Socialismphobia

[Euronion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpvHVnr6y9U&feature=related

Preview:

Bill Maher: In Europe socialism is just another political party, and it doesn't meant that we're against making a profit. It just means that government takes over certain things like: hospitals, and prisons, the military, and schools...that just should not be run for profit.

Bill O'Reilly:Well Maher is absolutely correct!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMS_P09dKbc

Socialism explained even more, such as the fear of "Socialism."

Fear for Socialism..."They think its 'Communism'"

Please stop spamming, you've posted more than twice with the same link. Your video is wrong, he is using an O'Reilly/Dictionary fallacy to try and twist his point. He is saying that just because O'Reilly supports the Government running the military, the prisons, and some schools that it makes him a full blown socialist, it does not. Socialism is defined by the man who invented it, Karl Marx, as the transitional phase to Communism. He describes the need for the redistribution of wealth by the Government because he says people are too selfish, particularly rich people, to share with others, he says that once the society reaches a point where the rich begin to freely redistribute their wealth, when government is no longer needed, we have reached Communism.

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Let's just say I've lived a fair amount of my life in sunny Florida too, and I've encountered the 'good-ol-boy' culture there far more than I wish to have...

What's wrong with the Southern "good ol' boys". Southerners aren't racist hicks you know. Many are normal people, like anybody else.

Spend four years in the university that's supposed to be the most prestigious in the state, where rich, elitist, arrogant twats can literally buy their way in, create their own little exclusive groups and almost literally run the university's SG (of millions of dollars, mind you) entirely to their advantage. The sort of individuals who have nothing going for them but the sheer accident of birth and yet think they're God's gift to the cosmos and proceed to shit over everyone else.

Nothing to do with being Southern. Everything to do with being elitist twats who screw over everyone who isn't exactly like them.

A pretty nice microcosm of the real world, now that I think of it.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Well, I would point out that opposition to the institution of a socialist system in the US is not entirely composed of people who blindly and vehemently oppose socialism. Propaganda, parrots, and snarky politicians aside, the reasons people oppose socialism are innumerable. There are people who have given genuine thought to the subject and simply do not believe that a socialist system (however it may be constructed) would be equally or more economically efficient compared to existing capitalist models. There are also those who doubt that a socialist system would be capable of effectively meeting its broader social objectives. There are even those who believe that the major goals of socialism can be accomplished by modifying the capitalist system rather than replacing it. Even more opponents have opted not to interpret history materialistically and so have come to different interpretations of which forces drove major historical events. The reasons can go on ad infinitum.

Some opponents of socialism in the US are simply people blindly parroting whatever they've been told about it. Some people are also all too happy to take advantage of this group of people to forward their personal political aims. But this is not the whole story. Some opponents of socialism in the US stand in their opposition quite genuinely and for various reasons.

[North California]

What's wrong with the Southern "good ol' boys". Southerners aren't racist hicks you know. Many are normal people, like anybody else.

Spend four years in the university that's supposed to be the most prestigious in the state, where rich, elitist, arrogant twats can literally buy their way in, create their own little exclusive groups and almost literally run the university's SG (of millions of dollars, mind you) entirely to their advantage. The sort of individuals who have nothing going for them but the sheer accident of birth and yet think they're God's gift to the cosmos and proceed to shit over everyone else.

Nothing to do with being Southern. Everything to do with being elitist twats who screw over everyone who isn't exactly like them.

A pretty nice microcosm of the real world, now that I think of it.

Fair enough. The scenario you just described is prevalent in California unfortunately. A bunch of stoners and rich kids who were too dumb for a better out of UC Santa Cruz think they are the next Aristotle and that we should listen to them.

[Stolen Droplets]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpvHVnr6y9U&feature=related

Preview:

Bill Maher: In Europe socialism is just another political party, and it doesn't meant that we're against making a profit. It just means that government takes over certain things like: hospitals, and prisons, the military, and schools...that just should not be run for profit.

Bill O'Reilly:Well Maher is absolutely correct!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMS_P09dKbc

Socialism explained even more, such as the fear of "Socialism."

