Evil Socialism

[HereticPB]

Socialism can be defined, and it is evil

What is Socialism? We miss the boat if we say it’s the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated.

The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn’t belong. When this is done privately we call it theft. When it’s done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It’s not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines, and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American’s earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It’s a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It’s the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do no represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there’s no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first – through intimidation, threats and coercion – that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it’s legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South African’s apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That’s why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also not that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there’s a majority consensus.
An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one’s fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one’s own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” I’m sure He didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless there’s a majority vote. And I’m sure that if you asked God if it’s OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sing as well.

By Walter E. Williams - Creators Syndicate - Las Vegas Review Journal – August 19, 2004

[plebben]

are there any socialist states except china? (I guess you can debate if their communist or socialist).. i guess there must be some african.. yeah kongo is deffinatly socialist.

[The Dude]

are there any socialist states except china? (I guess you can debate if their communist or socialist).. i guess there must be some african.. yeah kongo is deffinatly socialist.

I guess you didn't read the first paragraph. Most of Europian countries have allot of social elements in them, even the "democratic" ones. Like Canada's health care system, just for example.

[plebben]

so what?

[HereticPB]

Socialism is bad, Communism is bad, Maoism is bad, Nazism is bad, Marxism is bad, and they have been proven over many hundreds of years to not work, fall apart, or harm the public that has no real control over the government.

[alpha]

Errr right sure whatever.

[plebben]

Socialism is bad, Communism is bad, Maoism is bad, Nazism is bad, Marxism is bad, and they have been proven over many hundreds of years to not work, fall apart, or harm the public that has no real control over the government.
was that an answer to my question?

[Travis]

I'm very anti-Socialism, but that article was mad whack. It could easily be demolished. It's way too biased.

A government safety net is not completely bad, guys. America has the lowest "safety net" in the western world...there's not really a problem with Socialism in America.

[Pro A.]

Communism is a wonderful idea in theory, but human nature prevents it from working. The only communist nations up and running in a real society (The Congo is barely a society. It is a hellhole) are the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. I'm probably missing one or two. While three (not N.K.) have thrown in a more capitalistic approach to salvage their economy, their practices are very socialist.

[peasantlover]

I disagree.. I think it is a big problem. Not as much as Europe or canada, but hell, any socialism is dangerous to a capitalistic society.

Plebben, China is communist. 1 of only 2 left in the world (other being Cuba).

Socialist countries: Canada, Spain, France, former soviet block countries, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Italy... im sure there are a few in south america but dont know for sure.

[peasantlover]

Communism "in theory" involves the killing of the rich and no chance of doing achieving any great accomplishment on a personal level. Communism is a horrible idea in theory and practice. People who say nonsense like "communism is a great idea in theory" are usually communist sympathizers who realize they wont be taken seriously if they advocate communism now that it has failed, but cant admit they were\are wrong.

Is North korea communist tho? I thought it was just totalitarian. And I forgot about Vietnam... I didnt even know the Congo was communist...

[plebben]

NK is a morbid version of communism where the "leader" has turned into a god. But the fundamental ideas of communism is what the country runs on.
However, Peasant, communism is Utopia. Communism is not evil. Its man's nature of needing to control others and enslave them that ensures Communism will always fail.
Too many people think Marx is the father of communism, but he is not. He just made it famous.
In the 1600th century parts of france were communist at a communal level and it worked perfect when it was at such a smal scale as it was(or so ive read). However when its about a whole nation or a world under communism, greedy people who dont like the idea of total equality will make sure they get to power during the transit government that is neccesary while society is transforming into communism.

So, all in all, the idea of communism is wonderful and what many will call Utopia, but it will always fail if put into practice because to reach it we will today need to force people to accept that they cant own property. And a clear majority do not want that.
That is because human greed. A natural habit of the human mind. One of the death sins.

