NationStates Jolt Archive

hell is reserved for soicalist and anti-semites
so i want the UN to out law socialism
:!: :!: :!: :arrow: God i soicalist

I am not a socialist nor do I care for socialists, but I really hope a moderator locks this piece of crap thread soon.

There's nothing sacrilegious about Socialism, y'know. In fact, Socialism (in my opinion) is the most Christian and humane way of living - equality and justice, rather than power handed to a few and everyone else slogging a living along the sidelines.

We agree with you that soicalists are scum, and if we see any soicalists in the Anticapitalist Alliance we'll be sure to kick their soicalist asses out so that they stop besmirching the good name of us SOCIALISTS.

Another rousing success for the education systems of right-wing states!

:lol: I definitely agree with you, Rehochipe!

[quote="Hakuvia"]In fact, Socialism (in my opinion) is the most Christian and humane way of living - equality and justice quote]

Government controlled equality is never equal. And its almost always less effective than if the private sector were left to their own means.

Government controlled equality is never equal. And its almost always less effective than if the private sector were left to their own means.

An, erm, interesting assertion. The private sector is good at many things, but one thing that it has never done and will never do is reduce inequality.

I'm not an anti-semite by any stretch of the imagination, but soicalist scum(sic) at your service here.

*bows sarcastically*

And you might wan to make your charecter a little more convincing

what does socialism have to do with semites in general?

Not entirely sure. Could be a reference to antisemitism in the USSR (which was prevalent in every other Russian reigme prior to Communism) or possibly the tendency of modern liberals to condemn Israel's handling of the Israel / Palestine thing (because, y'know, if you disagree with a nation's policies you must hate the race its population is composed of). Which is just misuse of terminology, since Palestinians are Semitic too, but then did we expect accuracy from this quarter?

My question was a rhetorical one.
Nevertheless, thank you. *g*

So socialists are inherently "anti-Semitic?" Wow, Halo, you're pretty ignorant. Democratic socialism, like in Western Europe, is not a bad thing. I feel a government should provide healthcare and other positive services to its citizens; there is no harm in that.

Hello? Moderators? Hello?

:?

- The Rep of Komokom, who thinks only the original post needs deletion, not the thread, which could yield some good arguments and such.

There is no need to ban socialists. Their economies will implode on their own :P

There is no need to ban socialists. Their economies will implode on their own :P

The delegate from East Hackney looks at his nation's "Strong" economy and scratches his head in utter bewilderment at this remark.

East Hackney must remember that nations too focused on capitalism sometimes forget to educate themselves on other ways of doing things.

The role of government is to protect liberties. It is not to enforce to enforce equality except that which is recognized by the overwhelming majority. Unlike the Socialist bottom feeders who insist that the 51% mob rule/simple majority is the way to run a country, a government is designed to protect citizens' rights, not to redistribute wealth from those who work to those who refuse to lift a finger. This is still a foreign idea to the collectivists who insist that everyone march lock and step to the Socialist call, lest they get caught up in the government's genocide machine.
Socialized medicine is not only a failure, but it's a costly one that tears everyone down to the poverty level. Government schools have only provided us with cattle that will know nothing beyond working in the factories or the service industry. In the eyes of a Socialist, equality is not achieved through the elevation of classes or races by act of individual responsibility, but instead, by ripping everyone down to the same level of abject poverty and malcontented livelihood enforced by their friends in government. If everyone is equally miserable, then all are equal. No thanks, they can keep that failed concept.

The role of government is to protect liberties. It is not to enforce to enforce equality except that which is recognized by the overwhelming majority. Unlike the Socialist bottom feeders who insist that the 51% mob rule/simple majority is the way to run a country, a government is designed to protect citizens' rights, not to redistribute wealth from those who work to those who refuse to lift a finger. This is still a foreign idea to the collectivists who insist that everyone march lock and step to the Socialist call, lest they get caught up in the government's genocide machine.
Socialized medicine is not only a failure, but it's a costly one that tears everyone down to the poverty level. Government schools have only provided us with cattle that will know nothing beyond working in the factories or the service industry. In the eyes of a Socialist, equality is not achieved through the elevation of classes or races by act of individual responsibility, but instead, by ripping everyone down to the same level of abject poverty and malcontented livelihood enforced by their friends in government. If everyone is equally miserable, then all are equal. No thanks, they can keep that failed concept.

