Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Each according to his ability, each according to his need. Isn't that what socialists are arguing for every single day? Health care? UBI? Education (for some)? Housing? There is no differentiation between skilled and unskilled labor. The fry-cook, the electrician, and the physician assistant ... they are all equal regardless of the natural talents and abilities required within their respective professions. Hell, there is no differentiation between those who work and those who don't. Socialists believe they are entitled to the necessities and niceties of life regardless of whether or not they make any contributions, expend any effort, or demonstrate any merit whatsoever. Their existence is their contribution to society.
But who lives in the big houses? Who gets the best of what life has to offer? The bureaucrats and those they favor of course. It's not the entrepreneurs nor the innovators. It's not the inventors, not the risk-takers, and certainly not the dissenters of the regime in power. It's your betters. The same people who call themselves "elite" in the here and now. You want these people to determine the course of your life?
And leftists li(v)e to hold up those countries that appear to have blended socialism and capitalism to create a happy population. They go on endlessly about their happiness indices, and their increased lifespans, and all manner of socialist marketing tools designed to get you to slowly relinquish your freedoms for the perceived security of a collective. But how secure are they really? And how happy are they really? Their collectives are underwritten by capitalism. Let those sweet, sweet profits dry up and then what? Venezuela? Worse? Socialism abhors capitalism, but it is a dried up corpse without it.
Remember, the goal of socialism is communism. And the goal of leftists is to obfuscate socialism so that you forget the first point.
You miss the forest for the trees. They are both useless without the other and pure idealouges of either sort are dangerous. We've tried laissez faire caplitalism and it led to the robber barons, company towns and Sinclair Lewis exposing the corruption and inequity. Similarly, attempts at pure communism/socialism fail with autocrats and inequity.
You miss the forest for the trees. They are both useless without the other and pure idealouges of either sort are dangerous. We've tried laissez faire caplitalism and it led to the robber barons, company towns and Sinclair Lewis exposing the corruption and inequity. Similarly, attempts at pure communism/socialism fail with autocrats and inequity.
I didn't miss squat. Everything in my post _IS_ true. We tried communism/socialism and it led to hundreds of millions of dead people. And don't act like there is no crime, and even organized crime, or corruption in a socialist system.
Inequality is a feature in a prosperous society. Equality is slavery for some and aggrandizement for others since we are all inherently unequal.
I didn't miss squat. Everything in my post _IS_ true. We tried communism/socialism and it led to hundreds of millions of dead people. And don't act like there is no crime, and even organized crime, or corruption in a socialist system.
Inequality is a feature in a prosperous society. Equality is slavery for some and aggrandizement for others since we are all inherently unequal.
Socialism forces much if not most of the economy UNDERGROUND, where rival gangs then fight over the spoils. Everyone loses except the elite few.
You miss the forest for the trees. They are both useless without the other and pure idealouges of either sort are dangerous. We've tried laissez faire caplitalism and it led to the robber barons, company towns and Sinclair Lewis exposing the corruption and inequity. Similarly, attempts at pure communism/socialism fail with autocrats and inequity.
"business leaders in the United States from about 1865 to 1900 were, on the whole, a set of avaricious rascals who habitually cheated and robbed investors and consumers, corrupted government, fought ruthlessly among themselves, and in general carried on predatory activities comparable to those of the robber barons of medieval Europe."
I didn't miss squat. Everything in my post _IS_ true. We tried communism/socialism and it led to hundreds of millions of dead people. And don't act like there is no crime, and even organized crime, or corruption in a socialist system.
Inequality is a feature in a prosperous society. Equality is slavery for some and aggrandizement for others since we are all inherently unequal.
Inequity in results is to be expected and is fine. Inequity in opportunity is a whole 'nother matter.
I in no way want to live in a communist or socialist system. It's just that some of those ideas, mixed in with a much larger percentage of capitalist ideas, makes a workable system in the long term. Neither one left in a pure state will work. People and their avarice see to that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