And also, communism doesnt preach the killing of the rich. Communism in it self does not teach you killing. Its Marxism or Maoism or Stalinism etc etc that youre thinking of. But they are not pure communism. They are just philosophies that tries to interpretate their own version of communism.

However you are right that it limits personal achievments very much. Atleast the rewards for an achievment.

[Travis]

How does communism not call for the killing of the rich? That's the whole principle. A proletarian revolution...means killing the upper class.

[plebben]

The communistic idea has nothing to do with killing people. In no way does the idea of a communistic society support the killing of another human being.
In Das Kapital they call for a proletarian revolution.
That is Marxism. Not Communism.
And no it does not neccesarily mean you have to kill them.
It will, however, most probably will lead to it. No denying in that.

[HereticPB]

Man so many people a brainwashed, blindly following, Lemmings. The Government will take care of you. Yes, you can go play in the weeds. Nevermind that weed cutter in the distance it won't get you.

[Lord Worm]

Nothing works. People are stupid, governments are greedy. Those are two constants in the whole ideological equasion. Governments exploit the people. We'll call it Socialism and Facism when it's blatently obvious. We'll call it Democracy when it's not.

[plebben]

Heretic i asume you aimed that brainwashed comment at me.
Since you have no fucking idea about what it is to live in my country or anyplace else but the US of A you are the one who is brainwashed to believe its all evil and that people who dont think the way you do are evil as well.
Its boring to see you post references to what others think and say and instead of your own arguements and thoughts. All i see from you is posts looking down on others with no explaination or superior argument to add to the debates.

Lordworm:
Pretty pesimistic point of view but it has a vauge point of reality in it if you see on things without hope.
There are no true democracies in this world to begin with anyhow.

[Monsieur Tekilatex]

haha you guys are just too fucking american.

socialism is the best. fuck off.

[peasantlover]

The communistic idea has nothing to do with killing people. In no way does the idea of a communistic society support the killing of another human being.
In Das Kapital they call for a proletarian revolution.
That is Marxism. Not Communism.
And no it does not neccesarily mean you have to kill them.
It will, however, most probably will lead to it. No denying in that.

no, Marxism is communism plebben. The monks living in Abbeys in France were not communists. They were Christians, and communalists (I just invented that word, but so what). The idea that communists sympathizers spread that Christ and the disciples lived like communists is nonsense. Marx invented communism, it didnt exist before him. Other people lived in groups and shared, but they did not have the philosophies behind communism. If you have read the Communist Manifesto, you know that these include : 1. Revolution. 2. Violent upheavel of Richer classes 3. All ends in society aim at the "common good" (which inherently means that any personal good is not allowed, and any personal desires and ambitions unachievable).

I consider Revolution evil, I consider Violent upheavels evil, and I consider any form of government that oppresses personal freedom evil.. therefore communism is at its core evil, imho.

Socialism is also evil, in my opinion, although certainly to a lesser degree. Although it doesnt share the first 2 traits of communism, it does share the third. The massive beauracracy and tax base required to support a socialist economy puts a vice grip on the individuals ability to achieve any of his ambitions, or have any personal freedom, really. I have seen this happen to Americans, and our government isnt nearly as socialistic as the ones I mentioned above.

[plebben]

Marx did not "invent" Communism. Perhaps "re-invented" might be a good description. He might have named it communism, but the idea has been around for thousands of years.
Marxism is his(their) interpretation of how to reach what he liked to call Communism if thats how you want it.
But Marx did in no way Invent it. Manly because the main author of the book was not Marx himself, but Freidrich Engels. Marx teamed up with Engels because Marx liked the ideas Engels had and he had his name made famous already and would get a book in his name published, while Engels was unknown at that point.
Engels had picked up most of what he wrote from different sources, mainly people he talked with in Paris who were much in to the idea of communism at a local level.

And what did those monks have to do with anything?