Very well articulated :)

As the great Winston Churchill once remarked "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Humm, im a canadian, and im a bit of a socialist too, even tho i dont involve myself much in politics, or discussion about politics, were everyone act like if they held the true widsom. I dont conceve why someone would deserve to be called a scum becose of his ideas. But, o well, i gess its part of the american way, to call names at your opponents. You never had much respect for your adversaries whatsoever as far as i remember.

Anyhow, i think that the redistribution of whealth is probably the most important part of a governement. Not that i am one of those who refuse to lift a finger, actually i am studying medecine, and i will probably be part of those rich person that will be paying with their taxe lazy people who wont work. Still, i dont want taxes to be reduced. On the other hand, i think its a good thing.

I mean, look at the stupid way we spend the money we make. If i had a few thoulsabd dollars, i would probably buy . . i dont know, a T.V., a boat, a big computer, a new sofa, whatever. And while i am at shool, it would stay turned off at home. Make that a million peoples, and thats a billion dollars sleeping, doing nothing at home and being used by no one.

But were i study, its another thing. I dont cease to be amazed about what i can do over there. Its like i owned the place. Whenever i need to use a computer, i have several hundred free ones waiting for me in a local. Free acess to about everything, i can download whatever i need, use machines that probably cost in the 100 000$ when i need them. Whenever i have no class i can use the giant pool, tennis court, musculation room, anything! Whenever we have a d&d game going on, we just have to ask and and we will be allowed to use an un-used local.

Sure, i have to share it with 10 000 other students, but since no one is doing the same thing at the same time, its never full. And then i wonder . . i could never have afforded this, even if taxes were of 0%, there is no way i could ever have possesed a building more then 3 stories tall. No one can own a subway, a scyscraper, or achieve anything worthy of humanity potential alone.

Sure, the private buisness can replace this unity . But extrapolate a bit. In a private world, everyone will only pay for what they use. I can imagine my shool like this somehow. Those who use the computers would share their cost and only them would have acess to it. Those who like musculation would pay to use them (instead of taxes) and only them would use it too. But whenever there is a free slot in the musculation chamber, dont expect anyone that havent paid this specific chamber cost to be allowed in, even if they participated somehow in the shool total funding. Im making it a bit simplistic, but i dont know how to express what i think.


Just think about how it work outside of what is nationalised. Even if there is a free room in an hotel, an its going to be wasted, you wont be able to use it, becose the guy have to maintain his buisness. Same thing if there is an empty seat in a cinema. IT would be unfair for those who have paid their seat if someone was allowed to enter for free. And there we go, we waste a lot of what we produce that way. Whenever you buy, or work building something, there is probably a million thing like the one you want left unused.

Sure, some might say that its good for economy to build one unit of everything for everyone, but shit we cannot all own our own space shuttle or police force or firefighters. We have to put our ressources in common somehow. Becose we are not going to "pay per use", like in the private sector, for anything that we do not need for ourselve in an immediate future. Come on, who would seriously pay a rent for nature protection, the exploration of the ocean floor, space travel or even international unity efforts if they got nothing out of it personally?

Okay, I've said this before, but I'm pretty sure of it.

Socialism would be the greatest economic and political system if it would truly work. Socialism requires that everyone be willing to do everything they can for those around them, that they are willing to share. Real socialism is simply that everyone shares and does the very best that they can to help their neighbor just because it's a good thing to do.

Unfortunately, it has never happened in the real world. Nobody's perfect so someone always gets greedy and grabs power. Socialism requires that the people are willing to work out their differences, but it just doesn't happen. I see socialism as a wonderful ideal, not as the Soviet Union or Communist China, in which leaders usurped power in the name of this ideal of total equality and everyone sharing.

And while equality forced on people may not be equality as some have pointed out, socialism can't be forced on people. Everyone would have to decide to work together.

My two cents.

I dont conceve why someone would deserve to be called a scum becose of his ideas.

