Misconceptions about Socialism

[Amon Goeth]

Again.. Socialism is currently the world standard. Every country in the industrialized world except for the US is a socialist state. Look at Europe. Do you not see success there? Socialism and communism are not the same, and aside from that the soviets were not communist despite their claims, they were in fact fascists.

Since you brought it up.. rewarding the 'high acheivers' fails to take into account that with few exceptions, only those who were born to 'high acheivers' become 'high acheivers'. Also not taken into account is the fact of limited resources. There is no endless supply of money. Money is a fixed amount. If you gain 10 dollars, the rest of the world loses their divided share of that 10 dollars. Thus for someone to hoard 5 billion sucks the resources right out of the rest of the population driving them deeper into poverty. The more successfull one person is, the less successfull everyone else can be. There is no great example to strive for because the existance of these examples does nothing more than beat those who strive to be like them further away from them.

Socialism has really one basic principal when it comes to equality. Everyone gets a fair chance. That means that it really doesn't matter what you were born into because you will be judged on your abilities, not your lineage. In the US those who are successfull are successfull because they were born to successfull people and so-forth up their ancesterial line. In a socialist society those who are successfull are successfull because of their abilities, thus actually providing a superior quality of life and in economic terms, the most effecient production.

The practical difference in societal acheivements works about like this.. The US spends it's money developing an anti-nausiate to sell to people with cancer in order to make a profit. Meanwhile, the EU works towards cures for the cancer so that there is no need to ever buy those anti-nausiates or suffer in the first place.

[Darth Fred]

Originally posted by Amon Goeth
. Also not taken into account is the fact of limited resources. There is no endless supply of money. Money is a fixed amount. If you gain 10 dollars, the rest of the world loses their divided share of that 10 dollars.

An interesting argument, but not entirely correct. It is perfectly possible for governments to print endless supplies of money. This does admittedly massively devalue the existing currency and can lead to hyperinflations which destroy the economy, but nonetheless, it is possible. If what you meant is that the total value, or purchasing power, of money is fixed, then again, I must subtly disagree. If this were true, the average standard of living today would be no better than before the industrial revolution. The amount of money grows over time, as workers become steadily more productive. In the short term, however, it is a much more valid argument.

However, claiming that socialism is more efficient is dubious at best. In theory, the ideal system is pure communism (not the bastardised Soviet system), in which the maxim is "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Everyone works as hard as possible, for the collective good. Unfortunately, this sort of system is impossible to maintain on a large scale, due to the fundamental flaws of greed and sloth inherent in much of human nature.

These same problems can be inherent in real world socialist countries, since the system may not provide as great an incentive for hard work as a more purely capitalist system. So while you may be right under idealised circumstances, the real world may well throw a spanner in the works.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Amon Goeth
In the US those who are successfull are successfull because they were born to successfull people and so-forth up their ancesterial line.

Clearly complete arse. If you are going to put forward such a case, it really does help if you don't base it on such an obvious mistake.

[pnjsurferpoet]

There has to be a balance between jobs created from corporate profits and corporate greed. I don't think big governments....which are part of socialism...are efficient and they can hinder growth. For example, I read where a shop keeper in Sweden only keeps his shop open a certain amount a week because if he earns too much, to much of it goes to the government. Less hours open in that shop equal less people he employs.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Amon Goeth
Again.. Socialism is currently the world standard. Every country in the industrialized world except for the US is a socialist state. Look at Europe. Do you not see success there? Socialism and communism are not the same, and aside from that the soviets were not communist despite their claims, they were in fact fascists.


Communism/Marxism is simply one form of socialism. The Soviets did not even implement Marxism properly.

Since you brought it up.. rewarding the 'high acheivers' fails to take into account that with few exceptions, only those who were born to 'high acheivers' become 'high acheivers'. Also not taken into account is the fact of limited resources. There is no endless supply of money. Money is a fixed amount. If you gain 10 dollars, the rest of the world loses their divided share of that 10 dollars. Thus for someone to hoard 5 billion sucks the resources right out of the rest of the population driving them deeper into poverty. The more successfull one person is, the less successfull everyone else can be. There is no great example to strive for because the existance of these examples does nothing more than beat those who strive to be like them further away from them.

