NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't it clear to everybody, even yourselves, that Socialism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work? Doesn't the fall of the Soviet Union and the impending collapse of the semi-Socialist "western democracies" prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the only sound policy is laissez-faire?

Why do socialists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking? Why can't socialists ever face the fact that Socialism can't calculate and therefore can't ever work? Why can't socialists accept the reality that laissez-faire Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"

How's that padded room of yours?

Ranting without any accurate terms or proof, and offline within ten minutes?

Sounds like a great way to start a thread.

Why do socialists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking? Why can't socialists ever face the fact that Socialism can't calculate and therefore can't ever work? Why can't socialists accept the reality that laissez-faire Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"

I can't calculate, does that mean I don't work? :rolleyes: I mean, I really, really suck at math and my calculating skills are lacking at best.

I wish I could follow you around for a day just to see what it's like in this bizarre little world of yours.

puppet trolling too obvious, no?

the fall of socialised systems in western europe is well documented, indeed. the NHS was dismantled last year due to public outcry, and all welfare programs in the EU have been disbanded. yes.

Doesn't the fall of the Soviet Union
Yeah, it collapsed after only 69 years. And we all know that for a nation to be considered as 'working' it has to last at least 70.

the impending collapse of the semi-Socialist "western democracies"
???

Most people like capitalism (like me), we just don't like the idea of working for next-to-nothing and having no healthcare, no job security etc while we are told "FREE MARKET RULEZ!"

Capitalism is a means to an end. Capitalism allows us to earn enough (the means) to enjoy life (the end).

A lasseiz-faire approach to the economy is wrong because... oh never mind. When you stop wanking off to pictures of Ayn Rand, we'll talk. :p

South Libertopia - Can you define Neo-liberalism?

Because socialists are the antithesis of capitalism. Naturally they rant and rave about each other. And the only good kind of argument is one that lacks substance.

???

Every European country descended into welfare-driven anarchy yesterday, didn't you get the memo?

Isn't it clear to everybody, even yourselves, that Socialism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work?
No. Because it totally does in Europe.
Doesn't the fall of the Soviet Union
Russia = total shithole regardless of political ideology.
and the impending collapse of the semi-Socialist "western democracies"
Eh?

The US markets have fallen far more lately than the European ones. I'm not that worried, let's be honest.
prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the only sound policy is laissez-faire?
See interwar US and Europe for how this just isn't true.
Why do socialists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking?
Because it's fun to lie and make things up. Duh.
Why can't socialists ever face the fact that Socialism can't calculate and therefore can't ever work? Why can't socialists accept the reality that laissez-faire Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"
...

Every European country descended into welfare-driven anarchy yesterday, didn't you get the memo?

None of us got it, we were to busy running around shouting "Workers of the world unite." Becuase, as you know, anyone who wants job security and a decent wage is a pinko Commie and should be taken to Lord South Libertopia for re-education. :p

Why do capitalists continue to spew anti-socialist rhetoric?

I mean, I do seriously think that socialism is a bad system, but seriously, there was a lot of use of rhetoric in that small little speech.

Wait! So the UK has fallen into anarchy?!

*goes looting and rioting*

I can't calculate, does that mean I don't work? :rolleyes: I mean, I really, really suck at math and my calculating skills are lacking at best.

I can't calculate either. Guess that's why I have a job as a government accountant... :p

At the risk of taking the OP seriously. The only reason that Socialism fails anywhere is the world is because of the capitalist greed of those running it. You cannot criticise an idea because of a pervasive cancerous influence that breaks it down.
I also think that the OP is confusing socialism with communism.

Socialism is the art of giving to those to whom capitalism seeks to render destitute..

AMK
xxx

I can't calculate either. Guess that's why I have a job as a government accountant... :p

Which explains why govts are always in the red. j/k

Every European country descended into welfare-driven anarchy yesterday, didn't you get the memo?
Get the memo? I wrote the memo.

Wait! So the UK has fallen into anarchy?!

*goes looting and rioting*

Can I join in, i have never rioted or looted properly before, bristol seems to have a great wealth of lootees.

AMK
xxx

Ugh.

At the risk of taking the OP seriously. The only reason that Socialism fails anywhere is the world is because of the capitalist greed of those running it. You cannot criticise an idea because of a pervasive cancerous influence that breaks it down.

Oh really? Ha well I think the only reason capitalism ever fails is because of the insidious, cancerous socialists which eat away at it.

This is fun, we can go all day with this.

At the risk of taking the OP seriously...
Not much chance there.

There is a difference between socialism and communism, western Europe unlike the US generally runs on the basis that the majority should NOT be living under the poverty line to support a ruling minority - it defines what no taxation without representation means.

