Socialism, is it really any good?

[Jenos Ridan]

I'd like to know first off what the unemployment rates are in Europe. That, and what is your trade balance. Better still, your National Debt.

[Ntetos]

And why are you asking about socialism? Of course in every country in Europe it is different. But you can't say that Europe is socialistic. Putin in Russia, Merkel in Germany, Berlusconi in Italy, Sarcozy in France. They are not socialists.

[suggs]

A lot of uneducated Yanks (in other words, most of them) have this retarded notion that Europe is "soicialist". Since NONE of the EU countries have EVER been socialist, this is an intriguing view, but not unsurprising since the vast majority of Yanks never leave their own country.
Best if they shush about the rest of the world really, since they know ZILCH about it.
Thats partly why Clinton was one of the great presidents -as well as being close to a genius, the guy actually had a passport. Most Yanks think a Passport is a dockyard somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard.

I like the idea of socialism, but its NEVER been tried out -so who knows if it would be any good?

[radiojake]

better yet, i'd like to know how much of countries debts are caused by the policies of the IMF and World Trade bank - and how many people world wide have died as a result of CIA backed regimes and coups that have put ruthless dictators in power in the desperate attempt to implement lassiez faire on third world countries, so that the 'liberating' sense of capitalism could be spread world wide

What's your point, Jenos? All systems are corrupt, as power corrupts absolute

[Nappy crier]

I think that the quote is "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" you uneducated heathen.

Suggs is correct in a sense, that socialism has never been fully put into action within any EU nation, however all EU nations have socialist idea's - Tax the living f*ck out of everything that moves. Thdere are high unemployment rates within the UK, France, Germany as their welfare systems have become resemblant of lifestyle choices....f*ck, I'm a mug for working...why should I go to work when I can be sat on my ever-growing arse, playing the latest x-box 360 games, feigning a mild disability, knocking up a nasty little slag 12 times, and live in a fucking massive council house?

[The1exile]

f*ck, I'm a mug for working...why should I go to work when I can be sat on my ever-growing arse, playing the latest x-box 360 games, feigning a mild disability, knocking up a nasty little slag 12 times, and live in a fucking massive council house?

Do it then, if it's really an option. But it would engender the dislike of people with a similar worldview to you, and I suspct you would easily get bored and ultimately want to get working again.

[suggs]

What's your point, Jenos? All systems are corrupt, as power corrupts absolute

NO. Get it right, or don't bother.
You are misquoting the late 19th century historian Lord Acton, who claimed that:
"All power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So (assuming Acton is right) power doesnt corrupt "absolute" -only absolute power does that.

[suggs]

I think that the quote is "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" you uneducated heathen.

Suggs is correct in a sense, that socialism has never been fully put into action within any EU nation, however all EU nations have socialist idea's - Tax the living f*ck out of everything that moves. Thdere are high unemployment rates within the UK, France, Germany as their welfare systems have become resemblant of lifestyle choices....f*ck, I'm a mug for working...why should I go to work when I can be sat on my ever-growing arse, playing the latest x-box 360 games, feigning a mild disability, knocking up a nasty little slag 12 times, and live in a fucking massive council house?

Taxes aren't a socialist idea. The Romans "taxed the living f*ck out of everything that moved" but were hardly a socialist state (it was a effectively a monarchy/dictatorship after the battle of Actium).
Unemployment is VERY low in the UK, and there is pretty substantial tax burden.
Unemployment is higher on the continent, but thats (I'll give you a gift ) probably more due to the damage the Euro has done to their economies.
All in all, none of your post was true.
Well done

[got tonkaed]

I only read the title of threads...and therefore do not respond to any posts before i decide to...

Why socialism is the awesome: If theres any truth to the notion that you learn every important life lesson in Kindergarten, then socialism is probably the best of all available economic systems, ideologically its a far more humanistic approach than capitalism (though for some reasons people cringe to arguments about nature and profit motive -why one would do such a thing when that system is the status quo and it doesnt really need justification on an ideological level -). Likewise if we take the long view the average person in society contributes just about zilch in the grand scheme of things. You probably will not matter outside of your immediate circle so the basic difference between capitalism and socialism as far as what its going to do for you is probably going to be rather minimal (in the vast majority of the world -this probably excludes societies with very well defined consumer cultures -which ill touch on, in the while socialism is the suck portion of this post). Likewise the incentivization required by the economic system for you to do your minuscule contribution, is probably irrelevant and probably can be made up in non economic ways (especially in non consumerist cultures).

Why socialism is the suck: You really cant get too far toward socialism and have an economy that is that compatible with the large economies in much of the world. The individual economy that attempts to compete with more capitalistically based economies will lose time and time again. Likewise it has yet to be demonstrated that a "socialist society" (whatever that means) can adequately support a full blown consumer culture...which is what the paradigm for culture is tending to tend toward (lol at tending to tend). As a result the cultural milieu of many places, especially the ones required to move in that direction in order to get a larger socialist economic structure to exist, simply cannot develop or adapt to the cultural strategies required to support such a system.

