Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

Yeah it will all keep fucking up unless we keep changing it a little. We can never get a stable system but we can always make it better.

Like why the hell are the damn bankers sitting on their money. The government gave it to them for a reason, yet they are too shitfaced with greed to care.

 

Because they are a bank, and banks are not charities. If you give them money and don't demand them by law to give it to certain individuals who meet certain standards then they don't have to. Congress's fault for not being specific.

They rather invest treasury bonds and sit on those safe and modest returns.Remember they were too greedy?:love: All while making shareholders feel nice and secure.

The End:noworry:

 

There seems to be a mislead belief that "someone" simply mandates a political or economic system and "voila" that's the way it turns out. The reality is a continuing equilibrium of a succesful economy; those that are too lopsided will cease to exist - the remaining are a careful balance of the two social-economic systems.

The "puritans" of anarcho/capitalism have failed on their own just as their pure communist/socialist counterparts have. The primary reason being the majority lower class... in pure capitalism, the distribution of wealth tends to favor the already rich (and the more capable), but the unrest of lower class prevails by the sheer force in numbers. In socialism, it becomes apparent that the lower class is incompetent at spreading the wealth effectively themselves, and the inefficiencies of the system will bring the economy to a grinding halt.

That said, it should become clear that capitalism remain the dominant force in an economy - greed generally prevails. But one should not look upon the socialist aspects of a government in such a harsh manner, many are there simply to keep the lower class in it's place.

 

Why is that?

 

Well, there are numerous reasons for this phenomenon, I will try to list a few examples

1. Those that can afford a good education (in pure capitalism), will have an inherent advantage.

2. Those that have a lot of capital to lose can generate more opportunities (ie entrepreneur).

3. The ones already wealthy tend to be more intelligent to begin with.

This is not to say that a poor person CANNOT become rich in a capitalistic society...only that the general trend of capitalism moves towards a GREATER AMOUNT of wealth but not necessarily an EVEN amount of wealth.

 

You are just saying if it was Curr opted. There's no Ifs in here. It has to do with Raw Government meaning types of Government not if it was...../

Okay if the rich do get money, hey create business meaning more jobs.

In most countries Capitalism is not abused and so it goes out evenly.

And also when you say the chances that the rich is smart, is completely Biased and offers no proof.

 

Corrupted? What is this nonsense you speak of.

Creating business will stimulate the economy, but it does not suggest a even distribution.

Bullshit. Even the capitalists would agree with me on this one, maybe not for the same reasons.

Granted, it's a poor but true example. What I'm saying is that the rich don't become rich from being stupid...Sure, people win the lottery, get lucky, but if you want to hold onto a multi-millionare dollar business from generation to generation you had better have a decent intellgence.

 

I agree that socialism fails...people need to realize that Obama was a mistake. and I'm not saying McCain would be any better either. I don't support either of them.

 

The stimulus plan is a mistake, the election of a charismatic leader is not. It's a package, which overall nets positive.

 

Obama is just a puppet representing the interests of several extremely wealthy individuals. Do you do your own research?

 

You've watched a video directed by anti-socialism, anti-communism, conspiracy-tinted Alex Jones (taken from his own web site). If you are willing to take his video, and base your arguments upon that, and call it research.... so be it.

I don't care if you think Obama is some evil, superficial moron. His popularity and rejuvenation alone make him a step over the Bush presidency.

 

To take Libertarianism to such a degree would be national suicide.

To have a land without laws or governmental structure is simply unheard of.

Libertarianism is only a RESPONSE to Government, it is not a style of Government itself, that would be anarchy.

 

I would disagree, it is the best medicine to cure the disease that is government.
In what ways would it be bad?

It isn't unheard of, there is plenty of discussion about it. There aren't any examples of the type of anarchy I advocate though (though there is plenty of evidence for the effectiveness of free markets).
Regardless though, that is unimportant. Something does not have to have existed in the past for it to be a good idea.

Anarchy is having no government. I'd say libertarianism is a style of small government.
Lets not get into semantics though, it isn't that important.

 

See, I see what you're saying.

I revoke the unheard of part, but I do not believe any society could prosper without a central core, to guide, and to govern.

But maybe I don't fully understand Libertarianism. There has to be law enforcement correct? Which would lead to judges and so on, or do these not exist?

Consider a murder trial where the murderer is pleading it was a consentual killing, wouldn't this be a legit argument? If there are judges but nothing higher, such as a government, governors, or higher officials, couldn't they be corrupt, causing a major flaw?

Just some fallacies I could think of, but I will admit, I don't fully understand Libertarianism.

 

What specific concerns do you have?

Yes there would likely be some form of law enforcement. It would probably be similar to private security companies today. Entire neighborhoods might hire one to protect them, or maybe just individual people, or maybe companies would hire them to protect there area, or maybe some places wouldn't need any.
I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but again, I assume some system of mediation or justice for criminals would put up.
You might be interested in this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
Read the part on "Dispute Resolution" in particular, as I think that might interest you as one possibility.

If there is proof the "victim" wanted to die I don't see why it wouldn't be legit. After all, he owns his body and can ask someone to kill him if he wants to, right? I think this is similar to euthanasia, right?

They could, but it would be in their best interest not to. Once somebody is wronged by that court and it gets out they would probably lose a lot of their business.

I'm right there with you, I don't know a lot about it either. At first I sort of looked into it because I wanted a return to a Constitutional sized government, but reading some stuff I started questioning whether even that could be legitimate.

 

The reason why you don't understand it is because the subject itself is hard to define.

 

if socialism wer every followed to teh specifications of karl marx it would most certainly work. soccialism has never gotten to the point were a gov can step out of cntrol

 

Where's the evidence to support that claim?

Well, Socialism has never gotten to that point because it CANNOT get to that point. How many socialist/communist counties have sprung up and how many of them have been successful? Ask any person who lived or is living in a communist country, ask him if he's currently happy with the system.

 

An interesting read, thanks.

I darent post my opinions about it because I still don't fully understand some of it. But oh well, life goes on despite my stupidity.

 

Thank you for stickying this thread, though the uninformed will most likely not read this I did and completely see it your way.

To the United State's dismay, Obama is the biggest socialist president we have ever seen. Our economy will crash due to the 700 billion dollar bailout and everyone will panic, regretting the day we elected the man whose big saying was "the change we need". I find it funny that only a month of him being president everyone finally realizes all the good George Bush did for this country.

To put it into perspective, Obama has spent more money in ONE MONTH, just one month, than all the presidents starting from George Washington COMBINED. Everyone HATED George Bush for his million dollar bailout, yet I see very few guns raised to the 700 billion dollar bailout...