Fear for Socialism..."They think its 'Communism'"

Please stop spamming, you've posted more than twice with the same link. Your video is wrong, he is using an O'Reilly/Dictionary fallacy to try and twist his point. He is saying that just because O'Reilly supports the Government running the military, the prisons, and some schools that it makes him a full blown socialist, it does not. Socialism is defined by the man who invented it, Karl Marx, as the transitional phase to Communism. He describes the need for the redistribution of wealth by the Government because he says people are too selfish, particularly rich people, to share with others, he says that once the society reaches a point where the rich begin to freely redistribute their wealth, when government is no longer needed, we have reached Communism.

Very well, I shall step down. Forgive me for spamming.

[The Scandinvans]

Considering that based off empirical evidence governments which attempt to implement some sort of socialist ideology have a remarkable propensity to turn into dictatorships and have a particular habit of committing mass murder it is understandable why many people are generally opposed to socialist ideas.

[CTALNH]

Maybe it's the fear of more government control (of production) leading to corruption?

Nope, it's the unrealistic fear of America becoming a Stalinist Juche dystopia used to shout down any arguments for sensible moves like increasing the tax rates of the affluent or increasing business regulations.

becoming A Corporatist dystopia!

[North Misesia]

I have no problem with socialism as long as:
1) Participation completely voluntary.
2) Participants can opt out at any time without fear of reprisal or being forced to leave.

I would rather live according to anarcho-capitalism and the non-aggression principle though.

[CTALNH]

Considering that based off empirical evidence governments which attempt to implement some sort of socialist ideology have a remarkable propensity to turn into dictatorships and have a particular habit of committing mass murder it is understandable why many people are generally opposed to socialist ideas.

Us many us their are there are just us many who don't!


Also Capitalism holds the medal for mass murder not us.

[CTALNH]

I have no problem with socialism as long as:
1) Participation completely voluntary.
2) Participants can opt out at any time without fear of reprisal or being forced to leave.

I would rather live according to anarcho-capitalism and the non-aggression principle though.

Our utopia is more plausible than that!

[DethNano]

A staggering irony to the capitalist/communist argument in the 21st century:
To make money in the USA, produce in China.

While it is arguable whether either of those nations adhere to any absolute definitions of capitalism and communism (or socialism), they seem to work with each other on some sort of currency/commodity trade. To say the least, the red scare has become the cheapest way to incite fear of any form of socialism (food stamps for instance), yet at the same time profit any from any interpretation of it (such as state-controlled business).

If you ask me, the Chinese are state capitalists (authoritarian government controlling the means of capital), and Americans would be anarcho-capitalists (lawless profiteering at the expense of the government/people).

In both of those situations, would socialism even have a chance of entering the discussion? The general tendency of discussing things like workers rights seems to go over the same in both nations (that is to say negatively).

Then again if you privatize the access to information (something that began from day one with the telegraph all the way up to the very internet we're using), said owner can use it/distort it to their whims.

Assuming profits are generated, it behooves the company to spread a message that the system allowing it to profit is positive. Any alternative (even if it isn't Socialism) is then twisted towards... less of a rational discussion, and more into idea that would put a biblical Armageddon to shame were it to be implemented.

I'll just say this in conclusion: There are bunch of reasons to be against socialism and/or capitalism. However, completely shutting down the debate between them (or internal arguments developed within each form) isn't acceptable. You could argue that mixed economies are ones that simply don't use one or the other entirely (do any by that standard?).

[North Misesia]

I have no problem with socialism as long as:
1) Participation completely voluntary.
2) Participants can opt out at any time without fear of reprisal or being forced to leave.

I would rather live according to anarcho-capitalism and the non-aggression principle though.

Our utopia is more plausible than that!

Any utopia is bound to fail. Anyone promising utopia is either a charlatan or a psychopath. I will listen to the guy who says "Life will suck a little less if we do XYZ."

[Dinahia]

Considering that based off empirical evidence governments which attempt to implement some sort of socialist ideology have a remarkable propensity to turn into dictatorships and have a particular habit of committing mass murder it is understandable why many people are generally opposed to socialist ideas.

^Yes, because there are obviously no other reasons why such nations ended up one-party totalitarian states. Clearly no other factors were at work there at all.^

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Our utopia is more plausible than that!