Ugh.



Oh really? Ha well I think the only reason capitalism ever fails is because of the insidious, cancerous socialists which eat away at it.

This is fun, we can go all day with this.

Lol lets go on all day, i have nothing better to do now im finished my work! lol how sad...

YOu are indeed right, socialist ruin capitalism. However im not seeking to villify the effectiveness of capitalism.

AMK
xxx

Isn't it clear to everybody, even yourselves, that Socialism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work?
No. Believe it or not, people don't advocate something that they don't think will work. Most people, anyway.

Doesn't the fall of the Soviet Union and the impending collapse of the semi-Socialist "western democracies" prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the only sound policy is laissez-faire?
In the same way that the crash of '29 proves the only sound policy is Stalinist state planning.

Why do socialists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking?
Unsubstantiated rhetoric no. 1.

Why can't socialists ever face the fact that Socialism can't calculate and therefore can't ever work?
Unsubstantiated rhetoric no. 2.

Why can't socialists accept the reality that laissez-faire Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"
Three strikes, you're out.

At the risk of taking the OP seriously. The only reason that Socialism fails anywhere is the world is because of the capitalist greed of those running it. You cannot criticise an idea because of a pervasive cancerous influence that breaks it down.
I also think that the OP is confusing socialism with communism.

Socialism is the art of giving to those to whom capitalism seeks to render destitute..

AMK
xxx

The Absolute Truth

Is that really the best you can do?

Who wants to bet that the OP won't come back?

Who wants to bet that the OP won't come back?
Sorry, but under the Communist Regime that we have established on NSG, gambling for profit is now considered an illegal activity. You may, if you wish, compete for the prestige of giving for the benefit of the the illustrious party, but in the end of the day, we will declare a tie and split the reward evenly anyway.

Isn't it clear to everybody, even yourselves, that Socialism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work? Doesn't the fall of the Soviet Union and the impending collapse of the semi-Socialist "western democracies" prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the only sound policy is laissez-faire?

Why do socialists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking? Why can't socialists ever face the fact that Socialism can't calculate and therefore can't ever work? Why can't socialists accept the reality that laissez-faire Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"

Wow, you are totally my hero. Can I be your disciple in trolling?

look up 'kibbutz'.

Wait! So the UK has fallen into anarchy?!

*goes looting and rioting*

HEY! WAIT FOR ME!

Guys...?


Does anyone else understand that capitalism and socialism are not in conflict?

Socialism and Capitalizm, in their purest form, can help a nation that they are within. Although you must realize something about people in general.

Leaders of nations are corrupt.

Sorry, but under the Communist Regime that we have established on NSG, gambling for profit is now considered an illegal activity. You may, if you wish, compete for the prestige of giving for the benefit of the the illustrious party, but in the end of the day, we will declare a tie and split the reward evenly anyway.

Will we buggery, i want all the money! ;-)

Does anyone else understand that capitalism and socialism are not in conflict?
*Takes the bait*

No, I was not aware of this. Would you care to enlighten us?

look up 'kibbutz'.

Right after that, look up government subsidy. No kibbutz that I've ever read about is self-supporting.

In fact, with all the qualifications that I read about how socialism just isn't done right, I wonder if it can _ever_ succeed, given that it needs to satisfy the desires of normal men -- not just the altruistic types we find here at NS.

Isn't it clear to everybody, even yourselves, that laissez-faire doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work? Doesn't the fall of the laissez-faire age and the impending collapse of the semi-laissez-faire states prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the only sound policy is socialism?

Why do laissez-faireists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking? Why can't laissez-faireists ever face the fact that laissez-faire can't calculate and therefore can't ever work? Why can't laissez-faireists accept the reality that Socialism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"

Fixed ;)

Clearly, this thread has failed because of our idiotic socialist nature. I say we get straight to the looting and anarchy, since Western Europe already has a headstart on us.

*Smashes screen, steals BB code, runs*

Right after that, look up government subsidy. No kibbutz that I've ever read about is self-supporting.

In fact, with all the qualifications that I read about how socialism just isn't done right, I wonder if it can _ever_ succeed, given that it needs to satisfy the desires of normal men -- not just the altruistic types we find here at NS.

The Kibbutzim are quite a bit older than the Israeli state. They got along just fine before the establishment of the Israeli state, and would have got along just fine had the Likkud leaders not shamelessly co-opted them.

The only qualification we've been stressing is that socialism cannot be forced on people by a corrupt party-state. In fact, the state is antithetical to socialism, as it is a concentration of power. Socialism seeks to end concentrations of private power, but why should it stop there? Since socialism is precisely democracy in the economy, shouldn't we take democracy to its furthest logical conclusion, anarchy?