You are so indoctrinated with how beautiful your freedom is.An it is beautiful... on a paper. In your everyday life you do not have any more freedom than i have. I can basically do what the fuck i want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. At some point you will have more freedom than i do. But thats when its not about your everyday life anymore.
Our tax money makes sure we have a very high standard in our educational system, our road safty, and social wellfare. As of late poor people are starting to turn up on the streets of Stockholm, Gothemburg and a few other cities in sweden. But ten years ago there was no such thing. There were homeless people sure. but they never had to sleep on the street. There were always shelters for the homeless(as long as they behaved) if they needed it. Nowadays these shelters with the people working there have been given a very low priority to make sure that taxmoney goes to help refugees in all the camps that are put up here and there and everywhere in sweden. Imigrants (mainly refugees) have skyrocketed the swedish population with more than 15% the last 20 years.
Do i Complain about paying tax to help these people? No i dont. I know that with my money my government helps people who are way more unfortunate than me here in life.
Do I need those extra $200? They might come in handy for the time being. But Do I need them?
No.
Money cant buy true happiness.

[Sandman]

I hate communism. What's there to work for in life if everyone is equal? What's the incentive for inventions and advancements?

[Dorbin]

Socialism isn't evil or anything, but I am a proud believer in Capitalism; it is and will continue to be what has made the United States great.

On another note, Monsieur Tekilatex, please actually contribute to the discussion before you go hurling an insult, in jest or not, and posting unnecessary obscenities. Thank you.

^ EDIT: Precisely Kevin. Capitalism promotes competition and advancements in fields of study and whatnot...you just have to watch out for excessive greed.

[HereticPB]

Its boring to see you post references to what others think and say and instead of your own arguements and thoughts.

Those boring references you speak of tell my arguments and thoughts. Why waste the energy of repeating it over and over.

Since you have no fucking idea about what it is to live in my country or anyplace else but the US of A

True, but if you read or listen to other sources of news outside of America you do. I see it clear as day. Why are you getting upset?

you are the one who is brainwashed to believe its all evil and that people who dont think the way you do are evil as well.

Hey look a personal attack just like the left. I don't think people are evil cause of the way they think. I think the LEFTS politics and socialism is dangerous.

All i see from you is posts looking down on others with no explaination or superior argument to add to the debates.

I have never done that. I have always backed myself up.

Heretic i asume you aimed that brainwashed comment at me.

No the majority of the left. Well, now that I think about it if you stand on your head, look left, you do fit in that category of the majority of the left. I'm soooo sorry that you belong to that category.

You see the rest of the world has fallen under leftist, socialist, communist rule and they have brainwashed people through the media, the schools, the TV shows and just about everything else the Government has its hands on in those countries. America just took a sharp turn right and the world does not like it. Oh, no you don't like it well tough shit. You do not control America or its population. We the people control America and the population and to major extent the world. This is not arrogance it is the way it is and was and probably will be. If it wasn't for America the whole planet would be speaking German, Japanese, and Italian under totalitarian rules. On the other hand it looks like it already happened but without those mentioned languages.

[Lord Worm]

I would believe in Socialism, but then I'd have to believe in humanity. If everyone's major goal was to strive for the common good of man rather than the accumulation of personal goods, then eventually, after hard work on everybody's part, we'd all be rich and happy and at peace.

Does this sound utopian? Damned straight it is. Capitalism works, there's no denying that. Has it made America great? It's made America powerful, but at the expense of others. Capitalism requires someone to fail in order for someone else to succeed. Darwin would say, "Good, that's the way nature works."

But god knows that human beings like to believe that they're above nature, and not just animals. So are we evolved and moral creatures or are we primitive and selfish beings? I'd like to believe the former. But since the mentality of "Fuck the other guy" still exists, I'd have to choose "B".

[peasantlover]

sorry, plebben, you are mistaken. Sure, there have frequently been groups of peopleliving togethor and sharing their resources, but that is not communism (btw, they have almost always religious orders, hence the monk comment. Since they were either Christians, Hindus, or buddhists, and communism is inherently atheistic, it is absurd to call them communist).