Ever heard of the Klu Klux Klan? (Edit to clarify: Not that I put socialism on that level, but there's an example for ye.)

But, o well, i gess its part of the american way, to call names at your opponents.

I'm unsure of whether to laugh or cry at the sheer hypocrisy of your statement. You probably don't even see it.

Socialism would be the greatest economic and political system if it would truly work.

That's just the thing: It doesn't. It never has and never will except for short periods of time and on a relatively small scale.

O yes, im not a fan of communism or anything. I know that it cant work. Humans may not truely have a pre-defined nature, but the law of the least effort is quite universal, and i dont think that anyone would willingly work more then he need to unless it was forced on him. And communism cant work unless everyone accept it of its own free will.

And seriously, even if it was possible, i would never want to live in a world were everyone is egual. Being egual mean that you'll start as good as everyone and end as good as everyone. Life would be horribly boring. Knowing that you can improve yourself and beat others trought work and risks is worth 10 time the wealth that communism would give in my own private oppinion.

But all governement types that taxe their citisens use socialism to some degree, in the way that they collect ressources from everyone and make things that everyone can use out of it. Or, partially at least. Im not going to say that i agree with some, or most, of their spending. But i would certainly enjoy it if more things could be nationalised. Like the pharmatical industry, for one. Or the phone compagnies. (electricity is aldredy nationalised here and its MUCH cheaper and cause less pollution becose of that). And once we are at it, lots of things could be nationalised.



In the end it would be a world with even more freedoms then now. Since it would introduce democracy in what is now the private sector.

The best example is what is happening in Quebec right now. Hydro-Quebec is nationalised, it belong to the governement. And as of such, we are allowed to know their revenues, profit margin and whatever project they have. Since its a governement buisness, its not supposed to be making much profit, outside of what they need to build new dams and invest in research, of course. So if they find a way to produce for less, the price should drop acordingly. Of course, they make money along the way. But since our governement needs our votes to stay the governement, (wich is not the case in a private buisness), they try to not make any scandals, like using polluting process to make more money.

Right now, Hydro-Quebec just worked out a nice deal with an american buisness to be allowed to be the first to use their new prototype technology about some kind of new thermal plant using turbo-reactors to make electricity. But, even tho it would bring the two compagnies closer, it will cause a lot of pollution. It have been found out that, with the current technology, they could build, for almost the same cost, a wind plant that would produce the same amount of electricity whitout pollution. But here, they know nothing about wind power, they (Hydro-Quebec) studied turbines all their life and have friends in that american company, they dont want to adventure themselve into something they dont know.

Normally the project details would not have been avalaible that fast and, anyway, they could just ignore the protest and manage their company like they want. But since the governement want to be re-elected, they wont dissapoint the population by playing the lazy ones, so the project have been canceled.


What i mean is that, in a, lets say, socialist democracy (i dont know if its the right name, im just imagining something) , (taxe of 90% but free elections), the population would have even more power over what happen around them and everyone would live better. Socialism dont mean chains, and sharing dosnt mean we will have a weak economy.

I know that we are not socialist to that point, but in Canada, we are certainly more socialist then in the U.S.A. and our economy work very well, with more freedoms then you actually.

[quote=Istaris]I dont conceve why someone would deserve to be called a scum becose of his ideas.

Ever heard of the Klu Klux Klan? (Edit to clarify: Not that I put socialism on that level, but there's an example for ye.)

The klu Klux Klan are not scum becose of their ideas but becose of their actions.

And even if you have discriminatory ideas, you are not a scum becose of that. If you make someone else feel bad on purpose by "claiming your ideas", then you will be a scum, but it wont be ideas anymore, but actions.

"what does socialism have to do with semites in general?"

Both are subject to irrational statements from national leaders of dubious quality?

...
In the end it would be a world with even more freedoms then now. Since it would introduce democracy in what is now the private sector.

...

What i mean is that, in a, lets say, socialist democracy (i dont know if its the right name, im just imagining something) , (taxe of 90% but free elections), the population would have even more power over what happen around them and everyone would live better. Socialism dont mean chains, and sharing dosnt mean we will have a weak economy.

I know that we are not socialist to that point, but in Canada, we are certainly more socialist then in the U.S.A. and our economy work very well, with more freedoms then you actually.

