If it is true that the US is on the road to socialism and if it is being orchestrated by UN treaty; how bad can that be? Equality must be mandated, income, housing and the family must all be defined by government otherwise some may suffer. Health care must also be administered by government,schools must provide a singular government agenda and, of course, the child must be guided by the government to better determine their role, with regards the needs of the community. Community service will be a mandate, as well, as proper diet, as defined by government. Health care services should be based on the needs of the community in order to promote the health of the community. Government control of industry promotes equality. Marriage and the family are defined by government and every one has a right to rest and leisure and periodic holidays with pay. Each citizen has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
This is a good thing right? No individual freedom here.
Socialism is a natural reaction to an extreme economic and social system that has such a wide divide between the very rich and the very poor.
As with any situation such as this you will have the two sides scheming and plotting against each other to even things out.
Trouble with the whole thing is that those in the have category border on the greedy side as well as the have nots go for as much as they can get equally greedy.
This kind of leaves you with the government in between trying to figure out the answer. It doesn't mean it is the correct one, but an answer non the less.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
I don't think government is in the middle - I think government is orchestrating the whole scenario to have total control.
Let me clarify - not government, but the socialists (true wealthly world citizens) who control government and politicans. After all, once you have more money than is possible to spend - what's left - only power. And when your ego says you are smarter than anyone else - how could the mere citizens of any country take care of themselves. Can't let capitalists continue - they might get rich and powerful like yourself. Must control the poor masses first - then turn them against the capitalists, that way you end of controlling everyone. The capitalists will work for you and your agenda and the poor masses will constantly struggle to just survive and be happy when they receive a "crumb" from you.
This is an interesting perspective - because if you change the wording around a little bit you have just stated a pretty standard Marxist view of late stage capitalism.
You say that socialists control the world and are pulling the strings? If they are socialists, how did they get all that money?
If they oppose and oppress the capitalists, does that make the capitalists the working class?
Marx would say: capitalism leads to concentration of wealth and increasing exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. Sounds like what you just described.
I had exactly the same thought. Switch the terms and fiddle with the wording a little to sound more like a 19th century German, and Marx himself could have written that post!
"Socialism is a natural reaction to an extreme economic and social system that has such a wide divide between the very rich and the very poor." Absolutely. That's why socialism was so darn popular at and about the turn of the 20th Century and during the Great Depression.
People accused Franklin Roosevelt of being a socialist when he was trying to get the New Deal created. If anything, his moderate approach to economic and social justice prevented a more extreme backlash against laisee-faire capitalism, and saved the US from full-on communism.
And we're starting to see a comparable divide between the very rich and the very poor today, in no small part due to the actions of the very rich. The pay rate for executives has risen incredibly quickly (mostly due to quid-pro-quo deals) while that of rank-and-file workers has remained more or less flat, and in some cases has declined due to inflation.
People who stand to inherit large fortunes have spent millions to convince everyone that their inherited billions should not be taxed.
By your twisted definition, yes. To most Americans, especially the clear thinking ones, he was one of our greatest presidents. By the way, your lord and savior (Ronald Reagan) admired him greatly.
To most UNINFORMED Americans he was one of our greatest Presidents, especially if how you measure greatness is by the impact he had on society and our nation. Impact though can be both positive and negative and if you actually read about the things he did, you may come to the same conclusions as I have, regardless of what Reagen thought about him.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to "Teabagger Talking Points Weekly".
Please forward your latest copy so I may also twist history to suit the conclusions my talk radio bosses insist on.
Why don't you just read wiki, it's short and they don't use big words.
Wow! That article really was a scathing attack on FDR.
Among the crimes listed were:
Economic recovery - F***ing Socialist!
New protections for minorities - F***ing N***er-lover!
Defeat of the Nazi's in WWII - I heard somewhere that he had some Jewish ancestors.
Thanks for setting me straight. Now I hate that damned FRD as much as you do.
If you live long enuf, the question may be answered for you.
It all depends on how you define your terms.
Socialism, in it's pure theoretical form, is when the economy is democratically controlled. That's not very different from what the libertarians want, except that decisions would be made by the community, not by the individual.
