Understanding Socialism

apple0154 said:
The problem is the average worker does not understand how the "system" operates. Small, community based companies/employers were held accountable to their employees/community. The person making the decisions depended on the continuation of the company's success because that was their livelihood as well.

Large corporations give the appearance of being part of the community but the reality is they are not. The person making the important decisions most likely doesn't live anywhere near the community. If one branch folds it makes no difference to the person making the decision. In fact, the closing of a branch probably furthers the person's career if it saves the corporation money.

The same thing applies to large banks and other financial companies. They don't care if foreclosure procedures turn the community against them. They have many communities in which to operate. Their livelihood does not depend on one community.

That said, I have nothing against large corporations. It is the way of the future. On many levels they make sense. One of them being able to offer lower prices.

The solution is more government involvement. Since their dependence on a specific community is removed there should be some form of community contribution. For example, a limit on interest rate charges or an unemployment fund or money set aside to help people find work if/when the corporation decides to pull up stakes. Or simply taxes that the community puts aside for when the employees find themselves unemployed.

As we progress our lives become more entwined. Regarding this thread, from the viewpoint of Dixie's comments regarding Socialism, the government can get involved in businesses without trying to micro-manage or control it. If a business affects a large number of people, be it employees or investors, then I feel it's the governments responsibility to maintain oversight or have a fund to which businesses contribute.

Furthermore, just as an individual/small company can not advertise a product as curing an illness/disease without proper proof people should be required to show some proof in regards to what they offer. Whether it's the person opening a hairdresser shop because they own a pair of scissors or someone with a tool box claiming they are experts in home renovation, if that's what Dixie was referring to when stating Obama is not encouraging capitalism, then that is a very good thing.

From my experience there is no lack of people wanting to open their own business whether or not they know the slightest thing about business or have any relevant experience.
Click to expand...

THis post started off cool, then ended up being fascist absurdity.
 
Corporate size increases economies of scale which flow through to the consumer only up to a certain point. At some point cartels, monopolies, and corruption form which are a disservice to the consumer.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Corporate size increases economies of scale which flow through to the consumer only up to a certain point. At some point cartels, monopolies, and corruption form which are a disservice to the consumer.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why we need government oversight.

You're learning.
 
apple0154 said:
Greed? Sure, Dixie. Everyone’s ambition is to qualify for welfare and food stamps. And who hasn’t dreamed of living in a government housing project?

Just wait until government medical becomes fully available. People will be jumping out of windows and in front of cars just to get a piece of the pie.
Click to expand...

You miss the point as usual. There are two groups of people who continue to support the socialist nanny state, those who are receiving the benefits and those (like you) who think they are 'helping the needy' by advocating socialism. I didn't say this was because of greed, I said it was rooted in greed, and then explained what I meant by that, but apparently you didn't read it.

You look out your window, and you see people who have more than you, and people who have less. So you think it is your moral obligation to take from those with more and give to those with less. You justify this by assuming those who have more, have more than they need or deserve. This benevolence with other people's money, allows you to keep more of your own money with a clear conscious... after all, you did your part!
 
The solution is more government involvement.
Click to expand...

This is NEVER the solution! The more you involve government, the less liberty and freedom we have as individuals. Almost ANY problem can be better solved by the private sector, than by government.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Aw, you're butt hurt. How cute.

For the record, WM decided to honor my comment about his lack of life experience with my very first neg rep!

Thanks pal :)
Click to expand...

I was just trying to point out that capitalism isn't that intuitive initially. And I accept that it works, I don't agree that it's perfect. Mainly what I tried to do as a kid was to devise a version of socialism that involved competition. I didn't view the owners as playing any important role at all, and thought that they were just waste in the system.
 
Dixie said:
This is NEVER the solution! The more you involve government, the less liberty and freedom we have as individuals. Almost ANY problem can be better solved by the private sector, than by government.
Click to expand...

Humanity is not a completely individualistic creature, like an alligator, or a completely communistic creature, like ants.

It's not necessarily true that less government intervention is always better. What we have set up now is that society guarantees you the necessities for life, and we compete mainly for the luxuries. There's nothing wrong with that.

The reason Marxist Socialism is dead is because no one considers themselves a worker anymore. Capitalism has, ironically, created a Marxist dream. Not by making everyone into the proletariat, but by making nearly everyone into the bourgeoisie, and providing necessities to the ones who haven't.
 