That is exactly what socialism is, bringing democracy to the economic system. From your comments it sounds to me that you are a reluctant socialist. Viva la Socialism.

The klu Klux Klan are not scum becose of their ideas but becose of their actions.

It is true that actions speak louder than words, but, in this case, it is their ideas/propaganda that speak out about their actions also.
Besides, don't ideas precede many actions?
Their philosophies, which they use in an attempt to justify their actions.


And even if you have discriminatory ideas, you are not a scum becose of that. If you make someone else feel bad on purpose by "claiming your ideas", then you will be a scum, but it wont be ideas anymore, but actions.

So you'd be scum because of a combination of ideas and actions.
For actions seldom exist without ideas (with regards to racist actions,
anyway), and the ideas are an irrelevancy without the actions (unless
those ideas are imparted in the form of propaganda to others
who would act upon them.

My 5 zloty.

Unfortunately, it (socialism) has never happened in the real world.


Actually, it has, and it continues to work quite well...in ant hills, beehives, and termite mounds.

I'm of the opinion True Socialists (and I'm sorry to say I know a few) have as much brains as my examples.

I know that we are not socialist to that point, but in Canada, we are certainly more socialist then in the U.S.A. and our economy work very well, with more freedoms then you actually.

Really? Care to explain how Bill C-250 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040419/opinion/19john.htm) protects Freedom of Speech?

Or why cancer patients in Canada wait weeks (http://www.health.gov.ab.ca/about/funding/pdf/Cancer_Waiting.PDF) before they start their treatment?

(NOTE: I am not Canada-bashing here, but I am Stupid Statement Bashing here. Hey, I'm even rooting for Ottawa to take the Cup!)

quote: Really? Care to explain how Bill C-250 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040419/opinion/19john.htm) protects Freedom of Speech?


Its not. But it will make a lot of people happy, while not hurting anyone or almost. I cant imagine someone depressing becose he can no longer bash and juge others on national T.V. based on irrational dogmas. Canadians are not big belivers anyway. But yes, your right, its against the free speech. But personally, as long as it make others happy and dont hurt anyone, i dont care if its inconstutional or anything.


You have a point with the waiting lines tho.

I am not going to defend our health system. Its bad. Not that we have anything to envy on the quality of the service we provide, but its free. And since its free, lots of people abuse. Going to the emeregency for a simple cold, or taking all the diagnostic test to make sure that your headache is not in fact an horrible disease. Actually, according to recent studies, almost 20% of the money we put into our healthcare is used on treating patients that should normally not be treated for free (immigrants that only came here to get their cancer cured for free, and that leave afterwise, with the card of their cousin and such). Lots of american sneak past the border to get treated. Sure, when your operation cost 40 000$, you are not going to wait in line. At that price, not much can afford it. But i we should allow the privatisation of a part of our healthcare system to speed things up.

Excellent reply, sir (or madam. I'm not sure, obviously)! I could enjoy some debates with you, in the future.

i dont care if its inconstutional...


I have one minor quibble...something can't really be unconstitutional if you don't have a constitution. Canada has a series of Constitutional Acts, am I correct? Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

wow, the neo-facist right are lining up to take a pop at socialists and call them anti -semites. Was Hitler left wing then?

socialism stands for the people, as individuals and crucially as a whole, as opposed to right wing greed and the abstract concept of glorification of the state that has lead to so many wars globally.

I'd love to hear quite why anyone could hate socialists that strive for equality and justice for the people as opposed to the elite few?

socialism stands for the people, as individuals and crucially as a whole, as opposed to right wing greed and the abstract concept of glorification of the state that has lead to so many wars globally.

Uh... socialism doesn't include the concept of "glorification?" What ever happened to "Mother Russia?" Or "Great China?" Neither patriotism nor nationalism can really be effectively associated with a particular economic model.

I'd love to hear quite why anyone could hate socialists that strive for equality and justice for the people as opposed to the elite few?

Uh-huh. Right. Equality. I can take a gander at every historic model for socialism, and I tend to see a ruling elite class, just as I do in the capitalistic model. It amazes me how few people realize that outright socialism and outright capitalism will both have devastating effects on society.