Yer right about Engels, him and Marx invented it togethor. An important idea behind communism is the evolution of government, through a period of revolutions, ending in capitalism and the rise of the Bougeois class (spelling??), and then the ushering of communism brought about by the overthrow of the Bougeois... This was greatly inspired by the 19th century German philosopher Hegel, who had the same these + antithesis = synthese evolution, only he applied it to historical thought and religion instead of government.. Marx applied it to politics and government. For Hegel, the final conclusion was the diety revealing itself in humanity (Hegel is very obscure and silly and im not going to try to explain him further lol)... and for Marx it was communism and the violent overthrow of upper classes. So whatever groups of people you were talking about, they may have shared some characteristics of communists, but the first communist government was founded by Lenin in the 20th century, and the idea behind his government did not reach back further than Engels and Marx.

ALSO, do not presume to think you know what freedom means to me. "doing whatever you want as long as you dont hurt other people" is not freedom at all, it is license and anarchy, and someone who has that attitude is a slave to their own desires. I follow St. Anselm of Canterbury's definition of freedom. Freedom is obedience to justice and the will of God.. at least that is the only way man can experience freedom. But no government, whether communist, socialist, fascist, or democratic, can see justice enough to lead its people to freedom, at least not for more than one human generation - because all governments are human institutions, and humanity is inherently flawed. Democracy is not perfect by all means, because it is completely dependent on the moral fiber of its people - if its people have good mores, they will be free - if they are licentious they will enslave themself.

However, at least there is a chance for freedom in democracy. There is no chance in socialism. The people who depend on the government for their sustenance are slaves, pure and simple. They are vassals to the government, just like the surfs in Russia before Lenin's revolution were slaves to the nobles and the Czar. And by giving your taxes to support them, you only tighten their chains.

Look at it this way. What kind of power does a poor person on welfare have? Absolutely none. He cant feel good about himself for earning a living, because his money is given to him. He cant really get a job, because then he would lose his income, which he needs to feed his family. It's a catch-22. And he cant do anything to change it, because he doesnt make any decisions. He isnt happy or free; he just lives.

On the other hand, look at a capitilistic society; take America in the 19th century and early 20th century, before the socialists got power. Sure, there are poor people, and their are rich people. But the poor people have a lot of power. THey have the power of their arms and legs to earn a living. You cannot understand the power of freedom until you get a paycheck that you have earned through your own blood, sweat and tears.. They have the power to protest, to speak their mind. And every poor person during this period had the oppyurtunity to become rich if he desired it enough. For instance, one of the richest man of the 19th century was Andrew Carnegie, who was born of poor scottish imigrants in the ghettos. Same with Rockefeller, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Bill Gates, the list goes on and on. But money does not bring freedom or happiness, which is why second generation rich in America are often so miserable and incompetent, and piss away their wealth. Their has never been "old wealth" in America, because a capitalistic society creates social mobility like no other society that has ever existed. Their are slaves in America - to desires, money, ambition; but those people enslave themselves. In a socialist society entire classes of people are enslaved by the government for the "good of the whole;" and in a communist government the whole damn population is enslaved.

That is why I view both as evil.

[peasantlover]

Nothing works. People are stupid, governments are greedy. Those are two constants in the whole ideological equasion. Governments exploit the people. We'll call it Socialism and Facism when it's blatently obvious. We'll call it Democracy when it's not.


That's the first thing you've said that I agree with. lol.