Socialism has really one basic principal when it comes to equality. Everyone gets a fair chance. That means that it really doesn't matter what you were born into because you will be judged on your abilities, not your lineage. In the US those who are successfull are successfull because they were born to successfull people and so-forth up their ancesterial line. In a socialist society those who are successfull are successfull because of their abilities, thus actually providing a superior quality of life and in economic terms, the most effecient production.


Socialists regard economic equality as paramount.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Clearly complete arse. If you are going to put forward such a case, it really does help if you don't base it on such an obvious mistake.

Unfortunately, it is not complete arse MoK. As in the UK, those who go to the top universities get the top jobs and, as in the UK, those who go to the top universities went to the top schools. And however you try to dress it up, the best schools are those where the already-influential pay to send their children. State schools are rarely in the top ten lists of schools, certainly less so in the US where, especialy with universities, Ivy league colleges are hard to get into if you cannot pay the fees.

Remember money=opportunity, and not many children at havard have earned their millions at McDonalds.

[Dear Wendy]

Money is always an advantage. But of all places the states is probably the place most likely to have people going from scratch to the top. Not for nothing they call it the land of opprtunities.

My dad knows a lot of people, who fled at his time or before, and now have themself set-up firmly in the states.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by monocrat
Socialists regard economic equality as paramount.

That, however, is the main flaw with communism. Capitalism rewards effort and ability, yet true communism means that regardless of job you all get the same. Socialism is a bastardisation of the two though- equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

Socialism is not the ideal solution because it seems to have taken the worst from communism, not the best. It is good in taht it protects the masses from the elite, but it punishes hard work through taxation and rewards those who are lazy by providing for them. The latter is not part of the ideology, but an unfortunate effect of sloth in human nature.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
the states is probably the place most likely to have people going from scratch to the top. Not for nothing they call it the land of opprtunities.

Not since the 1960s it hasnt. Without money now you get nowhere, the same as anywhere. You wont get a pauper from harlem as next President, regardless of intelligence (and they couldnt be dumber than Dubya).

[Dear Wendy]

The people who fled at the same time as my dad did so in '67.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
The people who fled at the same time as my dad did so in '67.

As I said, not since the 1960s...

People can do moderately well in any country, can set up a nice little business for themselves, but very rarely will they manage to break into the elite from outside it. People like Branson had a fee-school education, so did Brian Souter at Stagecoach, even though they started out without huge wads of dough.

You wont get people from inner-city comps getting into the elite, not even in the USA. Look at Bush, whos only got where hes got cos of daddy.

[Clandestine]

And daddy's cronies...

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Kermit
Unfortunately, it is not complete arse MoK.

Perhaps, for example, you should look at the last few Presidents. Bush Jnr is the exception.

Unless becoming President isn't considered a success.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Kermit
That, however, is the main flaw with communism. Capitalism rewards effort and ability, yet true communism means that regardless of job you all get the same. Socialism is a bastardisation of the two though- equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

Socialism is not the ideal solution because it seems to have taken the worst from communism, not the best. It is good in taht it protects the masses from the elite, but it punishes hard work through taxation and rewards those who are lazy by providing for them. The latter is not part of the ideology, but an unfortunate effect of sloth in human nature.

All socialists believe in equality, be they Marxists or even social democrats. Marxists simply wish to eradicate capitalism whilst a democratic socialist (like, say Old Labour) would seek to alter capitalism to promote more equality.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Kermit
Unfortunately, it is not complete arse MoK. As in the UK, those who go to the top universities get the top jobs and, as in the UK, those who go to the top universities went to the top schools. And however you try to dress it up, the best schools are those where the already-influential pay to send their children. State schools are rarely in the top ten lists of schools, certainly less so in the US where, especialy with universities, Ivy league colleges are hard to get into if you cannot pay the fees.