Democratic socialism, like in Western Europe, is not a bad thing.

Ehh... I suppose that would explain why Europe's unemployment rates are near 20%? Or how their healthcare systems are just about the worst in the First World? There are advantages and disadvantages to every setup -- pick your poison. I don't recall which economist first said it, but there's a goodly pile of evidence to support the idea that a steady, 4-5% annual GNP growth would do more to help the poor than any welfare system ever devised by mankind.

actually, the concept of mother russia was a capitalist one, when the people viewed the tzar as the "little father" of russia and the russian orthodox church preached obedience and subservience to him, whilst he was systematically eliminating his political opponents with his secret police. Now, whilst the communists that followed used massively worse techniques including unfair imprisonment, murder, town destruction and virtual genocide of their own people, take a look at democracy in action in russia before them, when 0.1% of the population owned 25% of the land. Is that an example of justice?

The ultimate expression of socialism is anarchism, which existed in a very real way during the red and white civil war in russia in many areas for periods of over a year and worked very well.

communism has never revered the abstractions such as the state, this is a myth, chiefly spread by hollywood films of sneering russians saying in cod-russian accents "Glory to the fatherland"

N.B its true that Russia did have in effect a class of people with more power than the others, the party leaders itself, but lenin was a self confessed tyrant in the name of the people (or so he claimed) and this will always be the problem for communism, it is human nature to want to surpass others

and how can you lay claim to western europe having the worst health care in the world? now Britain, yes, maybe, but unlike america we have a free health service, so even the poorest citizens can pay for their healthcare. whereas North america on the other hand....
Who could say france has a bad health care system and keep a straight face? or germany? Don't make me laugh with your absurd generalisations about europe

and who would your GDP increase really benefit? The homeless hungry or the tycoons who grow fat on the blood of the people?

and I know that it sounds like I'm ranting and raving, but the further left you get the less state centric you get

ever heard of an international war started by anarchists?

Government controlled equality is never equal.State socialism is by no means the only socialist model.

hell is reserved for soicalist and anti-semites
so i want the UN to out law socialism
:!: :!: :!: :arrow: God i soicalist

Message from the Haaregradian Ministry of Pranks and Humour


Greetings Capitalist Swine,

You have been selected for annextion because socialism is the wave of the future. Please prepare for change-over of governments and have your leaders go in to exile in a hole in the ground.

Thank you for your understanding.

actually I agree fully, I believe that state enforced socialism is rarely the best way, especially as IMHO communist states (with the exception of Cuba) tend to lapse into the extreme right wing whilst paying lip service to the left e.g Lenin making divorce easier for women and giving them equal civil and legal rights to men whilst at the same time outlawing political opposistion and executing resistors

The role of government is to protect liberties. It is not to enforce to enforce equality except that which is recognized by the overwhelming majority. Unlike the Socialist bottom feeders who insist that the 51% mob rule/simple majority is the way to run a country, a government is designed to protect citizens' rights, not to redistribute wealth from those who work to those who refuse to lift a finger. This is still a foreign idea to the collectivists who insist that everyone march lock and step to the Socialist call, lest they get caught up in the government's genocide machine.
Socialized medicine is not only a failure, but it's a costly one that tears everyone down to the poverty level. Government schools have only provided us with cattle that will know nothing beyond working in the factories or the service industry. In the eyes of a Socialist, equality is not achieved through the elevation of classes or races by act of individual responsibility, but instead, by ripping everyone down to the same level of abject poverty and malcontented livelihood enforced by their friends in government. If everyone is equally miserable, then all are equal. No thanks, they can keep that failed concept.

So people are "miserable" in say, Canada or anywhere in western Europe because they have nationalized healthcare? I sincerely doubt that. Also, how is that a "failed concept," considering that a nationalized healthcare system exists in basically every post-industralized society outside the U.S.

The thing is, if education is a right then so is healthcare. The two just go together. Supposedly, the American dream is "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (my emphasis added for life). Again, if schooling is a right, so is health coverage. This is something too important to be playing politics on.

