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.
Socialism was successful for 10's of thousands of years prior to the emergence of mercantile exchanges of goods and services. Even today there are remnants of ancient totally socialist societies.
It is an economic system whereby the means of production is owned and controlled by those that produce.....common ownership of the means of production. The objective of socialism is the greatest economic good of the greatest number. Those that produce have a greater share of what they produce.
Just so you know the difference...
Communism is state capitalism, in which the means of production are owned and controlled by 'the state'. Goods are produced for 'the state' and then distributed by 'the state' according to ones needs.
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? Can someone give me examples of successful socialist countries that have lasted for the LONG TERM and/or will likely last for the LONG TERM? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
Enlighten me.
Socialism has never produced anything. Just like rioting and mobs don't produce anything.
Governments should govern. They should not create divisions. They should not establish collective rights. But since the sixties, Americans have been dividing themselves into collective groups. Now we have 'the poor'. Remember when people used to come to America with nothing in their pockets? They were the poor. But then America was seen as a land of opportunity. The government wasn't concerned about them being poor or income inequality. Now the government is supposed to be concerned with 'the poor.'
Socialism has never produced anything. Just like rioting and mobs don't produce anything.
Governments should govern. They should not create divisions. They should not establish collective rights. But since the sixties, Americans have been dividing themselves into collective groups. Now we have 'the poor'. Remember when people used to come to America with nothing in their pockets? They were the poor. But then America was seen as a land of opportunity. The government wasn't concerned about them being poor or income inequality. Now the government is supposed to be concerned with 'the poor.'
Is America still the land of opportunity?
If you check the history books, those immigrants were highly exploited. That was the second highest rate of income and wealth inequality in history -- the first being the time we live in now.
A few decades later, due to the New Deal, unionism, liberal social programs and high taxes on wealth, these people joined the middle class. We as a country are now undoing these programs and are experiencing a shrinking middle-class.
Nobody has explained why people who buy and trade stocks, holding them for seconds or minutes, produce nothing useful for society and why these people are getting the lion's share of the nation's income.
If you check the history books, those immigrants were highly exploited. That was the second highest rate of income and wealth inequality in history -- the first being the time we live in now.
A few decades later, due to the New Deal, unionism, liberal social programs and high taxes on wealth, these people joined the middle class. We as a country are now undoing these programs and are experiencing a shrinking middle-class.
Nobody has explained why people who buy and trade stocks, holding them for seconds or minutes, produce nothing useful for society and why these people are getting the lion's share of the nation's income.
Whether they were exploited or not is irrelevant. The fact is they came here poor. America was the land of opportunity. Some became rich. Sure there were sweatshops, and unsafe working conditions, but 'the poor' didn't complain about the rich getting rich. That's something new. Complaining about income inequality is bogus. It's just greed.
Complaining about income inequality is bogus. It's just greed.
Actually no. I would say that most of the wealth in America belonging to the top 1% of America is greed. Especially since most of that wealth is tax payer money and the result of crooked politicians.
Also, socialism has never truly been explored. It's always been mixed in with another system and those systems are usually controlled by tyrannical government.
Someone mentioned China earlier, and I'd have to say that the Chinese system is the best I can think of as well. In modern times, if people in China were granted more social freedoms and individual rights it would be the most popular place to live on earth. The majority of the population went from being impoverished to owning MacBooks and iPhones.
...
Sure there were sweatshops, and unsafe working conditions, but 'the poor' didn't complain about the rich getting rich. That's something new. Complaining about income inequality is bogus. It's just greed.
Complain about the rich getting rich is something new? Perhaps you missed the labor movement and populist movements of the 1930s. To state that nobody complained about this inequality is true denial. I need only quote Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1936 Speech at the 1936 Democratic convention to disprove your assertion:
Quote:
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? Can someone give me examples of successful socialist countries that have lasted for the LONG TERM and/or will likely last for the LONG TERM? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
Enlighten me.
Scandanavian countries have done quite well under it. Norway's economy grew in 2009 while ours was sinking, and it's growing now. They also come out in all the polls with better living standards than we do. Note that Norway is not a Communist country, but one that combines aspects of capitalism and socialism. They recognize that each on its own has drawbacks that have to be balanced against each other. Oh, and by the way, the setup of their economies and societies has nothing to do with any OWS protester.
Other "socialist" countries in Europe are in trouble, largely because their EU concept was not well thought out. But clearly, America - which is not so "socialist" - isn't very successful these days, either.
If you check the history books, those immigrants were highly exploited. That was the second highest rate of income and wealth inequality in history -- the first being the time we live in now.
A few decades later, due to the New Deal, unionism, liberal social programs and high taxes on wealth, these people joined the middle class. We as a country are now undoing these programs and are experiencing a shrinking middle-class.
Nobody has explained why people who buy and trade stocks, holding them for seconds or minutes, produce nothing useful for society and why these people are getting the lion's share of the nation's income.
Too many social programs created in good times with borrowed money. You can't continue doing that. It's an illusion of wealth. Sooner or later you have to pay for your spending.
You can't fault the rich anymore. Can you?
As for the market, I agree some people are using the market to get rich. But the problem is the government lets them print shares for themselves. Calling it a bonus. Yeah. It would be nice if we could all print shares for ourselves and then sell those shares to the rest of the public. It's like printing money. I do think somebody should say something. But it's like nobody can see.
If the market was more honest, then maybe more people would invest in companies to actually share in the company's profits.
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.
