1
63
64

Six Contradictions ... (i.imgur.com)

submitted by Clatsop

all 20 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]Not_A_Despot 6 ポイント7 ポイント

When you look at many of the people who advocate for a socialist-style economy (a growing population these days, sadly), they advocate for a society that has enslaved large masses of the working class in the past. The USSR, the DPRK, and the PRC are just three examples of leftist nations that have only proved effective in chaining up the very people they swore to liberate.

Yes, our government is failing in some regards. Many people take this to mean that the very system of running things, which has been there since America's birth, is to blame, which simply isn't true at all.

[–]VaginuhGoldwater Conservative 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Live in system where actively participating citizens are essential Don't participate Politicians run wild Blame system

People want to be enslaved. They just don't know it.

I'm not talking people here. I'm saying that these socialists do, whose answer to everything is "Well, someone would take care of it."

[–]Not_A_Despot 2 ポイント3 ポイント

So, you're saying socialists are taking advantage of a democratic government in which the people refuse to participate?

[–]YOLOBELLY 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Haha, your username

[–]VaginuhGoldwater Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Maybe not taking advantage, but it's certainly working out for them.

When people disengage from politics, and actively avoid participating (e.g. becoming informed), it becomes much easier for the guy to step in whose preaching "Everything should be done for you!"

It's coincidental, I suppose.

[–]theferrit32 1 ポイント2 ポイント

These are examples of totalitarian dictatorships/oligarchies who are "socialist". In my opinion that is not what socialism is, whether or not you agree with socialism, if you are a totalitarian dictatorship then you are by definition not socialist. Socialism in my mind implies that it must be a democracy, or at least works ideally and effectively under democracy.

I may be wrong, but we have yet to truly see anywhere a democratic socialist state, where the people actually have the power over governance, not a dictator and the rich, powerful oligarchs who surround them. I personally am hesitant to think this would work, but if enough was invested in ensuring the sanctity of the democratic process and forbidding special interests, bribery, corruption, etc etc, I would be interested to see what would happen.

[–]dcman00000 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Why does it always come to this silly argument from people who support socialism? Countries that tried socialism and turned into Dystopias....well thats not socialism because the Workers paradise never materlized. Baloney

[–]theferrit32 0 ポイント1 ポイント

They aren't socialism because as the "revolutions" were taking place, even though they were initiated by a popular uprising/movement, were then taken over by a relatively small group of powerful oligarchs who then removed any semblance of popular/democratic control. That is a core tenant of socialism, without it they are simply totalitarian communist states.

[–]Wasp-ish 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Can you explain what happens in a free and fair 'Socialist democracy', when people vote for something that is capitalist and not socialist? And further to this, how do you propose people create things or businesses when ultimately the state must own everything as property rights aren't something that go hand in hand with Socialism?

[–]theferrit32 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Whatever people vote for happens. What makes it a "socialist democracy" is not a group of oligarchs within the government taking control and declaring the country socialist and from there forward refusing to change its policy based on the will of the people. A "socialist democracy" is simply where the people vote in favor of socialist policies, and where the people even when the socialist policies are implemented, still retain democratic power over the government.

Socialism doesn't prohibit private property, is only proposes a system of public economy, where the means of production of goods and services are managed by the people, not any single capitalist entity/executive group. You still have private property.

Again, I'm not saying this would work, although it has yet to be attempted without a dictator/oligarchs swooping in and seizing all control away from the people, so it can't really be said whether it would be successful or not

[–]NordlichenUbermensch 2 ポイント3 ポイント

In general, it is sufficient to point out that people who want more socialism can have their pick of 90% of the other nations on the planet, yet they never move.

[–]Wasp-ish 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I agree, lets take a look at everyone's favourite Lefty - Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is someone who could easily afford to live wherever he wanted. He's a person that does not need to invest his own personal fortune into arms companies, while at the same time saying they are evil and wrong. He could give all his wealth to charity like the good little Socialist he is, instead his children will inherit it.

[–]poplarhillbilly -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states 90% is a little to high dude.

[–]NordlichenUbermensch 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"more socialism"

Use all of your reading comprehension all the time.

[–]Ragnarok1871 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It depends. Interventionism and socialism are very close together. One could argue that modern interventionism might as well be socialist.

[–]Scooter059 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The poor are not getting poorer. The working middle class is getting poorer.