[Bryan]

Marx said that it's important to work with progressive ideas, so the original form written back in the day would be much more different in our modern society. The 19th century is much different from our time, but the general ideas that Marx had were very heart-warming. They have been implemented in small ways in our culture. In unions, Social Security, welfare, unemployment pay, and other extremely important safety nets for the poor people of our nation, and for laborers as well. Should we go back to having a completely unregulated economy, and let the corporations control our government more than they already do? Ideas for ending child labor, ending 16 hour shifts, giving competitive pay rates, offering safety regulations for factories, for minimum wage, and for many other important elements in our society that separate us from China's fucked up labor shit came from Socialism. Capitalism offers no restraints on those things, so I think it would be accurate to say that our system is a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which is a good mix, imo. I wouldn't have it any other way, however, I would like to see a healthcare system like Canada's and some reform in Social Security.

Who here would say that something that gives American workers enough money to feed their children is a bad thing? If that's how you feel, fine. That's the cool thing about where we live, but I would have to say that you're a compassionless son of a bitch for believing that. I would then have to ask: What if it were you? What if you were the poor kid who lost your job because of outsourcing, or because of tough economic times? What if you had two kids and a wife, and no secondary income?

Then let's say you find another job, but it isn't like the job you had before. It doesn't pay $25/hour. It pays $6.50/hour. Then you tell me, for the sake of your children, why you would say that programs that offer economic assistance to the disadvantaged in our society would be a bad thing. Maybe I'm incapable of saying "fuck 'em" which is why I am not a republican. There is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism", and to say that there is is just a..

Oh yes, I'm going to say it.

It is just a fuckin' flip-flop.

[peasantlover]

Get a clue mysterio...

Im not a laissez faire guy at all (I support the government breaking up monopolies, for instance, which a laissez faire would abhorr)l, but there is no doubt laissez faire is much better than socialism.

Ok, so with pure capitalism, you have a guy making 6 bucks an hour.. say a 21 year old kid, named Bill. He wants to raise a family and buy nice things, which isnt very practical a 6 bucks an hour. But you can say to him: It is a free market economy, so you have the oppurtunity to get promotions, or better jobs, if you work hard, and get the experience you need, or get the schooling you need. We will guarantee nothing, you may fail and you will have to take risks, but even if you fail you will have a second chance, and a third, because its capitalism, baby! Even if you are the poorest sap there is nothing stopping you from become filthy rich, if you work hard enough.

On the other hand, take socialism. No longer is anyone making 6 bucks. The government says: dont worry, everyone will make 12 dollars an hour now. SO now Billy can pay all his bills, he can even have a small family, as long he stays in his lower middle class neighborhood, and he wont have to worry about their health since the government pays for their healthcare. If he gets laid off he has unemployment, he is pretty safe. But Bill is an ambitious person. He wants to move to a nice neighboorhood, but the property taxes required to support the socialist government are so monstrously huge that only people born rich can live there. He wants to start his own business so he can earn more money, but there are a 100 rules and regulations covering everything, so he is almost guaranteed to fail at start up. He wants a promotion, but his company has already promoted x number of white males, so has no room for him. Even if he gets a better job, he really wont make much more money, because he will be in a higher tax bracket and will pay a lot more taxes. So he is stuck. He is stuck in his lower middle class neighboorhood forever. He wont starve, he has the safety net, but there is also a glass ceiling. he is a slave to the government. It's ironic, really. Blacks were slaves in the 19th century to white landowners who forced them into bondage against their will. Now, after gaining their freedom through a hundred years of struggle, they are enslaving themselves by voting for socialists and demagogues. That's right, I said it, the men who seek to be slave masters today are men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who attempt to enslave their own people through social programs and welfare that prevent them from having hope of success and prosperity, and keep them in the ghettos.

[peasantlover]

In summary: Communism, socialism, they are both the same. The Russian serfs supported the communist revolution because they were brutalized by their masters, the nobles. They found they were in worse shape after the revolution. The poor people in this country will find themself in the same shape if we keep moving towards the left.

[Haver]

The fact that a bin-man would earn the same as a doctor in a communist society is what is fubar. I mean, a school drop-out would earn the same as someone who hadn't been a dop-out, someone who had worked hard and tried to make something of themselves.

