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.
They socialized everything, yet can't afford to buy anything.
Venezuela has a huge corruption problem. A lot of the petrodollars coming in are "lost".
Corruption seems to be one of the big problems typical of socialist systems. Not sure why that is. Maybe some people are simply bored when they are doing OK and everyone else as well. So they try to surpass others, human nature at work...
Seriously.... Why are Americans so Anti-Socialised? Reading on this forum I am speechless.
They hate government restriction, hate labor law protecting workers, and so pro corporates. Are people brainwashed or whats going on?
Take a look at Germany as an example... Socialized nation with lower unemployment rate than us, higher quality of life, much less or no poverty, and largest economy in Europe. They have 82 million people, still a lot.
First of all, Germany isn't socialist.
Onto the broader point, pure socialism is a self-defeating form of society. When nobody is required to put any effort into obtaining things such as food, clothing, and luxuries, you will eventually end up with a society where nobody puts any effort into anything, and the productivity of that society will slowly fade to oblivion.
That type of infrastructure is not generally considered to be a social program, so it is not socialism.
Socialism and government are not exactly the same things. Although socialism does require government.
Classical liberalism views the legitimate functions of government to be the courts, the military, the police, fire protection and other emergency services, basic infrastructure like roads, and significant portion would include K-12 education as well.
The problem is several posters on this thread (mostly left-wingers) are confusing government with socialism which are not the same things. Also, just because a country has some socialistic programs such as universal healthcare or publicly funded university education that does not mean that they are social countries. That is why all the pro-socialism people are using Canada, Germany, and so on as successful examples of socialism. But those countries aren't that far to the Left of the USA. Try Venezuela or Cuba or Laos for a better example.
I am sure most Americans probably couldn't tell you the major differences between Italian Fascism, Nazism, and Hungarian Fascism. That doesn't mean they are wrong about Fascism.
Fascism is socialistic, but it is a type of non-Marxist socialism.
I find it funny there are several Lefties who always claim that Fascism is the opposite of socialism. They also will gleefully point to a number of socialist programs in the US and other developed nations, but ignore that Nazi Germany had a large number of similar socialist programs, but the Nazis weren't socialist because that would be inconvenient.
I find it funny there are several Lefties who always claim that Fascism is the opposite of socialism. They also will gleefully point to a number of socialist programs in the US and other developed nations, but ignore that Nazi Germany had a large number of similar socialist programs, but the Nazis weren't socialist because that would be inconvenient.
Yup, NAZI - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party).
Yup, NAZI - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party).
It was not really a socialist party. It is certainly no coincidence that the Nazis persecuted communists and sent them to concentration camps, the communist party was declared illegal.
In Germany Nazis and Neonazis are considered and called right-wing extremists, not left-wing extremists.
Classical liberalism views the legitimate functions of government to be the courts, the military, the police, fire protection and other emergency services, basic infrastructure like roads, and significant portion would include K-12 education as well.
I disagree.
"Classical" liberalism (18th century) supported ideas such as free and fair elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.
If we pare back government to that which is defined in the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:
1. Secure rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.
Those who do not consent to be governed, are still secured by the servant government's prosecution of deliberate or accidental injury on their behalf.
The "Progressives" (Collectivists) of the late 19th century pushed for the government take over of the infrastructure and services - an enlargement over the original delegation of power - as well as an excuse to demand ever more taxes. And the push for compulsory public funded education was a boon to those who wanted to indoctrinate the young and eradicate the memory of the republican form of government (no connection with the partisan Republican party).
Not 1 in 100,000 Americans know of or can accurately define the republican form of government, despite it being promised in Art.4, Sec. 4, USCON.
(It's not a "republic"....)
But if they wish to inflict a socialist democratic form of government (chattel slavery to the Collective) a knowledgeable people cannot be tolerated. Which may explain why despite prodigious expenditures per pupil, the performance of government funded education is incrementally declining. It should be obvious that declining performance was their goal from the very beginning.
It was not really a socialist party. It is certainly no coincidence that the Nazis persecuted communists and sent them to concentration camps, the communist party was declared illegal.
Not a coincidence at all. Socialists (and their kissing cousins Communists) hate competition. The people pusing their various big-govt agendas knew they could never coexist, and neither had compromise as any part of their plans. It was a fight to the death, from the very beginning, just as the conflict between U.S. socialist Democrats and conservatives, brooks no consideration of compromise (a fact some Republicans seem unaware of).
Quote:
In Germany Nazis and Neonazis are considered and called right-wing extremists, not left-wing extremists.
Falsely. The Nazis of 1930-1945 were big-govt totalitarians, just as communists aof the day were. The fringes had different flavors and mothods, but the ultimate outcome was similar for both. All of them were as "Left" as major leftist parties are today, if not more so.
Seriously.... Why are Americans so Anti-Socialised? Reading on this forum I am speechless.
They hate government restriction, hate labor law protecting workers, and so pro corporates. Are people brainwashed or whats going on?
Take a look at Germany as an example... Socialized nation with lower unemployment rate than us, higher quality of life, much less or no poverty, and largest economy in Europe. They have 82 million people, still a lot.
Because it is oppressive.
Germany is NOT socialism. It is social-democrat at best.
It was not really a socialist party. It is certainly no coincidence that the Nazis persecuted communists and sent them to concentration camps, the communist party was declared illegal.
In Germany Nazis and Neonazis are considered and called right-wing extremists, not left-wing extremists.
Um, Trotsky and Lenin were both Jews. That's the reason the Nazi's hated communism, not because their ideologies were antithetical to each other.
Not a coincidence at all. Socialists (and their kissing cousins Communists) hate competition. The people pusing their various big-govt agendas knew they could never coexist, and neither had compromise as any part of their plans. It was a fight to the death, from the very beginning, just as the conflict between U.S. socialist Democrats and conservatives, brooks no consideration of compromise (a fact some Republicans seem unaware of).
Falsely. The Nazis of 1930-1945 were big-govt totalitarians, just as communists aof the day were. The fringes had different flavors and mothods, but the ultimate outcome was similar for both. All of them were as "Left" as major leftist parties are today, if not more so.
Nazis were twin brothers with soviets. The same totalitarian regime with economy based on soialism with the main goal being The State with the same oppressive machine ( gestapo vs NKVD), the only differnece was the "blame factor" - Nazis blamed nations, mainly Jews as the reason for the regime, soviets blamed classes or casts ( though they did play genocide carte as well)
But the result is the same, though statistically soviets are exponentially WORSE.
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.