In other words, pure socialism would be purely democratic, not hierarchical. There would be no CEOs, no executives, no stock holders telling the lowly employees how to best make a profit.
The scenario you describe sounds like state socialism - mandates from a centralized government. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
But what if all those mandates and decisions about community wealth and health were made at the community level?
Most of what I said was taken from the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. If there were no CEO's there would be no pay checks, only unemployment and how long would that last?
Do CEOs make demand? Do they produce the products with their own labor? Do they buy products? Do they "give" us jobs?
In my experience, the employees can probably run most companies better than the CEOs.
Have you ever actually READ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
It was based heavily on the US Bill of Rights and is basically just an expansion of it. I had no idea the founding fathers are now considered evil socialists!
Just in case anyone wants to read it.
Oooooh arguing with facts.. that's an underhanded socialist trick.
Oooh, this is something I've always had at the back of my mind to read, so now I can tick it off my mental list LOL.
It all sounds great up to and including article 21, but after that... For example, giving a person the "right to work" implies an obligation on someone else's part to give that person a job - no matter how shiftless, lazy and incompetent they are. Having things like that in a bill of rights will only result in a thriving legal profession, due to a proliferation in lawsuits.
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems like a recipe for trouble to me. Why should I allow someone their pursuit of happiness if their happiness requires them to be lazy, or loud or obnoxious? What if their pursuit of happiness involves playing loud music, or driving off road vehicles in natural areas?
Edit: or what if their pursuit of happiness involves, say, burning coal and polluting the air my children breathe? Or maybe their pursuit of happiness involves buying cheap clothes that were made by 11 year old girls in Bangladesh who work 16 hour days for a nickel.
That pursuit of happiness thing sure could cause a mess...
People should be free to make their own choices in life as long as it doesn't harm others. They have to deal with the consequences of their own actions. Why should you care if others decide to be lazy, or loud, or obnoxious?
I begin to care at the point when it starts to impact my life, the life of my children, or the lives of others.
Edit: and because there are some here who seem to have an underveloped sense of irony, I am not against the pursuit of happiness. Just pointing out that the rights of one person will inevitably rub up against the rights of another... that's part of living with other people.
That is the problem, the more some try to control others impact upon them, they less freedom everyone has. Where and when does this begin and end?
Your last sentence hit the nail on the head. The question is - How do we as a people and government properly deal with it?
Your right to pursue happiness, ends when it infringes on another's rights, that's the role of government and why we have laws.
No one has a "right" to buy cheap clothes, or to say how long an 11 year old girl should work or for how much, that's up to the parties involved.
So should you pay fair market value for the clothes and other consumer goods you buy? They would probably cost about 10 times as much if they were made with fair labor practices.
As for the 11 year old girl - does she really have the power to negotiate the terms of her employment? If she did, you think she'd be working 16 hour days in a sweatshop?
And who determines "fair market value"? You? The government?
The value of anything is determined by what someone is willing to pay, what you, or the government, or an 11 year old girl thinks is fair doesn't matter if I am not willing to pay it.
I don't know what the capabilities of an 11 year old girl are to negotiate her employment. Maybe she wants to work 16 hours a day, maybe she doesn't, maybe her parents negotiate for her, I don't know, all I know is I need a shirt and I'm willing to pay so much either you're willing to accept that or the girl is or there's no deal. You see, that's how freedom works, we each get to make our own decisions.
So the girl is free in this situation?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. I just need a shirt.
So your right to get a shirt for 5 bucks at Wal Mart overrides the girl's right to not have to work 16 hour days in a sweatshop?
I don't have a "right" to get a shirt, nor do I have any control over the rights of the girl. If I know that the shirt was made with slave labor, I could choose not to buy it, beyond that what should I do?
I don't know exactly - but I know that most Americans, given a choice, will buy a $5 shirt made in Bangladesh over a $15 shirt made in the USA.
That's the free market in action.
One thing you could do, if you didn't agree with slavery, would be to pressure your government to pass laws banning the import of clothing made with sweatshop labor. But then you'd be harming the consumer, who'd have to pay more, and the businesses who couldn't make as much profit from it - which threatens jobs here. Plus you'd be interfering with the free market.