[Bryan]

hahaha, get a clue. Oh my god, the Conservatives hate me.

Socialism has different classes, Communism does not. In a Socialist society, you are rewarded for hard work, in a Communist society, you are not. If you're below average in a Communist society, you have everything to gain, but if you're above average, you have everything to lose.

Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism. It builds upon the previous system (Capitalism) by nationalizing the "means of production" (i.e. corporations, resources, banks, etc.), but not by making everyone equal. In other words, people will be paid wages based on several factors (social need, difficulty, amount of schooling required, etc.), so not everyone will make the same wage -- as is often a misinterpretation of Socialism.

I love the internet.

As you can see in this short paragraph, Socialism differs from Communism in that way. So I believe it is you, peasantlover, who is in need of a clue.

While Socialism is similar to Communism, it is not Communism. Hell, China isn't even a Communist state, but they like to pretend. By the way, why is it that our corporations like to exploit children overseas for textiles, while at the same time forsaking American workers? That would be a few things; Capitalism, Free Trade, and the fact that Chinese children will work for a bowl of rice a day, but Americans will not.

That is one of the most ugly parts about our system.. corporations get away with that kind of shit, and the Chinese don't give a damn, because they aren't really for the people, they aren't really a Communist state.

All I'm really saying is that Communism and Socialism have the same roots, but are not the same thing. And if Socialism was so bad, why is it that a majority of free nations in the world are at least partly Socialist? Nothing is a pure system, peasantlover. We do not live in a pure Capitalism, and what I think Socialism does is it offers Capitalism with a conscience. So stop spewing this shit about Communism and Socialism being the same thing.

Thanks!

[Lord Worm]

Socialism is definatly an option for any country.

[Blaksmoke]

I'd like to play Emmanuel Goldstein for a while and type a huge reply, but I'll just say that Socialism is not evil, and Socialism is not Communism, because Communism doesn't exist. How can somethingbe the same thing as the other when one exists and the other doesn't?

[plebben]

sorry, plebben, you are mistaken. Sure, there have frequently been groups of peopleliving togethor and sharing their resources, but that is not communism (btw, they have almost always religious orders, hence the monk comment. Since they were either Christians, Hindus, or buddhists, and communism is inherently atheistic, it is absurd to call them communist).
I will agree to that.
What id like to add, though, is that their basic ideology was based on the same basic fundamental principle that communism is based upon. No individual owning of property. The idea behind that is not evil in it self but to prevent individuals to exploit other individuals. Everyone owns everything together therefore it is in everyones interest to make the best out of it.
And yes communism existed in france during the 16th century. However it was on communal level, not national.

Yer right about Engels, him and Marx invented it togethor.
I still want to call it RE-invented. The ideas were not something the came up with but a collection of philosophies from people around europe. People who saw the sufering of the lower classes. the people who could not do anything about their postition because of their backgrounds etc.


An important idea behind communism is the evolution of government, through a period of revolutions, ending in capitalism and the rise of the Bougeois class (spelling??), and then the ushering of communism brought about by the overthrow of the Bougeois... This was greatly inspired by the 19th century German philosopher Hegel, who had the same these + antithesis = synthese evolution, only he applied it to historical thought and religion instead of government.. Marx applied it to politics and government. For Hegel, the final conclusion was the diety revealing itself in humanity (Hegel is very obscure and silly and im not going to try to explain him further lol)... and for Marx it was communism and the violent overthrow of upper classes. So whatever groups of people you were talking about, they may have shared some characteristics of communists, but the first communist government was founded by Lenin in the 20th century, and the idea behind his government did not reach back further than Engels and Marx.
Most of the things you said there i agree with but im unfamiliar with a few of the words you used and i dont have a phrasebook here to translate them so i cant confirm that i agree with it totaly but the meaning of its as whole i agree with(unless i missinterpretated something).
The first communist government on a national level was founded by Lenin and i never said anything else.