Any utopia is bound to fail. Anyone promising utopia is either a charlatan or a psychopath. I will listen to the guy who says "Life will suck a little less if we do XYZ."

To be fair, Marxist socialism is materialist, not idealist in nature. While I have some sympathies towards the goals of so called "utopian socialist", I'd agree they don't have much in the means of practicality going for them. And results are what matters in the end.

[New Rogernomics]

What's wrong with the Southern "good ol' boys". Southerners aren't racist hicks you know. Many are normal people, like anybody else.

Spend four years in the university that's supposed to be the most prestigious in the state, where rich, elitist, arrogant twats can literally buy their way in, create their own little exclusive groups and almost literally run the university's SG (of millions of dollars, mind you) entirely to their advantage. The sort of individuals who have nothing going for them but the sheer accident of birth and yet think they're God's gift to the cosmos and proceed to shit over everyone else.

Nothing to do with being Southern. Everything to do with being elitist twats who screw over everyone who isn't exactly like them.

A pretty nice microcosm of the real world, now that I think of it.

New Zealand universities are the reverse of that. The university administration is the bitch of whatever party is in power, and the staff and students are powerless in everything from what classes get cut to the budget for the year. They are mini dictatorships, till the party in power makes them do something.

[North Misesia]

Any utopia is bound to fail. Anyone promising utopia is either a charlatan or a psychopath. I will listen to the guy who says "Life will suck a little less if we do XYZ."

To be fair, Marxist socialism is materialist, not idealist in nature. While I have some sympathies towards the goals of so called "utopian socialist", I'd agree they don't have much in the means of practicality going for them. And results are what matters in the end.

The goals are always nice, just have to read the fine print. Utopians IMO are trying to force a round peg (reality) into a square hole (fantasy).

[The Scandinvans]

Considering that based off empirical evidence governments which attempt to implement some sort of socialist ideology have a remarkable propensity to turn into dictatorships and have a particular habit of committing mass murder it is understandable why many people are generally opposed to socialist ideas.

Us many us their are there are just us many who don't!


Also Capitalism holds the medal for mass murder not us.

Well, ignoring the potential inclusion of various more fringe 'third way', the death toll of socialist parties in the 20th century reaches in excess of a hundred millions and quite likely can approach over one hundred and fifty million if you factor in famines associated with the establishment of the socialist states and the subsequent collectivization of farmland, as well as the murder of the landlords. Capitalism though generally only has the various excesses of colonialism associated with it, and to point the only significant colonial conflicts which involved over a hundred thousand dead was the rebellion in India, the conflicts in the former French territory of Indochina (which turned into the Vietnam war by the time of Independence), and the Mahidist rebellion.

[The Scandinvans]

Considering that based off empirical evidence governments which attempt to implement some sort of socialist ideology have a remarkable propensity to turn into dictatorships and have a particular habit of committing mass murder it is understandable why many people are generally opposed to socialist ideas.

^Yes, because there are obviously no other reasons why such nations ended up one-party totalitarian states. Clearly no other factors were at work there at all.^

Incidentally the only government brought into power by a purely socialist movement that has made genuine attempts to maintain a democracy is in Nepal, also Moldova is a different matter entirely. As it stands, all truly self-identified socialist governments have been tyrannical and the 'socialist' governments of Europe are in fact third way movements, e.g. social democrats.

[CTALNH]

Us many us their are there are just us many who don't!


Also Capitalism holds the medal for mass murder not us.

Well, ignoring the potential inclusion of various more fringe 'third way', the death toll of socialist parties in the 20th century reaches in excess of a hundred millions and quite likely can approach over one hundred and fifty million if you factor in famines associated with the establishment of the socialist states and the subsequent collectivization of farmland, as well as the murder of the landlords. Capitalism though generally only has the various excesses of colonialism associated with it, and to point the only significant colonial conflicts which involved over a hundred thousand dead was the rebellion in India, the conflicts in the former French territory of Indochina (which turned into the Vietnam war by the time of Independence), and the Mahidist rebellion.