So. I know what action I, the socialist, would take in this situation. But what action would a free marketeer take?
Yes it's so simple, pass a law that prevents the import of the 5 dollar shirt. Like anything else it's much more complicated than that! That 11 year old girl is earning a living and most likely improving the life of her and her family because the 5 cents she makes working 16 hours a day buys a lot of goods that she and her family need to survive, and YOU want to take that away from her because YOU think an 11 year old girl shouldn't work 16 hours a day for such little money! So now the 11 year old girl has no work and no money and her family is starving...I guess that's compassionate socialism.
There's plenty of injustice in the world. We went through it here in the US. All we can do is hope that over time living conditions will improve and those foreign workers will increase their standard of living, and I think they will, it just takes time. You can't project your views your ideals your customs and your culture onto foreigners that are so different. There are countries where parents sell their children and this is acceptable in their culture. The best way to help such people is to bring capitalism and prosperity to them.
So it's compassionate to "allow" a little girl to work 16 hour days for nothing, because the alternative would be worse?
I mean, I get what you're saying. But it seems pretty weak. And in many countries around the world the people were doing just fine without multinational corporations moving in. Mexico is a prime example, where NAFTA sent many farmers out of business - and they are now eking out an existence as migrant workers or in the maquiladoras.
Situations are never black and white. This goes for my argument as well as yours.
It's a tyrannical piece of crap that takes away countries' sovreignty......
How so? Where's the line that says that?
And by extension, God said it.
Brenda speaks for God, who for some reason cannot speak for himself.
I'm beginning to doubt his awesome powers.
Did you ever believe His awesome powers, Ron?
And....anyone can read that article in the link and see what I mean. Well, anyone who can properly read anyway.
Just like anyone can read our Constitution and even read between the lines if need be, so that it's stupid to have such controversy about what it says and what it doesn't say.
People are nuts these days, especially the Left.
Yes, I did once believe in his awesome powers..
then I turned 12, it's been pretty much downhill from there.
Do his "awesome powers" include making you lose your ability to point to a line of text that supports your claim?
The Bill of Rights is a restriction on government with regards your freedom. The Declaration on Human Rights tells you what rights you have and how you will use them. There is a big difference. The D on HR does not recognize States right or the rights of the people. There can be no expansion of freedom. Any expansion becomes a limitation.
The real difference is the Bill of Rights is a recognition that all people are born with certain rights by natural law, not by government.
The UN document takes the role as the granter of rights, including rights that aren't a part of natural law.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me where it says this in the document.
How does this:
And have you read the preamble to the bill of rights?
If that's true hardly anybody appears to be paying any attention to it. It's not clear to me why anybody is worrying about socialism. It's pretty much a dead letter.
So how would that actually work in practice? Can you give an example of what sort of "community decisions" you're talking about?
The Israeli Kibbutz system would be one example of this sort of community model.
Does your town have a food Co-op? Do you know anyone who works at an employee owned business? People in the old days used to do this sort of thing all the time, coming together to help each other build barns and do other tasks that would be impossible for one individual.
For anyone who *wants* to club together and start a food co-op or employee-owned business, then I say good luck to them - it's a fantastic idea. However, "co-op" type arrangements do have a drawback, namely that everything has to be decided by a committee.
Trust me, I've sat on committees and if there's one thing I know about them it's this: they SUCK.
Also if you make this the model by which the whole of society is run then you're going to have to employ some form of coercion to get everyone to participate. Then it stops being a benign thing and starts to look very like the Soviet Union.
I agree that committees can be a royal pain in the ass. But things don't have to function entirely by committee - all I'm talking about here is ownership. So, the employees can own a company - and they can still hire an executive to make decisions on their behalf.
The board of a corporation, in this case, would not be made up of investors who have no stake in the corporation other than seeing that it makes a profit, but by workers/employees who are elected by other workers/employees, and who are familiar with the actual day to day operations of the company.
"so, the employeees can own a company- and still hire and executive to make decisions on their behalf"
Are you talking about "social collectivism?" But of what difference would it make from a company CEO? At the end of the day the Executive is paid huge sums of money.