The Kibbutzim are quite a bit older than the Israeli state. They got along just fine before the establishment of the Israeli state, and would have got along just fine had the Likkud leaders not shamelessly co-opted them.

The only qualification we've been stressing is that socialism cannot be forced on people by a corrupt party-state. In fact, the state is antithetical to socialism, as it is a concentration of power. Socialism seeks to end concentrations of private power, but why should it stop there? Since socialism is precisely democracy in the economy, shouldn't we take democracy to its furthest logical conclusion, anarchy?


No, thats a ridiculous idea.

Too many opinions, not enough facts, no? :p

Durrhurr I R Debating! Mi Superiar Inelekt Wil Difeet U Al!

What South Libertopia misses out is that socialists all have a far worse enemy than capitalism and its followers.

Other socialists who dont follow the exact brand of socialism on offer ;)

El-presidente Boris

'Where's the popular front?'
'He's sitting over there'
<all> SPLITTER! :D

Ever heard of Scandinavia? Last I heard they were socialist and were the happiest nations on the planet with the lowest crime rates and good ecosystems.

http://weaselhut.net/gw212.jpg

My biggest problems with socialism would have to be free loaders (defined here as people who are perfectly capable of working but CHOOSE not to yet still receive all the benefits such as health care and welfare). I don't believe these people should benefit for nothing and if you disagree with me then we have a disagreement, so just let it go.

My other problem with Socialism would be the idea that I should not be able to get as rich as I possible can. I also have a problem with a graduated tax scheme. In other words if you make $50,000 a year you pay 5% to income taxes if you make $100,000 a year you pay 10%.

Aside from that I really don't have a serious problem with socialism.

My other problem with Socialism would be the idea that I should not be able to get as rich as I possible can. I also have a problem with a graduated tax scheme. In other words if you make $50,000 a year you pay 5% to income taxes if you make $100,000 a year you pay 10%.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, you really don't need any more money. If you manage to hit this mark, a graduated tax scheme won't hurt (and it will help if you don't hit it).

Every single post of this guy is only about how the US is socialist and how we should all be laissez-faire. He's such a one dimensional Troll it's pathetic.

He posted this thread because not enough people were giving a damn about his trollish response.

And you can't caculate laissez-faire either.
After all the market is unpredictable.

Isn't it clear to everybody, even yourselves, that Socialism doesn't work, never has worked, and never will work? Doesn't the fall of the Soviet Union and the impending collapse of the semi-Socialist "western democracies" prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the only sound policy is laissez-faire?

Why do socialists always resort to lies, half-truths, and mythmaking? Why can't socialists ever face the fact that Socialism can't calculate and therefore can't ever work? Why can't socialists accept the reality that laissez-faire Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with progress and that all alternatives are not "progressive," but rather "regressive?"

In the same token: Why do capitalists continue to spew anti-socialist rhetoric?

I also think that the OP is confusing socialism with communism.I don't think so; the Soviet Union certainly wasn't communist.

There is a difference between socialism and communism, western Europe unlike the US generally runs on the basis that the majority should NOT be living under the poverty line to support a ruling minority - it defines what no taxation without representation means.That's just a welfare state.

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/4673/trollfz3.png (http://imageshack.us)

Heh, the ol' Soviet Union might not have been Communist or even socialist, but I think it might have suited me.

I'm a lazy bugger, so the idea of everyone being drunk all the time, luxury goods being unavailable, nobody giving a rat's arse about their work and basically all of known society being mediocre rather appeals to me. Best of all, there'd be no half-educated rich kids trying to blame me for how they're not even richer.

*snip cute homunculus*

So you don't want to play "say daft things which parody your own politics."
So don't play.

No, I was not aware of this. Would you care to enlighten us?

What I think most of you are defining as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are really just aspects of the theories. Capitalism as is discussed here is typically laissez-faire capitalism, while Socialism is discussed here as omnipresent government (at least, this is the impression I get.) Unless you have a command economy or feudalism, every nation has a form of capitalism, just in varying degrees. Conversely, every nation has a degree of socialism; otherwise it cannot govern properly. The only difference is that you prefer a differing mix than others.

What I think most of you are defining as 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are really just aspects of the theories. Capitalism as is discussed here is typically laissez-faire capitalism, while Socialism is discussed here as omnipresent government (at least, this is the impression I get.) Unless you have a command economy or feudalism, every nation has a form of capitalism, just in varying degrees. Conversely, every nation has a degree of socialism; otherwise it cannot govern properly. The only difference is that you prefer a differing mix than others.