Socrtease said:
It is propping up businesses that were going to die, thus prolonging their death and making the ulimate death even worse. Businesses fail. It is the way of the market economy. They fail when they are not competitive or their owners made bad decisions. We should not reward that sort of thing with unnatural life. Yes it hurts, but only for a while. Some other business comes in, picks up the pieces and the hurt eventually goes away. The problem is, IMO, Americans have been come spoiled and don't think there is any such thing as downturns in the economy.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. It does not "hurt only for a while". It hurts permanently, until the government steps in to stop the bleeding. This recovery was much faster because of the government. We can punish the people who mad bad decisions without punishing the American public for them as well.
 
Watermark said:
No, you're wrong. It does not "hurt only for a while". It hurts permanently, until the government steps in to stop the bleeding. This recovery was much faster because of the government. We can punish the people who mad bad decisions without punishing the American public for them as well.
Click to expand...

i seriously dislike youngsters who think they know it all.
 
Watermark said:
No, you're wrong. It does not "hurt only for a while". It hurts permanently, until the government steps in to stop the bleeding. This recovery was much faster because of the government. We can punish the people who mad bad decisions without punishing the American public for them as well.
Click to expand...

What recovery?

Job losses continue.
 
Watermark said:
Humanity is not a completely individualistic creature, like an alligator, or a completely communistic creature, like ants.

It's not necessarily true that less government intervention is always better. What we have set up now is that society guarantees you the necessities for life, and we compete mainly for the luxuries. There's nothing wrong with that.

The reason Marxist Socialism is dead is because no one considers themselves a worker anymore. Capitalism has, ironically, created a Marxist dream. Not by making everyone into the proletariat, but by making nearly everyone into the bourgeoisie, and providing necessities to the ones who haven't.
Click to expand...

Less government intervention is always better for freedom and liberty. Marxist Socialism is precisely what liberals practice today, it's not dead at all, it has simply been given another name... repackaged and presented differently, but still Marxist Socialism all the same. It ultimately fails for the same reason any Communist/Socialist system fails. It doesn't reward individual accomplishment, it discourages it.
 
Dixie said:
Less government intervention is always better for freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...

LOL. Then, under your definition, more freedom and liberty isn't always good. Your argument reduces to anarchism.

Dixie said:
Marxist Socialism is precisely what liberals practice today, it's not dead at all, it has simply been given another name... repackaged and presented differently, but still Marxist Socialism all the same. It ultimately fails for the same reason any Communist/Socialist system fails. It doesn't reward individual accomplishment, it discourages it.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Yeah, we're taking control of the means of production and giving it to the proletariat. Thanks.
 
Watermark said:
No, you're wrong. It does not "hurt only for a while". It hurts permanently, until the government steps in to stop the bleeding. This recovery was much faster because of the government. We can punish the people who mad bad decisions without punishing the American public for them as well.
Click to expand...

The economy hasn't recovered! And it won't fully recover until government gets the hell out of the way, and does something to promote business and growth. The $785 billion TARP money could have cut a LOT of taxes, generated a LOT of new jobs... but it was essentially wasted.
 
Watermark said:
LOL. Then, under your definition, more freedom and liberty isn't always good. Your argument reduces to anarchism.
Click to expand...

More freedom and liberty isn't always good! We aren't free to blow our neighbors brains out... we don't have the liberty to run around naked in public... we can't drive as fast as we want to... Our freedom and liberty is often curtailed by government intervention. But that makes my point and doesn't refute it. More government intervention means less liberty and freedom.

LOL.

Yeah, we're taking control of the means of production and giving it to the proletariat. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Yeah, pretty much, that is what you are doing when you take over the financial sector and the auto industry and allow a government "czar" to run them!
 
Dixie said:
Less government intervention is always better for freedom and liberty. Marxist Socialism is precisely what liberals practice today, it's not dead at all, it has simply been given another name... repackaged and presented differently, but still Marxist Socialism all the same. It ultimately fails for the same reason any Communist/Socialist system fails. It doesn't reward individual accomplishment, it discourages it.
Click to expand...

No - it isn't. Who tells you that? Rush?

Do you know what Marxism is? Do you know what Socialism is?

It's not enough just to regurgitate these terms like a parrott. You have to understand what they mean. You do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top