TOTALLY GEEKED!

Ohfour wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Capitalism is a system based solely on exploitation whether it be the exploitation of the natural environment or of one another and as such it is ultimately unsustainable and creates an oppressed society under the cultural (or political) tyranny of the elite few and thus has created many of the ills of our society; socialism to the contrary works to eliminate this exploitation.
Socialism takes the ownership, responsibility, and benefits of resources and the means of productions out of the hands of the elite few and puts them under the collective hands of the people. Contrary to popular belief, this actually increases the quality of goods produced, etc. After all, are you going to work harder to produce a better product or service to make someone else rich or for your own company of which you have a vested interest? With socialism the workers themselves own the companies, resources, and means of productions so they have a very real connection and vested interest in the well being of said companies, etc.
Socialism creates community values. Socialism reinforces the idea that "we are all in this together" instead of each man fending for himself at any cost. This tends to have positive social benefits while equally distributing the work load.
Socialism creates an egalitarian society.
Socialism allows workers to reap the full benefits of their own efforts and ends the institutionalized robbery of the very workers who are producing the wealth in the first place.
Socialism, when done right, raises the standard of living for the entire nation as a whole.
Socialism would free workers from wage slavery.
Socialism would raise the level of education and health services and make them available for all citizens thereby raising the over all quality of life for the entire nation.
Under socialism need would drive production not profit which means those services and goods which were most needed but which yield little profit in the past would now be available including life saving medicines, new technologies, and better food sources.
Socialism would end the monopolies and tyrannies of mega-corporations.
Socialism would end poverty.
Socialism would result in healthier citizens by increasing the access to healthy food, better nutrition, and healthy lifestyle not available or encouraged under a capitalist regime.
Socialism creates a sustainable society that can build and flourish both for the current generation as well as those to come, unlike capitalism which is designed to ultimately fail.

---

 That is patently false--and has been proven false over and over again by EVERY society that has tried socialism.

The HIGHEST standards of living in the world are in CAPITALIST nations.  Socialist nations have among the lowest.

The same can be said of education and even poverty. Socialist nations have FAR higher levels of poverty than those in capitalist nations. 

I don't know where you get your nonsense, but it is factually and historically false. 

---

 I enjoy your insistence that things you don't like or don't understand are 'patently false'.  Without adding any actual data from a reliable source.  

---

 LOL!!!  The reliable source is the HISTORY of the world--something which, apparently, you are not well versed in. 

EVERYTHING I posted is verifiable fact.  YOU are the one who cannot refute any of what I posted. 

---

 There is a plethora of information just in this thread that takes away your "verifiable" argument.  You just have to keep arguing your own (incorrect and xenophobic) perspective.  Likely with the hopes that people will get bored of pointing out your inability to recognize your own fallacies and stop arguing with you.  

---

 No, there is not.   Everything I have posted is factually correct.  You have posted nothing to refute anything I've posted--because you can't.

---

 Sorry Husker.  You're right.  Everything that you think is factually correct.  Even though you can see no farther than your immediate experience and warped beliefs.  Sorry.  Just keep arguing until everyone gives up.

---

You are the only one arguing.  The rest of us agree with him.  Learned it in elementary Social Studies... 

---

 Actually, I'm not the only one pointing out differences.  And, you learned it in an American social studies class . . . where the curricula and information is designed to make the way that the country operates sound like the best.  I'm guessing that countries who have different political/social/financial approaches have textbooks whose facts suggest that their way is the best.  *shrug*

This is why I suggest that having a point of view alternate to your own is important.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Well, my degrees are in history and political science. And I agree with Husker.

---

 Political science and Psychology.  But that's cool.  You know more than me and nobody should EVER use differing information.  I get it.  

apple wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Capitalism is not evil or exploitative. Monopolies can be, which is where the FTC comes in....

---

 Perhaps Capitalism invites monopolies. Just a thought.

---

 Or perhaps it's the natural result of success.  Still, there are laws to break them up when they get too big.  Capitalism is policed.  