Sort of.

[tzor]

A lot of uneducated Yanks (in other words, most of them) have this retarded notion that Europe is "soicialist". Since NONE of the EU countries have EVER been socialist, this is an intriguing view, but not unsurprising since the vast majority of Yanks never leave their own country.

I think I can answer that question, sort of, but then again people who view things in general can never define things in consistant specific terms and what we call "liberal" (ie the Democratic Party)most Europeans would call downright conservative. My uncle is a CEO of an American Company that does business in Europe. He simply won't discuss politics with his men in France; they literally can't see eye to eye on anything political. I would not call him "uneducated" but I'm sure he's been known to throw in the term "socialist" on one or two occasions among friends even though he knows that technically under the definition of socialism France doesn't apply.

A lot of people in the US do see the effects of strong unionism that is encouraged by the state as something akin to socialism. In France, for example, the exceptionally low retirement age is one factor. In Europe in general the average worker has so much vacation time (measured in months) while in the US it is measured in days (10 days or two working weeks) if you are lucky. Then there is socialized medicine. Combined with the notion that to Europe our liberal left seems conservative and you realize in the US we don't have a word that describes, "more liberal than our liberal" so we use "socialism" instead.

[Dancing Mustard]

f*ck, I'm a mug for working...why should I go to work when I can be sat on my ever-growing arse, playing the latest x-box 360 games, feigning a mild disability, knocking up a nasty little slag 12 times, and live in a fucking massive council house?

*Puts down textbooks*

*Puts feet on desk*

*Relaxes*

Now, where's that nasty little slag you promised?

[Nappy crier]

*Puts down textbooks*

*Puts feet on desk*

*Relaxes*

Now, where's that nasty little slag you promised?

Now now mustard, it takes time. You're not going to get that little chavvy slut ubless you've got a council flat in some rough london borough...plus the cash needs to be rolling in...quit uni, claim dole money, go out theiving some burberry gear, and then act like a retarded hip-hop ape, and all the scallies on the estate will come flocking.

Knock a few of them up, claim child benefit, give yourself a mild injury and claim disability...and away you go!

And Suggs, you leachorous charlatan! When taking into account those on disability, those who are of working age that do not have a full time occupancy...then you will find that of the 35 million-ish of working age in Britain, around 8 million are not working/studying etc. Nevermind nuu laybor's smoke-and-mirror tricks of making it look like they've reduced unemployment...when in fact it has risen dramatically under thier leadership

[citation needed]

f*ck off guiscard!

[suggs]

Bollocks.

[PLAYER57832]

A lot of uneducated Yanks (in other words, most of them) have this retarded notion that Europe is "soicialist". Since NONE of the EU countries have EVER been socialist, this is an intriguing view, but not unsurprising since the vast majority of Yanks never leave their own country.
Best if they shush about the rest of the world really, since they know ZILCH about it.
Thats partly why Clinton was one of the great presidents -as well as being close to a genius, the guy actually had a passport. Most Yanks think a Passport is a dockyard somewhere on the Eastern Seaboard.

I like the idea of socialism, but its NEVER been tried out -so who knows if it would be any good?

Actually, a lot of people on BOTH sides of the ocean seem to confuse Socialism with Communism.

Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services. In a sense, both the US AND Europe are partially socialistic, because we pay the government to do things for us and have a basic level of support for those who "cannot or will not care for themselves" ... welfare, medicare and medicaid, etc.

Communism is a political idea, primarily that a group of individuals decide and control everything ... combined with the socialist economic idea that the government doles out stuff.

The more correct term for economies such as the old Soviet economy or Maoist China is "controlled economy" ... as opposed to the idea of a "demand economy" (capitalism).

Capitalism means that profit dictates all. We had almost pure capitalism at the turn of the century. Riotes and very serious fights gave us Unions, which, along with the scare resulting from a few individuals hoarding Gold and almost ruining our economy, together with some abuses by Rockafellar that put most other business folks out.... resulted in changes to what we have now. A war didn't hurt any, either.

Interestingly, though economists used to say, before the "fall" of the Soviet and changes in China, that there was never a return from a controlled economy to a demand economy, this was not accurate. The Nazis regime was very much a controlled economy. Had they developed the Atom bomb, we would have found ourselves being told what to grow, etc. That, too, was part of HItler's "dream" (nightmare for the rest of us ...)

NONE of these systems really works in their "pure" form.