ALSO, do not presume to think you know what freedom means to me. "doing whatever you want as long as you dont hurt other people" is not freedom at all, it is license and anarchy, and someone who has that attitude is a slave to their own desires. I follow St. Anselm of Canterbury's definition of freedom. Freedom is obedience to justice and the will of God.. at least that is the only way man can experience freedom. But no government, whether communist, socialist, fascist, or democratic, can see justice enough to lead its people to freedom, at least not for more than one human generation - because all governments are human institutions, and humanity is inherently flawed. Democracy is not perfect by all means, because it is completely dependent on the moral fiber of its people - if its people have good mores, they will be free - if they are licentious they will enslave themself.
Unless freedom is the allowing of doing what you want then freedom is individual and cannot be defined other than on individual level. What freedom means to you is irrelevant. What freedom is to everyone is what matters if you want to compare socialism and capitalism.


However, at least there is a chance for freedom in democracy. There is no chance in socialism. The people who depend on the government for their sustenance are slaves, pure and simple. They are vassals to the government, just like the surfs in Russia before Lenin's revolution were slaves to the nobles and the Czar. And by giving your taxes to support them, you only tighten their chains.
As long as there is a government you are a slave under it. No society that is under control(not anarchy) enslaves its people in principle.
However(and i suppose this is what you mean) you can always determine the magnitude of the enslavement. And that differs.

Look at it this way. What kind of power does a poor person on welfare have? Absolutely none. He cant feel good about himself for earning a living, because his money is given to him. He cant really get a job, because then he would lose his income, which he needs to feed his family. It's a catch-22. And he cant do anything to change it, because he doesnt make any decisions. He isnt happy or free; he just lives.
I can tell you how the scial security network works in sweden.
If youre unemployed you can get an unempolyment subsidy. This subsidy is there to help you live in the transit period between two jobs. If youre having trouble getting a job you dont have to starve or get kicked out of your house.
Now, just because you get this subsidy you cant go aroung living on that(unless you have incomes that you dont account for to the government) This subidy is aprox $700-1000 depending on your former job and what you earned there(im not sure cause i have never collected any unemployment subsidies). Those money are there so that you can pay your rent electricity water and food. But if you just inform the taxministry that your unemployd and dont go out searchign new jobs they will cut the subsidy totally after a few months.
If you can present proof that youve tried to get new jobs(ie contineusly searching, not just one try) but been rejected on every try you will be allowed comtinue collect the subsidy.
BUT, if you cant present proof that youre actively trying to find new jobs. your off the subsidy and on your own.
However, this system can be manipulated. And right now were seeing a problem in sweden adn the rest of europe.
Immigrants who cant speak swedish(or the official language of teh country) can hardly get a job at all. This is a point where the unemployment security is threatened to break down. Its not their fault the had to flee from a country havoced by war etc. They cant learn swedish in a splitsecond just because they moved here. And since they dont speak swedish they cant get a job. so its a catch 22 for them.
Before you say; "See it doesnt work", I want to point out that it was never planned that immigrants and refugees were gonna fit in to the system. When the social democratic society was formed here the ithought that streams of people fleeign from opression in other societies to our country was not even thought about.

On the other hand, look at a capitilistic society; take America in the 19th century and early 20th century, before the socialists got power. Sure, there are poor people, and their are rich people. But the poor people have a lot of power. THey have the power of their arms and legs to earn a living. You cannot understand the power of freedom until you get a paycheck that you have earned through your own blood, sweat and tears.. They have the power to protest, to speak their mind. And every poor person during this period had the oppyurtunity to become rich if he desired it enough. For instance, one of the richest man of the 19th century was Andrew Carnegie, who was born of poor scottish imigrants in the ghettos. Same with Rockefeller, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Bill Gates, the list goes on and on. But money does not bring freedom or happiness, which is why second generation rich in America are often so miserable and incompetent, and piss away their wealth. Their has never been "old wealth" in America, because a capitalistic society creates social mobility like no other society that has ever existed. Their are slaves in America - to desires, money, ambition; but those people enslave themselves. In a socialist society entire classes of people are enslaved by the government for the "good of the whole;" and in a communist government the whole damn population is enslaved.
Why you get the idea that someone cant be sucessful in my country is beyond my comprehension. Anyone can go from zero to incredibly rich here if he or she just wants it enough and have the motivation.
Ie Ingvar Kamprad(founder and owner of IKEA) or Stefan Persson (owner of H&M)