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

I still haven't heard where all these fantastical Socialist countries are located. Also are people sneaking over the border just to get there like they do into the Capitalist countries?

---

 Capitalist countries (like the USA) have weaker border control?

---

 So where are these great Socialist countries that are supposed to be better than the Capitalist countries? There are none and anyone who thinks Socialism is a good thing should move to one and find out how much you hate paying for losers to just sit on their asses and wait for their hand outs...

---

 Ummm...I work in a CAPITALIST country & I pay for "losers to sit on their asses & wait for their hand outs."

flan

Tinydancer wrote:

---

So again I ask. Where are all these fantastic Socialist countries and why isn't everyone trying to move there?

---

 Tig already told you.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

So again I ask. Where are all these fantastic Socialist countries and why isn't everyone trying to move there?

---

 Tig already told you.

flan

---

 No. No she didn't.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Here's a list, per wikipedia. As indicated, the majority of socialist states have been marxist-leninist states, on the road to communism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

---

 There's a whole lot more "former" than "current" on that list. 

---

And the former lasted a few decades at most.  Not one hit the century mark.   

apple wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

As I said. They haven't actually named a single Socialist country. Just countries with Socialist leanings.

---

 That is what I have said all along, Canada is not a Socialist Country. We do however have some socialist styles of government.

I would have thought that was obvious, yes we do have government administered services rather than privately owned services. We are also Capitalistic in that we have democratic freedom.

 

 

---

 Then why are you touting Canada as a shining example of socialist success when it is not a socialist country.

Social programs and socialism are NOT the same thing.

apple wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

As I said. They haven't actually named a single Socialist country. Just countries with Socialist leanings.

---

 That is what I have said all along, Canada is not a Socialist Country. We do however have some socialist styles of government.

I would have thought that was obvious, yes we do have government administered services rather than privately owned services. We are also Capitalistic in that we have democratic freedom.

 

 

---

 Then why are you touting Canada as a shining example of socialist success when it is not a socialist country.

Social programs and socialism are NOT the same thing.

---

 Personally, all I was saying is that there is nothing wrong with socialist style programs. 

 

---

 No, you werent.  You posted a LONG diatribe about how socialist societies/nations were more successful than capitalist ones when that is blatantly untrue.  Do I need to quote that nonsense AGAIN?

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

As I said. They haven't actually named a single Socialist country. Just countries with Socialist leanings.

---

 That is what I have said all along, Canada is not a Socialist Country. We do however have some socialist styles of government.

I would have thought that was obvious, yes we do have government administered services rather than privately owned services. We are also Capitalistic in that we have democratic freedom.

 

 

---

 Then why are you touting Canada as a shining example of socialist success when it is not a socialist country.

Social programs and socialism are NOT the same thing.

---

 Personally, all I was saying is that there is nothing wrong with socialist style programs. 

 

---

 No, you werent.  You posted a LONG diatribe about how socialist societies/nations were more successful than capitalist ones when that is blatantly untrue.  Do I need to quote that nonsense AGAIN?

---

 Because I do believe that socialist styles of government work. That doesn't mean I want every country to be socialist. I think it far better to be able to look at other countries and see what they might be doing right rather than having a closed mind and being fearful of differences.

Tignanello wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Tignanello wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

---

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

---

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

---

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

---

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

---

 No.  You have criminalized hate speech.

apple wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

As I said. They haven't actually named a single Socialist country. Just countries with Socialist leanings.

---

 That is what I have said all along, Canada is not a Socialist Country. We do however have some socialist styles of government.

I would have thought that was obvious, yes we do have government administered services rather than privately owned services. We are also Capitalistic in that we have democratic freedom.

 

 

---

 Then why are you touting Canada as a shining example of socialist success when it is not a socialist country.

Social programs and socialism are NOT the same thing.

---

 Personally, all I was saying is that there is nothing wrong with socialist style programs. 

 

---

 No, you werent.  You posted a LONG diatribe about how socialist societies/nations were more successful than capitalist ones when that is blatantly untrue.  Do I need to quote that nonsense AGAIN?