Remember money=opportunity, and not many children at havard have earned their millions at McDonalds.

That explains Colin Powell and Bill Gates... :rolleyes:

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Greenhat
That explains Colin Powell and Bill Gates... :rolleyes:

Well SOMEONE paid Gates through Cambridge, and it wasnt us.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Perhaps, for example, you should look at the last few Presidents. Bush Jnr is the exception.

Unless becoming President isn't considered a success.

Ok, Ill look at Bush Snr then. Or maybe Clinton, who managed to afford to go to Oxford. Or maybe Reagan, who didnt start off that high but was never what youd call a pauper.

In America its easiest to get an advantage if youre good enough, but its getting harder. Especially in the UK, its impossible to start low and get high- Thatcher perhaps is the closest to managing it, but although she was a shopkeepers daughter from Grantham, Id hardly say she didnt have a privileged background either.

Simple fact is that the poor go to shit schools. The rich either go to the best state schools or pay their kids through public school. More the latter than the former.

[Clandestine]

Maggie married into money, that was her ticket.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Kermit
Or maybe Clinton, who managed to afford to go to Oxford. Or maybe Reagan, who didnt start off that high but was never what youd call a pauper.

I think the salient point there is "didn't start off" - wasn't that what was being said, that they were born into money?

Or perhaps we could look at Mandela

Especially in the UK, its impossible to start low and get high

Again untrue. Hard certainly, but people manage it.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Perhaps, for example, you should look at the last few Presidents. Bush Jnr is the exception.

Unless becoming President isn't considered a success.

'Dubya' went to Yale (one of the prestigious 'Ivy League' universities).

Generally most British PM's are Oxbridge educated (though recent times, Major and Jim Callaghan never even went to university).

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by monocrat
'Dubya' went to Yale (one of the prestigious 'Ivy League' universities).

Generally most British PM's are Oxbridge educated (though recent times, Major and Jim Callaghan never even went to university).

Is the suggestion then that you can only go to Yale/Oxbridge if you a born wealthy?

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by monocrat
All socialists believe in equality, be they Marxists or even social democrats.

Obviously Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot did, huh?

The "some are more equal than others kind of equality".

[monocrat]

Define equality? Does it mean equal rights or equal outcomes?

In this sense, socialists believe in economic equality.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Is the suggestion then that you can only go to Yale/Oxbridge if you a born wealthy?

I don't know about Yale (or Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc.) but Oxbridge are attempting to accept students on the basis of merit.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Perhaps, for example, you should look at the last few Presidents. Bush Jnr is the exception.

Unless becoming President isn't considered a success.

How about we look at the Presidents of the last century...

1901-1909: Teddy Roosevelt - From a well-off family in NYC
1909-1913: William Taft - Son of a Judge
1913-1921: Woodrow Wilson - Son of a Minister
1921-1923: Warren Harding - An Ohio Newspaper Editor
1923-1929: Calvin Coolidge - Son of a village storekeeper
1929-1933: Herbert Hoover - Son of a Quaker blacksmith
1933-1945: Franklin D. Roosevelt - From a well-off NY family
1945-1953: Harry S. Truman - A Missouri farmer
1953-1961: Dwight D. Eisenhower - His education came from West Point
1961-1963: John F. Kennedy - From a family that man their money running booze during prohibition
1963-1969: Lyndon B. Johnson - A Texas farmer. "Dirt poor"
1969-1974: Richard M. Nixon - From a middle-class family in California
1974-1977: Gerald Ford - From a middle-class family in Nebraska who moved to Michigan
1977-1981: Jimmy Carter - Peanut farmer
1981-1989: Ronald Reagan - Actor, worked his way through school
1989-1993: George H.W. Bush - From a well-off family. War hero
1993-2001: William J. Clinton - From a middle-class family in Arkansas
2001-present: George W. Bush - From a well-off family.

100 years. 5 Presidents who came from wealthy or well-off families. The rest, 13 of them, came from backgrounds that placed great challenges in front of them (as did the 5 who came from wealthy backgrounds).

