm system in Western Europe. Sorry for my poor English but I'm pretty stunned of how "uneducated" ppl still are. You absolutely can have capitalism _and_ socialsm.
I think it also has to do with just what state of mentality that the majority of the nation's citizens are in. I mean you just can't possibly expect people to understand the balance of civil duty and social security, unless of course the people were already civil and sociable only due to a secular mentality.

However:

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Socialism, I think, can only work in the most developed of countries. As Digs stated before me, small developed countries are an example. You need a great overall income, which then will be spent about equally on all classes to everyone's benefit. Creating uniform security, both financial, social and physical. Imposing much higher taxes on those with a higher income and so on and so forth. The problem with this is that it requires a rich country and as things are today, rich countries don't really need to experiment with revolutionary new methods of governance, simply because they're already enjoying a relative degree of wealth, the citizens, that is, irrespective of social class or whatever. America, since America is presumed in a discussion on these boards, could, in my view, use some more socialist elements. From a foreigner's viewpoint, America truly seems to be a country of infinite opportunities, for a select few who happened to be lucky or cunning. The price the average person pays, again, almost irrespective of class, so in other words, all classes excluding only the highest ones, is a bit too high. It's kill or be killed and sink or swim, no one cares and if you've f*cked up, you're on your own. Europe, historically, had to deal with it's own leading classes and nobility and whatnot. Our conflict was slightly different from the conflict between the US in colonial times and GB. European democracies were, for the most part born out of a conflict between the nobility and the commoners of all classes. This obviously led to a tension between the two groups concerned which reflected on the legislative process, where the powers of the nobility were corroded away in exchange for the liberty and security of the common people. America, officially anyway, was supposed to be a much more equal society with none of the feudal stuff and whatnot. Looking back after a couple of centuries, yes, America certainly has great potential, much of which comes from allowing her own people to exploit each other and f*ck each other over whenever they truly wish to.
I think the American mentality for the most part had an overemphasis on individual wealth instead of collective well beings. This is especially true with the fact that only 10% of the US citizens owning 70% of the US financial assets. And if whatever that Hawker said here about "The greatest problem with religion is when it becomes monopolized in the hands of the clergy, the way it happened with Christianity." And that "their editing of the Bible was terrible, in their edit, they removed teachings that were dangerous and challenged the authority of the state and church, making sure that the teachings that taught obedience and servitude to those in power were not contradicted, but even then they messed that up." Were any true indication of the mentality of the religious sects. I think there's an explanation of just how that particular "American Dream" came true through the shock doctrine of capitalism.

Furthermore:

mironator wrote:

Nice sayed. But in America it seems for a foreigner like me that the propaganda from the cold war is still in effect and that the Americans won't forget that so fast. Socialism was allways brandmarked as the enemy of free economy what of course is bullshit, a lot of European countries prove it every day. But it's something engraved in people's mind and how mankind generally works it is hard for people, especially old ones to discard the old way of thinking. I experience it also every day in Germany, that is not something only the Americans have to fight with.
I think the mental traumas and the emotional scars displayed by the Japanese seniors are the direct result of just what could happen with that mentality of exploitation continuing its course; learned helplessness.
55203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/23/10
Do you mean France (FUBAR) to that it a disaster waiting to happen. The idiots of this country making decision on how to go. heck they cant balance a check book then again O'bama cant do it his wife doses it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.