---

 Because I do believe that socialist styles of government work. That doesn't mean I want every country to be socialist. I think it far better to be able to look at other countries and see what they might be doing right rather than having a closed mind and being fearful of differences.

 

---

flan

apple wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

As I said. They haven't actually named a single Socialist country. Just countries with Socialist leanings.

---

 That is what I have said all along, Canada is not a Socialist Country. We do however have some socialist styles of government.

I would have thought that was obvious, yes we do have government administered services rather than privately owned services. We are also Capitalistic in that we have democratic freedom.

 

 

---

 Then why are you touting Canada as a shining example of socialist success when it is not a socialist country.

Social programs and socialism are NOT the same thing.

---

 Personally, all I was saying is that there is nothing wrong with socialist style programs. 

 

---

 No, you werent.  You posted a LONG diatribe about how socialist societies/nations were more successful than capitalist ones when that is blatantly untrue.  Do I need to quote that nonsense AGAIN?

---

 Because I do believe that socialist styles of government work. That doesn't mean I want every country to be socialist. I think it far better to be able to look at other countries and see what they might be doing right rather than having a closed mind and being fearful of differences.

 

---

 We have.  And history disagrees with you.  Socialist countries fail.  

apple wrote:

---

Socialism has been most widely implemented along with democracy as a counterbalance to capitalism in a "Mixed economy."

With the exception of China, nearly all of the largest economies around the globe represent some formula of mixed economy. In the U.S., for example, we have "social ownership of the means of production" - i.e. all the factors of production like labor, intellectual capital, production capital, natural resources and so on are collectively owned/funded by all U.S. citizens - in the case of the Postal Service, U.S. Military, FBI, Social Security, Medicare, National Parks, BLM and so on, and "cooperative management of the economy" with respect to the Federal Reserve System and other federal regulatory agencies (SEC, FDA, EPA, FAA, FCC, FDIC, FTC, ICC, EEOC, etc). This is the "socialist" side of the U.S. mixed economy.


www.quora.com/Is-it-fair-to-say-that-socialism-as-a-system-has-always-failed-when-it-was-implemented

---

 When the socialist programs begin to outweigh the economic policies of capitalism, the country will start to fail.  You cannot have half the people working to support the other half - you will get a revolt.  And as for the corruption issue - our governments are run by flawed people, there is no way to remove that component, you can only limit it.  And when those in power are corrupt and willing to BUY votes with more and more social programs handing out "free" stuff, the end will only come that much sooner.  If America fails, it will not be because of capitalism, it will be because the balance between capitalism and socialism went too far left. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

apple wrote:

---

Socialism has been most widely implemented along with democracy as a counterbalance to capitalism in a "Mixed economy."

With the exception of China, nearly all of the largest economies around the globe represent some formula of mixed economy. In the U.S., for example, we have "social ownership of the means of production" - i.e. all the factors of production like labor, intellectual capital, production capital, natural resources and so on are collectively owned/funded by all U.S. citizens - in the case of the Postal Service, U.S. Military, FBI, Social Security, Medicare, National Parks, BLM and so on, and "cooperative management of the economy" with respect to the Federal Reserve System and other federal regulatory agencies (SEC, FDA, EPA, FAA, FCC, FDIC, FTC, ICC, EEOC, etc). This is the "socialist" side of the U.S. mixed economy.


www.quora.com/Is-it-fair-to-say-that-socialism-as-a-system-has-always-failed-when-it-was-implemented

---

 When the socialist programs begin to outweigh the economic policies of capitalism, the country will start to fail.  You cannot have half the people working to support the other half - you will get a revolt.  And as for the corruption issue - our governments are run by flawed people, there is no way to remove that component, you can only limit it.  And when those in power are corrupt and willing to BUY votes with more and more social programs handing out "free" stuff, the end will only come that much sooner.  If America fails, it will not be because of capitalism, it will be because the balance between capitalism and socialism went too far left. 

---

 I don't believe you can have success as a country when the corporations are basically running the country.