[Kermit]

Thats odd, Id count being the son of a judge, a newspaper editor and middle-class as being advantageously placed- theyre not paupers, are they?

But thats not the point. How many CEOs of corporations come from poor families, that sort of thing. Ability helps, but ability can only reach fruition when there is money funding it.

There is no equality of opportunity other than in name...you CAN, in theory, reach the top from the bottom, but it is increasingly difficult to do so. The poor breeed poor because the poor get the worst facilities, the rich breed rich because they get the best facilities, particularly in education.

[Greenhat]

Kermit,

Why don't you do a similar list of the CEOs of the top 500 American companies and their backgrounds. I think you might be surprised.

Sounds to me like you are making excuses for your own failures.

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by monocrat
Define equality? Does it mean equal rights or equal outcomes?

In this sense, socialists believe in economic equality.

Ah, yes...

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot... they all lived to the same economic standards as their people, didn't they? :rolleyes:

[monocrat]

How Stalin 'lived' is not relevant. Or perhaps you can tell me when Marx stated that a leader should live as his citizens?

Or do you dispute that socialists believe in economic equality? Even though Marx advocated a revolution of the proletariat? :)

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Kermit
Thats odd, Id count being the son of a judge, a newspaper editor and middle-class as being advantageously placed- theyre not paupers, are they?

But thats not the point. How many CEOs of corporations come from poor families, that sort of thing. Ability helps, but ability can only reach fruition when there is money funding it.


Was Bill Gates born a billionaire? I doubt it.

There is no equality of opportunity other than in name...you CAN, in theory, reach the top from the bottom, but it is increasingly difficult to do so. The poor breeed poor because the poor get the worst facilities, the rich breed rich because they get the best facilities, particularly in education.

Equality of opportunity is one of the only worthy forms of equality. Maybe society is not as meritocratic as it could be. Nevertheless, there are few impediments which prevent a poorer person from 'succeeding'.

[TellMeWhoAreYou]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
There has to be a balance between jobs created from corporate profits and corporate greed. I don't think big governments....which are part of socialism...are efficient and they can hinder growth. For example, I read where a shop keeper in Sweden only keeps his shop open a certain amount a week because if he earns too much, to much of it goes to the government. Less hours open in that shop equal less people he employs.



We do that here too (In denmark) and this may come as a schock for you :) 7-11 sometimes closes for an half an hour for that same reason :eek:


Seriously we have rules and law that prohibit some stores in having open all the time. Something about making the compitition fair...

You probaly wouldnt understand it, (im not sure i do either) but it protects the market and the small businesses.

[Simbelyne]

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
Clearly complete arse. If you are going to put forward such a case, it really does help if you don't base it on such an obvious mistake.

Whos the President?

Whos the Presidents Daddy?

[Greenhat]

Originally posted by monocrat
How Stalin 'lived' is not relevant. Or perhaps you can tell me when Marx stated that a leader should live as his citizens?

Or do you dispute that socialists believe in economic equality? Even though Marx advocated a revolution of the proletariat? :)

What you seem to be unwilling to recognize is that any such "belief" in equality quickly becomes put aside when actual people are in the position to do so.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Simbelyne
Whos the President?

Whos the Presidents Daddy?

Suggest you read back a little. An exception doesn't prove a rule...

I think Mr Hat gave a "starting point" for each Pres in the last 100 years. Only 5 (of 18) were born into a rich family.

[Simbelyne]

The Kennedys? The Bush's? Both families are/were heavily involved riuling the country, be it openly or not.

[Greenhat]

And there are 3 of the 5. Add the Roosevelts and you get all of the 5.

Ever bother to actually look at facts?

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Simbelyne
The Kennedys? The Bush's? Both families are/were heavily involved riuling the country, be it openly or not.

Indeed they were. But they haven't been running the country for the last 100 years. From my recollection of history, those two families account for 3 Presidents and I think I included then in the five I mentioned earlier...

Exceptions do not make the rule...