That is why I view both as evil.
A complete communist society becomes evil. But it is not evil in its cornerstones, the principle behind it. Its the people that form the society that makes it evil. The greedy capitalistic powerhungry people.
If you wanna view communism as evil its your freedom to do so, but I view Communism as uttermost Naive. Its naive in its philosophy because it does not realize that the humans forming it are or become evil because of their greed and need for rewards.
Socialism is not evil. Its compasionate but breaks down because the human greed exploits it.

[HereticPB]

However, this system can be manipulated. And right now were seeing a problem in sweden and the rest of europe.

Same in America. People get free money.

Did you try to get a job last week? Yes. What was it. Stand Up Philosopher. Oh a Bullshit artist. Did you get it? NO. Alright here is your money.

[plebben]

That wont work in sweden.
You have to have proof and papers or other references from an employer that you actually did apply for the job. Some bogus job is not gonna work.
But of course as you say theer will be people who finds a hole in the system and the exploits it for individual benefit.
Up until 20 years ago it worked splendid. Until the foreign policy changed and we opened up our borders for refugees and imigrants. Swedes have a culture of loyalty to the state and to not exploit the system, however that mentality is in too many cases not found in foreigners culture.
Our general mentality is to agree to most of what the state tells us to do because mostly it comes back in a good way to yourself or someone you hold dear. In one way or another.
Some think were stupid and naive and sometimes that is true. But then again we have a very safe society in comparisson to yours so it all sums up pretty equal.

[bobo_ess]

Marx said that it's important to work with progressive ideas, so the original form written back in the day would be much more different in our modern society. The 19th century is much different from our time, but the general ideas that Marx had were very heart-warming. They have been implemented in small ways in our culture. In unions, Social Security, welfare, unemployment pay, and other extremely important safety nets for the poor people of our nation, and for laborers as well. Should we go back to having a completely unregulated economy, and let the corporations control our government more than they already do? Ideas for ending child labor, ending 16 hour shifts, giving competitive pay rates, offering safety regulations for factories, for minimum wage, and for many other important elements in our society that separate us from China's fucked up labor shit came from Socialism. Capitalism offers no restraints on those things, so I think it would be accurate to say that our system is a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which is a good mix, imo. I wouldn't have it any other way, however, I would like to see a healthcare system like Canada's and some reform in Social Security.

Who here would say that something that gives American workers enough money to feed their children is a bad thing? If that's how you feel, fine. That's the cool thing about where we live, but I would have to say that you're a compassionless son of a bitch for believing that. I would then have to ask: What if it were you? What if you were the poor kid who lost your job because of outsourcing, or because of tough economic times? What if you had two kids and a wife, and no secondary income?

Then let's say you find another job, but it isn't like the job you had before. It doesn't pay $25/hour. It pays $6.50/hour. Then you tell me, for the sake of your children, why you would say that programs that offer economic assistance to the disadvantaged in our society would be a bad thing. Maybe I'm incapable of saying "fuck 'em" which is why I am not a republican. There is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism", and to say that there is is just a..

Oh yes, I'm going to say it.

It is just a fuckin' flip-flop.


I agree with ya mysterio.

[Bryan]

Thank you, I love you too!

Heretic: A very small minority of people with financial assistance abuse the system.