The theories, indeed. To the learned, politics seems like a trickled-down, simplified consequence of abstract theories. To the practically-minded, politics is a struggle in which abstract theories are flimsy and unreliable weapons.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: you are wasting your energy posting seriously to a thread which, if it becomes popular, will be plagued throughout by posters replying to the moronic OP. Perhaps you could compose a nice debating point and we could start over?

Was that post directed specifically towards me? Because if it was I will make a thread.

Otherwise, by all means, lets keep on our battle of Capitalists and Socialists. What Pokemon do you choose?

About the fall of socialist states and all that stuff, I have to say: China which is absolutely not falling but progressing, more than practically any country, IS socialist. Scandinavian countries which have the best living conditions in the world are Social Democrats, Social democracy happens to be a form of socialism

Draw your own conclusions and stop saying socialists base their arguments on half truths and so

Was that post directed specifically towards me? Because if it was I will make a thread.

Otherwise, by all means, lets keep on our battle of Capitalists and Socialists. What Pokemon do you choose?

I am extensively ignorant of Pokemons. I think I want the yellow one. ;)

There's no reason we shouldn't mess around. Your definitions of all societies as Capitalists in some degree, and Socialists in some degree was not messing around, it was a genuine insight. I just don't want to see you discouraged, when the swine are not interested in your pearls.

Now, I won't take socialism, for it is too easy. "Human society should be arranged to maximize the number of people who are happy or at least reasonably content" seems plain obvious to me, and I am wary of strong positions, since they are boring to defend, and defeat lies in any direction should one make a sally.

And I won't take capitalism, because it isn't a moral position at all. In fact, it's a dodging of the question "what is the best system" because it defines only the rules and washes its hands of the outcomes (oh, sometimes the libbies make unfounded claims like "we'll all be richer than in any other possible system" but hey, we all like to dream).

So, I'll take Soviet dictatorship, the one-Party system in which all legislative power, ownership of pretty much everything, and artistic, political and moral expression, are all controlled by a monolithic, opt-in oligarchy.

They'd have done fine without the Cold War. Who started the Cold War, then?

It was the Capitalist Socialist Horde of Freethinking Gun-nuts, AKA the U.S of A., who started the stinking cold war. It wasn't even that they had a real beef with the huge sprawling mass of peasants who tried to drag themselves out of monarchial oppression on the tattered coat tails of a german philosopher, it's more that they still had the adrenalin in their system from whupping those Germans. Lots and lots of adrenalin, not enough endorphins. It's the "Haha, who'se next? Bring it on!" stupid phase of a fight, where glory is squandered.

It was the United States and the Soviet Union. Not capitalists, not socialists, not "under God" and not "for all the people." It was two big men, puffed up with the ego of representing millions, it was leaders trying to direct forces beyond their imagination, it was a vast crisis in confidence, a mid-life loss-of-potency crisis, brought about ...

by nuclear weapons. From the moment the first one was detonated, without casualties, it was plain that the planes which could win a war by exterminating the enemy, right there in their homes and markets, could now do it easily. The bombing of German cities, "strategic" bombing, extermination of the industrial base behind an army, including the poor and the powerless, women and children and family pets ... it wasn't a struggle any more. It was the Big Red Button.

The leaders became spokespeople for forces greater than themselves. Perhaps leaders have always been such, but anyway.

Damn, we can't uninvent ANYTHING. This is perhaps the curse of humanity, of our will to learn and master all do-able things. We are unwilling to undo what we have done.

*takes afternoon nap*

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/4673/trollfz3.png (http://imageshack.us)
Just for that I'm going to reply. Let me show you my pokemanz!

Lol, I admit it, I can't calculate very well, just like socialism apparently, at least not without a calculator on hand, does this mean I don't work either?

Also, if your definition of 'socialism' is the policies employed by the Soviet bloc, then you should probably look at the West and you'll see some similarities. The IRS being like the most bloated statist big government monster ever spawned.

Lol, I admit it, I can't calculate very well, just like socialism apparently, at least not without a calculator on hand, does this mean I don't work either?

I had a feeling the OP was directed at someone. It was you, huh?

Also, if your definition of 'socialism' is the policies employed by the Soviet bloc, then you should probably look at the West and you'll see some similarities. The IRS being like the most bloated statist big government monster ever spawned.

The IRS? Inland Revenue Service?
I'd taken you for an Australian up 'til now. We have a Taxation Department, which doesn't need translation.

Bagging the tax collectors is distinctly un-socialist. It's a dirty job, and someone has to do it. Can you blame them for wanting to delegate and spread the blame around, given that their social standing is around about that of a public toilet cleaner?