The problem with classes, again, is that there is a cycle of poverty. People are born into poor families, don't recieve much of an education, have kids, and it continues, very rarely broken. Will there always be inequality? Unfortunately, but government ought to provide basic services for every citizen such as health coverage to allow people to live some kind of a life.

Bad cirricula doesn't mean that a government school itself is bad, just that the material being taught needs reforming. I'd like to see more courses on, say, international relations myself. People need an education to live, and part of protecting citizens means giving them the basic tools to live.

The problem is, sadly, in the USA there's no left wing. If Bill O'Reilly is considered an "independent," than it shows how much right wing thinking dominates. I'd like to see some more balance myself.

The role of government is to protect liberties. It is not to enforce to enforce equality except that which is recognized by the overwhelming majority. Unlike the Socialist bottom feeders who insist that the 51% mob rule/simple majority is the way to run a country, a government is designed to protect citizens' rights, not to redistribute wealth from those who work to those who refuse to lift a finger. This is still a foreign idea to the collectivists who insist that everyone march lock and step to the Socialist call, lest they get caught up in the government's genocide machine.
Socialized medicine is not only a failure, but it's a costly one that tears everyone down to the poverty level. Government schools have only provided us with cattle that will know nothing beyond working in the factories or the service industry. In the eyes of a Socialist, equality is not achieved through the elevation of classes or races by act of individual responsibility, but instead, by ripping everyone down to the same level of abject poverty and malcontented livelihood enforced by their friends in government. If everyone is equally miserable, then all are equal. No thanks, they can keep that failed concept.

So people are "miserable" in say, Canada or anywhere in western Europe because they have nationalized healthcare? I sincerely doubt that. Also, how is that a "failed concept," considering that a nationalized healthcare system exists in basically every post-industralized society outside the U.S.

The thing is, if education is a right then so is healthcare. The two just go together. Supposedly, the American dream is "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (my emphasis added for life). Again, if schooling is a right, so is health coverage. This is something too important to be playing politics on.

The problem with classes, again, is that there is a cycle of poverty. People are born into poor families, don't recieve much of an education, have kids, and it continues, very rarely broken. Will there always be inequality? Unfortunately, but government ought to provide basic services for every citizen such as health coverage to allow people to live some kind of a life.

Bad cirricula doesn't mean that a government school itself is bad, just that the material being taught needs reforming. I'd like to see more courses on, say, international relations myself. People need an education to live, and part of protecting citizens means giving them the basic tools to live.

The problem is, sadly, in the USA there's no left wing. If Bill O'Reilly is considered an "independent," than it shows how much right wing thinking dominates. I'd like to see some more balance myself.

Santin: "I suppose that would explain why Europe's unemployment rates are near 20%? Or how their healthcare systems are just about the worst in the First World?"

I usually find myself agreeing with you, Santin; however, these statements are well wide of the mark. The healthcare issue has already been addressed by others so I'll leave that. Unemployment - I think 6% would be a more accurate figure, even less in the UK. If it was 20%, we'd be having revolutions...

No state in western Europe is a socialist democracy anyway. They're liberal capitalist states. Scandinavia is a somewhat different matter.

What's eevn more intriguing is why we are all posting on a subject that has had no input since his first more-right wing-than-attila-the-hun post from the author to justify or clarify his statement, and a subject that so clearly should have been locked it's painful. A subject wherein the word "socialist" is misspelled in the very title of the thread. People, whatever our political beliefs I think we can all safely assume that socialists are neither affiliated with ant-semitism nor do they belong in hell, and this will I hope neatly conclude this thread

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has succeeded.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has gladly accepted by the masses.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has resulted in a strong economy.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has benefited its people.

That government is National Socialist Germany.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has succeeded.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has been gladly accepted by the masses.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has resulted in a strong economy.

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has benefited its people.

That government is National Socialist Germany.

"....

There is one government and only one government where Socialism has benefited its people.

That government is National Socialist Germany."

Didn't benefit all its people, did it? Besides, the label 'Socialism' was applied in order to win over the working classes, the Nazis weren't actually socialist.

The Order of Halo, don't troll.

Everyone remember please, that when you see a trolling thread, you report it to the Moderation forum, don't wait for a mod to just 'stumble into' it.