Spew All About Politics Here

[emprworm]

but then you have all the socialist-created problems.

[Anathema]

Communism is plain bad- socialism may be debated, but communism doesn't work, or at least not the way it is now.

[emprworm]

socialism is plain bad also.

[Anathema]

Depends on your defenition of socialism. Socialism as you see it is bad, but there are modern socialists that do not oppose private property.

[emprworm]

you have no examples of this "modern socialism" so as diligent scientists, we must judge it by all historical attempts to implement it, which results in complete failure. It is a failed system of government, flawed in its fundamental philosophy. ANd socialism that allows for private property is a farse. Like a man in prison who "owns" a few things here and there (like his shoes or his ciggarrets he buys). Its an illusion and a deception, because he really owns NOTHING. You claim socialism allows for true private property and freedom? All lies. Show me an example, then I might be willing to believe you.

[Anathema]

The quote below has beenp posted before by me (but apparently you never bothered reading it). There are different forms of socialism.

(taken from Elseviers Visum encyclopedia (Dutch))

Socialism- movement that strifes towards a structure of society in wich labour has a central position and in wich there are equal chances for everyone.

...

important stadia in socialism were: utopism, marxism and plan-socialsm.

...

Under utopism we understand pre-marxist socialism.

...

The so called scientific socialism or marxism of Marx distingishes itself from utopian socialism by that it doesn't just sound a moral message but also believed socialism would come inevitably.

...

The modern socialism, also called plan-socialism, strifes on social-economical area to a mingled manner of production, based on differentiated property forms, in wich the leadership of the economy lies with the government and is aimed towards creation of full employment and of a reasonable life standard.

Since you refuse to aknowledge that socialism does not necessarily forbid private property, I will say that your society in the US is not capitalism.

Capitalism is a system in where the companies can do whatever they want, and in wich people are responsible for themselves. Your country has (limited) social security, the government interferes with the economy with occasional financial aid, and therefore is not strictly a capitalist society.

[emprworm]

socialism is bad like communism. unless you give me one example of socialism that worked, we will assume otherwise.

And, any form of socialism that claims to support private property is a deception. Show me one example or describe how it could exist, otherwise, such claims are lies.

[Anathema]

I never claimed that it has ever been put into practice, I pointed out there isn't just one socialism.

[emprworm]

there is no such thing as private property in socialism. never has, never will

[Anathema]

Whatever. If you want to stay a stubborn capitalist zealot, fine.

In capitalism there is no social security. Never has, never will.

There.

[emprworm]

but you can be proven wrong. i have a social security card and a social security number. Social security actually exists. Your fairy tale brand of socialism does not.

[Anathema]

Social security does exist- but does capitalism with social security exist?

If your answer is yes, then you admit your form of capitalism isn't the same it was 100 years ago. Nor is socialism the same as it was 100 years ago.

And no, no country as of yet follows modern socialism. I never claimed that.

[emprworm]

our form of capitalism isnt exactly the same, but the philosophy IS exactly the same. The philosphy of capitalism will never change.

You are trying to say that the philosophy of socialism has changed.

false.

[Anathema]

our form of capitalism isnt exactly the same, but the philosophy IS exactly the same. The philosphy of capitalism will never change.

You are trying to say that the philosophy of socialism has changed.

false.

The philosofy of socialism is to protect the socially weak and ideally ensure equal chances for everyone. You are not a socialist and thus have no rights to ascribe any properties to socialism.

[emprworm]

the fundamental philosophy of socialism is not soley to protect the weak, but to redistribute in order to acheive that means. If the socialism only was to protect the weak, then any dictator, any capitalist, any form of government that protected the weak would be socialism. lol, thats crazy. learn about socialism, then we speak. socialism cannot exist without redistribution

[Anathema]

If you say there are no socialists that share my view, you are false.

Your government provides limited protection to the socialist weak- a thing that does not fit into capitalist philosophy, because capitalism is based on individual resposibility.

[emprworm]

socialism contains redistribution.

redistribution means government owns all wealth, lets it cannot redistribute.

Government owning wealth means private property really doesn't exist.

any government that claims to accept private property and claims to be socialism- If it believes in redistribution of wealth, it is a lie and a deception.

If it claims to be socialism and does NOT redistribute, then it is not socialism at all.

[Anathema]

Capitalism contains individual responsibility.

Individual responsibility means individuals controll their own fate.

Controlling your own fate means no help form others.

Any society that claims to help its people and claims to be capitalist, is a lie and a deception.

If it claims to be capitalism and does NOT let everybody take care of himself, then it is not capitalism at all.

[emprworm]

if you want to say the US is socialism, then fine, i dont care. but since you hate the US government so much, that must mean you really hate socialism.

problem really is that you dont know what either of the 2 are.

no example of socialism you cited does not redistribute. ALl socialism redistributes. I think you are confused and are really not sure what you want.

[Anathema]

Quote me a text that elaborates all types of socialism, and states they all promote collective property, and I'll give in.

But I'm not supporting the idea behind capitalism. It does not match the society of the US (nor does your defenition of society).

If you manage to prove all socialism types promote full redistribution, I'll admit I'm not a socialist. But I don't support capitalism either.

if you want to say the US is socialism, then fine, i dont care. but since you hate the US government so much, that must mean you really hate socialism.

That is a rahter awkward type of logic. Let's see here:

Sadam Hussein is a human being

You hate Sadam Hussein

So you hate human beings.

[DukeLeto]

Communism is plain bad- socialism may be debated, but communism doesn't work, or at least not the way it is now.

Well, actually, Communism is NOT bad in theory. Communism is twisted by the Stalins and Castros of the world. It isn't actually "state owns all", it's "everything is divided equally among the people". But, like I said, you have PURE (good) communism, and Marxist (modern) communism. The problem arises when you have a dictatorship, as this almost asures the rise of Marxist communism.

[Dude_Doc]

Yeah, the idea behind communism is good, but when the system is set into motion, well, we get another Soviet Union. Also, communism means that everyone, INCLUDING leaders, must share everything. This would actually be good, but unfortunately, people want their privacy, and modern communism does not really allow that.

"Sadam Hussein is a human being

You hate Sadam Hussein

So you hate human beings." -Earthnuker

Hmm, I don't agree with that. It would be like: Hitler was a human being, You hate Hitler, So you hate human beings".

[Anathema]

I don't agree to that kind of logic either, I was pointing out Emps logic was wrong.

[nemafakei]

"you have no examples of this "modern socialism" so as diligent scientists, we must judge it by all historical attempts to implement it, which results in complete failure"

Earthnuker, have you been saying that if a new form of socialism was suggested that was different from previous practice to account for mistakes made earlier, you would STILL judge it by the merits and failures of the older system? That's what you sound like.

"It is a failed system of government, flawed in its fundamental philosophy"

This is a more logical stance, but at least try to prove it, without simply asserting the concetpt of rights.

"Communism is twisted by the Stalins and Castros of the world"

This, I agree with totally

(No, I'm not a socialist or communist)

By the way, you have accused my system of not being 'free'. What exactly do you mean by 'free'? And why is my system not 'free'?

[Dude_Doc]

I think America is the closest to freedom...