Dirty jobs should pay the best. They don't, because TANJ. "There ain't no justice."

At the risk of taking the OP seriously. The only reason that Socialism fails anywhere is the world is because of the capitalist greed of those running it. You cannot criticise an idea because of a pervasive cancerous influence that breaks it down.
I also think that the OP is confusing socialism with communism.

Socialism is the art of giving to those to whom capitalism seeks to render destitute..

AMK
xxx

Actually the only difference between libertarianism and socialism is redistribution in a state of 'perfect neo-liberalism' is done voluntarily - through charities rather than through the public sector.

That is the big difference; one side works on the basis that people will still work to their maximum capacity even though with each movement up the ladder, the more they're taxed. The alternative is based on the idea that people will choose to help. The problem is that with Neoliberalism, with the rise of secularism and the me-me-me-me-me attitude which the vast majority of people subscribe to, the whole thing fails.

Its funny, when socialists call for 'helping the poor', they're the least likely to actually donate their money or time to a chariety - the whole "I like spending everyone elses money' syndrome.

Its funny, when socialists call for 'helping the poor', they're the least likely to actually donate their money or time to a chariety - the whole "I like spending everyone elses money' syndrome.
True socialist never whines about taxes...unless they're too low :p

I'd say that "socialism" in its most extreme forms assumes that people will work for the common good, work for the sheer accomplishment of the aim of that work, and work because work makes one a worker, and thereby a valuable member of society.

The extremes of individualism (neo-librararianism, or whatever it's called, haven't read their lit) seem to be pushing the same idea, but abstracted one stage by "earning." Earning lots of money is inherently good, all people will do it if given the chance, and the contribution of an individual to society is measured by how much they earn.

I say they are both mad. What the hell is wrong with surfing all day and getting drunk from a fermented coconut you found washed up on the beach? Society can go hang ...

And governments agree. Cynics may claim that welfare is vote-buying, but as a long-term beneficiary of welfare, I beg to disagree.

"Be more like that surfie guy, and get some of that free coconut action" they are saying. "Get out of our hair with your pesky tax returns, we don't need any part of your pathetic pittance from the real rulers of the world, we just need enough to keep the limo fueled up and the free booze in our place of work."

Harold Holt. Australian Prime Minister ... went surfing, never came back. 'Nuff said.

I'd say that "socialism" in its most extreme forms assumes that people will work for the common good, work for the sheer accomplishment of the aim of that work, and work because work makes one a worker, and thereby a valuable member of society.

The extremes of individualism (neo-librararianism, or whatever it's called, haven't read their lit) seem to be pushing the same idea, but abstracted one stage by "earning." Earning lots of money is inherently good, all people will do it if given the chance, and the contribution of an individual to society is measured by how much they earn.

I say they are both mad. What the hell is wrong with surfing all day and getting drunk from a fermented coconut you found washed up on the beach? Society can go hang ...
If I was going to differentiate between socialism and librarianism ( I like that, but we're really talking about libertarianism, right?) I'd say that socialism counts on humanity to be it's best, while the librarians realize that humans are flawed and will always make choices that will represent self-interest.

If I was going to differentiate between socialism and librarianism ( I like that, but we're really talking about libertarianism, right?) I'd say that socialism counts on humanity to be it's best, while the librarians realize that humans are flawed and will always make choices that will represent self-interest.

Don't be too nice to me. I am hell on my friends.

Yes. "Always making choices that represent self interest" isn't a flaw, though. If that was human nature, in total, it would be simple to design a society that pleased us all as much as possible, and displeased as few of us as possible.

"Socialism" is an incredibly wide field. I like to think of it as "a system which values society above the individual" and I admit that that is an anti-democratic model. Individuals (voters or their representatives) are simply incompetent to make decisions for society as a whole, since they are individuals. However well-intentioned or well-informed they may be, they simply cannot make decisions in the best interests of society, because they are not themselves a society, an impersonal process and habitat of individuals. The best they can do is build a model of society in their minds, project political decisions onto that model, and then judge yea or nay for that political decision.

That is what we expect of our politicians, and it is no surprise that they fail again and again. For one thing, no two of us define "society" quite the same way, then there is the question of what is a "social good."

Others define "socialism" differently. And Libertarianism I will leave entirely alone, since the recommended sources I have tried to read made the hair on the back of my neck stand up in the first few paragraphs.

EDIT: Though I did read two Ayn Rand novels in my youth: Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I found them ripping yarns, and was quite surprised to find that people considered her a philosopher. I thought they were science fiction. No smilie. I thought they were science fiction, but kind of light on science.