I have my own perceived concept about capitalism and socialism. I take socialism as a system of governance and capitalism as a stage of development. And that the two are not mutually exclusive. That gov't under a socialist arrangement can provide social services to its citzens like health care, education for all, living wage among the many. At the same time gov't could give space to individuals to engage in private business. At the end of it all there is competiton between gov't and private business who ever delivers better services receives a bigger pay cheque.
... and do the winners get to have gay sex too ???
Not really, Greek one! At the end of the day the "haves" and "have-nots" are brought to a levelled ground. The have-nots are being taken care of through gov't facilitation and the "haves" can still live in opulence
What does gay sex have to do with anything? Old Greek tradition?
What a truly benevolent govt. giving space to the people who own it so that they can engage in private business.
Isn't that special.
It's a fine system, if you're in a family tribe headed by a war lord, otherwise as a system of government it's been shown time and time again to be a failure. I don't know why the democrats love it so much. I thought they were supposed to be smart.
When they allow nominations for "Best Comeback On Hub Forums" - you got my vote.
Crap, my thinking thingy froze up!
you can create your own forum post on the subject, you know
geez.. sometimes I feel as though I am reading the screenplay to the sequel of Fight Club
Capitalism is a system of common sense, while Socialism is a system of common cents ™
I wonder how many Chinese People sewing clothes for Americans at 28 cents and hour 12 hours a day would happily give up their Socialist Government for an opportunity to not be like everyone else?
I don't know, maybe ask some of the illegal aliens in your country who probably make the same amount?
If they were legal they would at least get paid minimum wage.
Just out of curiosity, do you know any legal immigrants?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to become a legal immigrant? Or how much time it takes? Or how many ridiculous bureaucratic hoops you have to jump through?
Here's a hint: thousands of dollars in fees (more if you hire a lawyer), months or years on waiting lists (with no guarantee of success), and really ridiculous bureaucratic hoops at every step of the process. My husband, for example, had to prove at one point that he had been in the US on a specific day more than five years earlier.
He was lucky enough to be educated, to speak good English, and to come from a well-to-do family. If you're a penniless Mexican farmer with poor English skills and no education who wants a better life for his children, what other choice do you have? You can become an illegal immigrant and risk death/imprisonment, or join the drug trade and guarantee yourself death/imprisonment. I know which I'd choose.
Yes I do actually. I wasn't claiming it was easy to become a legal immigrant and I understand why they don't.
I actually believe that the federal government should make it much easier for people to become legal immigrants.
Do you know how difficult it is to buy a car? You have to pay a bunch of money and get a license and register it and pay taxes and fill out paperwork and all that. What choice do people have but to steal someone else's car? Have you no heart?
The Chinese worker making 28 cents per hour is working for a Capitlaist Corporation. The 'socialist' government in China is the muscle to make sure the workers can't demand fair treatment (thet the government and unions require in the US).
This ilustrates what wingnuts can't get. In 1776 the classic oppressors were government and religion, so safeguards were put in place. Now governments are pawns of multinationals working together are bigger than most countries and only the power of entites like the federal government and the UN can control the multinationals.
Wingnuts refuse to see the threat these business entities pose to our freedom and want to constrain government - which makes as much sense as handcuffing the cop during a crime spree.
Socialism has no value. Therefore is a detriment to any society. No explanation needed. Plain and Simple.
If you disagree, then you should actually look up the word, then the ideology behind the word and the history of it's practice.
If at that time you are still clueless then I would suggest you just join the rest of the people who like to bury their heads in the sand and ignore things that are vital to their own life.
Either way, this subject isn't worth the pot to spit(piss) in or to even discuss.
The American people cannot let socialism deride the Republic foundation supposedly upholding society's ideology of a Country.
And, no socialist republic is a myth that also doesn't work.
Again, just my thoughts. Enjoy!
"Socialism has no value. Therefore is a detriment to any society. hmm No explanation needed."
So, I'm going to make an assertion, and claim that it's self-evident, thus absolving myself from supporting said assertion with data and/orlogic.
"If at that time you are still clueless then I would suggest you just join the rest of the people who like to bury their heads in the sand and ignore things that are vital to their own life."