Yes but capitalism didn't exist only for 1 century but from 1500-until now and lets not forget we didn;t cause ww1 and 2

[North Misesia]

Us many us their are there are just us many who don't!


Also Capitalism holds the medal for mass murder not us.

Well, ignoring the potential inclusion of various more fringe 'third way', the death toll of socialist parties in the 20th century reaches in excess of a hundred millions and quite likely can approach over one hundred and fifty million if you factor in famines associated with the establishment of the socialist states and the subsequent collectivization of farmland, as well as the murder of the landlords. Capitalism though generally only has the various excesses of colonialism associated with it, and to point the only significant colonial conflicts which involved over a hundred thousand dead was the rebellion in India, the conflicts in the former French territory of Indochina (which turned into the Vietnam war by the time of Independence), and the Mahidist rebellion.

I might be splitting hairs here, but isn't colonialism an outgrowth of mercantilism?

[Dokuritsu Nippon]

Us many us their are there are just us many who don't!


Also Capitalism holds the medal for mass murder not us.

Well, ignoring the potential inclusion of various more fringe 'third way', the death toll of socialist parties in the 20th century reaches in excess of a hundred millions and quite likely can approach over one hundred and fifty million if you factor in famines associated with the establishment of the socialist states and the subsequent collectivization of farmland, as well as the murder of the landlords. Capitalism though generally only has the various excesses of colonialism associated with it, and to point the only significant colonial conflicts which involved over a hundred thousand dead was the rebellion in India, the conflicts in the former French territory of Indochina (which turned into the Vietnam war by the time of Independence), and the Mahidist rebellion.

I'd say you're equivocating "capitalism" and "socialism" to a large degree there, but it's semantics and I don't really see the point.

People die in the course of history. Some of them deserve to, a lot of them don't. Naturally in conflicts over something so fundamental to society as the orientation of the state to the means of production, there's going to be a lot of bloodshed. Unfortunate but true. And I could just as easily throw the blame the other way in a lot more ways, but really, what's the point?

None of that, really, has any bearing on the theory of either side.

[CTALNH]

Well, ignoring the potential inclusion of various more fringe 'third way', the death toll of socialist parties in the 20th century reaches in excess of a hundred millions and quite likely can approach over one hundred and fifty million if you factor in famines associated with the establishment of the socialist states and the subsequent collectivization of farmland, as well as the murder of the landlords. Capitalism though generally only has the various excesses of colonialism associated with it, and to point the only significant colonial conflicts which involved over a hundred thousand dead was the rebellion in India, the conflicts in the former French territory of Indochina (which turned into the Vietnam war by the time of Independence), and the Mahidist rebellion.

I might be splitting hairs here, but isn't colonialism an outgrowth of mercantilism?

Dear Comrade Lenin!Why me?

[Warkus]

Socialism;

Something that will fail to benefit the Republican Party of America, will cause the collapse of modern society, and is a true disgrace to 'Merica! Synonymous with Communism. See: Communism

At least that's what many people seem to think these days...

[The Scandinvans]

Well, ignoring the potential inclusion of various more fringe 'third way', the death toll of socialist parties in the 20th century reaches in excess of a hundred millions and quite likely can approach over one hundred and fifty million if you factor in famines associated with the establishment of the socialist states and the subsequent collectivization of farmland, as well as the murder of the landlords. Capitalism though generally only has the various excesses of colonialism associated with it, and to point the only significant colonial conflicts which involved over a hundred thousand dead was the rebellion in India, the conflicts in the former French territory of Indochina (which turned into the Vietnam war by the time of Independence), and the Mahidist rebellion.

I might be splitting hairs here, but isn't colonialism an outgrowth of mercantilism?

An observation I concur with. Capitalism, in this case being defined as the general existence of a free market that is not dependent upon government action, generally does not agree with the employment of martial force to acquire access to resources and markets. Mercantilism, as in the state playing an active role to protect and further the interests of the perceived economic power of the country, actively adheres to ideologies such as colonialism.

[Ethel mermania]

Considering that based off empirical evidence governments which attempt to implement some sort of socialist ideology have a remarkable propensity to turn into dictatorships and have a particular habit of committing mass murder it is understandable why many people are generally opposed to socialist ideas.

like sweden?