Controlled economies reduce people's incentives too much

Capitolism also removes incentives by making the consequences of even minor failure too steep for most to climb (can't recover too well from a busted arm when there is no money for a doctor and no job because you were injured). It is also just plain inhumane, in purity (aka The Jungle, etc.)

Socialism is actually the closest, but again, if there are not enough negative incentives to produce, people won't.

[suggs]

Tzor - since Liberalism and Socialism are direclty opposed to each other, I find that revealing of political ignorance in the US.
(Tho'its the same here tbh )

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor - since Liberalism and Socialism are direclty opposed to each other, I find that revealing of political ignorance in the US.
(Tho'its the same here tbh )

No, actually socialism is economics. Liberalism is politics. And, they are quite compatible.

[suggs]

Player, your definition of socialism is wrong.
What you described is a "left wing" society, a social democratic society.
A socialist country is one where all property is divided equally.
Communism is a specific type of socialism ,that usually refers to the governments of the USSR in the 2oth century.

[suggs]

Tzor - since Liberalism and Socialism are direclty opposed to each other, I find that revealing of political ignorance in the US.
(Tho'its the same here tbh )

No, actually socialism is economics. Liberalism is politics. And, they are quite compatible.

Oh, christ where do i begin. NOOOOOOO! They are both politcal theories, which have different conceptions of economics within them.
Please read a history book.

[Nappy crier]

Tzor - since Liberalism and Socialism are direclty opposed to each other, I find that revealing of political ignorance in the US.
(Tho'its the same here tbh )

No, actually socialism is economics. Liberalism is politics. And, they are quite compatible.

Oh, christ where do i begin. NOOOOOOO! They are both politcal theories, which have different conceptions of economics within them.
Please read a history book.

Sorry player, but you've happened to catch suggs when he is correct for once.

liberalism has a number of different perceicved connotations.

Try wankipedia, they know everything!

[suggs]

*Suggs experiences warm glow of pride as is united with Nappy Crier in a gay bond of politico-economic wankiness*

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor - since Liberalism and Socialism are direclty opposed to each other, I find that revealing of political ignorance in the US.
(Tho'its the same here tbh )

No, actually socialism is economics. Liberalism is politics. And, they are quite compatible.

Oh, christ where do i begin. NOOOOOOO! They are both politcal theories, which have different conceptions of economics within them.
Please read a history book.

Sorry player, but you've happened to catch suggs when he is correct for once.

Try wankipedia, they know everything!

Suggs is generally correct. And, really we the disagreement is really a technicality or semantics.

These are the definitions I was taught in College by my college professor, and others. They are definitions usually accepted by academics within the US.

Yes, Socialism is where things are divided more or less "equally" by the government.... It is economics, though it has more recently been used to refer to political ideas that will promote (or that someone wishes to insinuate will lead to) a socialist economic system.

Liberalism can be either economics (we need to provide for the poor ... or "the widows and orphans") OR politics (freedom of choice, restraint of businesses from negatively impacting us... etc.) BUT, it is more often used in the political context currently.

Communism is a political system that traditionally uses a somewhat socialist model in a controlled economy. BUT, the definition of Communism is a government run by a committee of elite and more highly skilled individuals who get to decide (ergo the "controlled" part) what the rest of the "masses" need and can do. The soviet union WAS a communist nation, but it only claimed to be socialist. Cuba is actually more closely a socialist state ... but it was a straight dictatorship, not really "Communist" at all.

oh, and "communism" with a little "c" is sometimes used to mean a socialist economy.... just to blurr the waters more.



As for Wikkipaedia ... any format that allows itself to be edited by "the general public" is more like a popularity contest than an establishment of truth.

Sorry, but dictionaries should allow for BETTER communication, clarification of terms, not a way to introduce and make acceptable any terms people wish. .. but that seems to be a minority opinion here.

[suggs]

What you've just said is better.
But note how you have changed your definition of sociaslism. It was this :

"Socialism is an economic idea. Basically, it says that we pay the government and then the government takes care of various services"

which is not the same as what you just posted.
I'm glad i gave you the incentive to introduce some rigour into your thinking.

and btw, many College professors don't know what they are talking about -particularly if thay are Sociologists.

[mandalorian2298]

I'd like to know first off what the unemployment rates are in Europe. That, and what is your trade balance. Better still, your National Debt.

If your interested in socialism, you should check the unemployment rates, trade balance and (if they have any) National Debt of Scandinavian countries.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'd like to know first off what the unemployment rates are in Europe. That, and what is your trade balance. Better still, your National Debt.

If your interested in socialism, you should check the unemployment rates, trade balance and (if they have any) National Debt of Scandinavian countries.

....which aren't socialist.

[Napoleon Ier]

*Suggs experiences warm glow of pride as is united with Nappy Crier in a gay bond of politico-economic wankiness*

Tsk tsk...we're going to have re-do the entire education of that Player woman.