I will further claim that if someone disagrees with my assertion, they are in some way mentally deficient or else willfully self-destructive.
Wow, that's a super way to convince folks.
Nice try at twisting my words. I cannot help it if your view is skewed or refuse to read the words as they are intended.
Next time, do the research, should you have questions. I don't need to provide anything. I'm not claiming anything that isn't already common-knowledge, to most.
If you happen to be not part of those people, then go learn. But, don't try and twist my words to suit yourself or your position.
It's obvious that you do not know who I am or read any of my hubs. Therefore, I'll leave you to make whatever assertions you want.
The evidence I am sure can be found, if someone wanted to take the effort.
Either way, enjoy.
I found his reaction to be pretty accurate, Cags. I've studied socialism and found exactly the opposite of what you stated.
And I've read a few of your hubs too. I don't agree.
I think anyone who would call a progressive income tax "discrimination against the rich" needs to spend some time developing a better analysis.
"Nice try at twisting my words. I cannot help it if your view is skewed or refuse to read the words as they are intended."
Actually, you can. If I'm misinterpreting your words, there are two possibilities: they were unclear, or I'm deliberately misunderstanding.
You have two choices: you can assume that I'm a person of goodwill who read words that were unclear, and try to clarify them for me, or you can assume that your words cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way than the one you meant for them to mean, so I must be maliciously and willfully misunderstanding you. Take your pick.
"I'm not claiming anything that isn't already common-knowledge, to most." Actually, you're claiming something that is open to argument and dispute, unlike something that is actually common knowledge, like, say, the USSR is no longer a country. If you notice, I haven't actually disagreed with your assertion. I've simply taken you to task for making an assertion and utterly failing to back up your assertion with data or reasoning of any kind.
"Next time, do the research, should you have questions. I don't need to provide anything." Actually, yeah, you kinda do, if you want to convince anybody who doesn't already agree with your position . I mean, by that standard, I could say something like, "Dolphins are equally intelligent to humans, and are entitled to all the rights that we have. Everyone knows this. If you disagree, do the research."
Ha, ha. I just won the argument, by the standard you laid out above.
"It's obvious that you do not know who I am or read any of my hubs. Therefore, I'll leave you to make whatever assertions you want." Fair enough, and I will. Though when I do make an assertion, I'll be sure to back it up either with data or with reason. Folks might still disagree with me, and that's cool, but it won't be because I can't be bothered to to support my claims.
And you're right, I haven't read any of your hubs yet. Why does that matter? But if this is an example of the kind of argument you make in your hubs, I don't see much point in reading them, to be honest.
"The evidence I am sure can be found, if someone wanted to take the effort." Sure, but it's not my job to convince me that you're right. That's your job, mate. I mean, if you think it's worth doing.
we ALL know which President REALLY started this slide towards communism..
Question for you history buffs.. at around what point in time did the virtually powerless UN (where the US has a veto, by the way) become one of favorite targets for neo-conservatives?
What's next.. The Red Cross?? (it DOES have the word RED in it!!)
I think crippled children are their next target. Little bastards shouldn't accept socialized medicine!
the value of socialism is collectivism. they advocate people work hand in hand and make great effort.
by Charles James 7 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these in a hub or hubs I really would like clarity on what exactly the conservative...
by James Smith 5 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be aggressive intervention in the economy or you do not.Since Republicans are...
by Peter Freeman 6 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a reasonable debate here. Not that I'm hopeful but it's worth a try:Socialists hold that...
by Elliott_T 8 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put Capitalism into one word: Freedom. The freedom to innovate, grow, succeed, or...
by cjhunsinger 4 years ago
What is the value of a socialistic society?So many Americans today seem to embrace socialism over the capitalism that made America without a knowledge of it's history or that it may lead to a totalitarian rule. Socialism defined is the government control over all that is made, how it is made and...
by Poppa Blues 8 years ago
If the health care bill is deemed constitutional under the commerce clause and general welfare clause, then, what is to prevent the government from forcing Americans to buy GM cars to reduce the cost of energy and lower green house gas emissions? Comrade socialists, what say you?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|