This analogy is so true!

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Since everyone is getting the same thing, the price should be split evenly. If that's not possible, scrap socialism.

Do millionaires need financial support from the government?

Equality, my sir. Unless you're talking about subsidies, which should be replaced with loans that don't charge interest and expire upon the death of the debtor.

Have you read Harrison Bergeon? If not, I suggest you do, because they type of equality you're advocating as the position of socialist programs is both disastrous and incorrect.

Either that or pure capitalism.

[Albignano]

But that's not all folks...

We left off with one young lady working ever so hard for a 4.0 GPA and another young lady achieving a modest 2.0 because she was too busy partying to study.

The daughter continued to work hard and immerse herself in her studies throughout college. Meanwhile, her friend got asked to pose in Playboy and hooked up with a Rock Star at the Playboy Mansion. He bought her breast implants and, in no time at all, she became a high profile celebrity earning millions.

The girl who worked so hard for her money did eventually get a good paying job and hoarded all of her money. She wouldn't even put her money in banks because that bailout was Socialism as its worst. She hid it all in her mattress. Eventually, someone broke into her house and took everything she had worked so hard for.

The crook was caught and, during the course of the trial, his story came out. His parents lost everything they owned in a natural disaster. To make matters worse, his mother died from a horrible illness because his parents couldn't afford to pay all the medical bills after their insurance got dropped. His widowed father couldn't afford to send him to college, but the young man got by working hard in a construction job. He got married, bought a house and had kids.

Suddenly the economy bottomed out and he lost his job. Everywhere he looked, no one was hiring. Especially not some guy without a degree. Before he knew it, there was a foreclosure sign on his house and his kids were starving. He was too proud to accept some Socialist handout like welfare, but he couldn't stand to watch his kids suffering. Finally, out of desperation, he broke into this young lady's house. He got sent to jail for his crime, but the lady who had worked so hard for everything was left with nothing.

She moved back in with her parents and commiserated with her father. "Dad, it's so unfair! How can someone work so hard for everything and just have it all taken away in an instant?"

Her father shook his head sadly and said, "Daughter, welcome to the real world."

[Gauntleted Fist]

Since everyone is getting the same thing, the price should be split evenly. If that's not possible, scrap socialism.

Do millionaires need financial support from the government?

Equality, my sir. Unless you're talking about subsidies, which should be replaced with loans that don't charge interest and expire upon the death of the debtor.

Have you read Harrison Bergeon? If not, I suggest you do, because they type of equality you're advocating as the position of socialist programs is both disastrous and incorrect.

Either that or pure capitalism.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Can't have one thing, slippery slope that way, can't have the other, slippery slope that way, too.

Guess you fall whichever way you turn. Sucks to think like that, I suppose.

[New Kereptica]

They're fake socialists like the people in Animal Farm(not that RL socialism is any better).

No shit. Animal Farm was, after all, satire of those regimes, specifically that under Stalin.

[Grave_n_idle]

But that's not all folks...

We left off with one young lady working ever so hard for a 4.0 GPA and another young lady achieving a modest 2.0 because she was too busy partying to study.

The daughter continued to work hard and immerse herself in her studies throughout college. Meanwhile, her friend got asked to pose in Playboy and hooked up with a Rock Star at the Playboy Mansion. He bought her breast implants and, in no time at all, she became a high profile celebrity earning millions.

The girl who worked so hard for her money did eventually get a good paying job and hoarded all of her money. She wouldn't even put her money in banks because that bailout was Socialism as its worst. She hid it all in her mattress. Eventually, someone broke into her house and took everything she had worked so hard for.

The crook was caught and, during the course of the trial, his story came out. His parents lost everything they owned in a natural disaster. To make matters worse, his mother died from a horrible illness because his parents couldn't afford to pay all the medical bills after their insurance got dropped. His widowed father couldn't afford to send him to college, but the young man got by working hard in a construction job. He got married, bought a house and had kids.

Suddenly the economy bottomed out and he lost his job. Everywhere he looked, no one was hiring. Especially not some guy without a degree. Before he knew it, there was a foreclosure sign on his house and his kids were starving. He was too proud to accept some Socialist handout like welfare, but he couldn't stand to watch his kids suffering. Finally, out of desperation, he broke into this young lady's house. He got sent to jail for his crime, but the lady who had worked so hard for everything was left with nothing.

She moved back in with her parents and commiserated with her father. "Dad, it's so unfair! How can someone work so hard for everything and just have it all taken away in an instant?"

Her father shook his head sadly and said, "Daughter, look for the government. You lost your money to him, he handed his time to the government."
P.S Education is free and if childcare is that bad in your nation....
As for the natural disaster- the government should have better protection, but other than that it's sort of funny.

Quotes fixed.

Now. Where I live education, at least the good kind, is not free. Scholarships are not available to everyone, even those who work hard to get good grades. Childcare is not free. Not ever. Not unless you are on welfare (Social program).

According to your line of thought, why should anyone who didn't work hard for it get free help -even in the case of a natural disaster? Helping those in need? Why, I never! That's a Socialist concept!

Preventing natural disasters by building dykes and all may be socialism but anyone in their right mind would do it unless they want people to die. Childcare(even milk and all) isn't free?

No. Free milk and free childcare are concepts of Socialism.

I consider that equality of opportunity.I wouldn't mind socialist programs if everyone pays the same amount and unnecessary regulation doesn't appear.

Everyone pays the same amount?

So - people who are so poor they NEED help... are paying the same as millionaires?

Since everyone is getting the same thing, the price should be split evenly. If that's not possible, scrap socialism.

What do you mean 'everyone is getting the same thing'?

Are you under the impression, somehow, that someone like Bill Gates is going to be retiring on the same payscale as some little old granny who just starts claiming this year? Are you under the impression that Richard Branson has the same medical coverage as a single mom in the Chicago suburbs? That Donald Trump has a grocery bill like the average American?

People don't get the same thing - but that's okay. That doesn't mean you 'scrap socialism' - and - given that we've already discussed how things like government intervention afetr disasters and prevention before them... are 'socialistic'... it's kind of nonsensical to even suggest it.

It doesn't matttr that people don't 'get the same thing' - so long as they get something akin to the same chances, and the minimum chance to actually act on them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Since everyone is getting the same thing, the price should be split evenly. If that's not possible, scrap socialism.

Do millionaires need financial support from the government?

Equality, my sir. Unless you're talking about subsidies, which should be replaced with loans that don't charge interest and expire upon the death of the debtor.

Have you read Harrison Bergeon? If not, I suggest you do, because they type of equality you're advocating as the position of socialist programs is both disastrous and incorrect.

Either that or pure capitalism.

Loans that have a built-in expiry mechanism to regulate whether or not debt is unfairly attributed?

Even when you talk about pure capitalism, you're not talking about pure capitalism.

[Nobel Hobos]

Is it a "personal attack" to ask a poster if they are human ?

It does address the poster not the content of their post. But if the "poster" is in fact a chatbot, in what sense is it a "personal attack" ? What is attacked ? Not a person !

Surely any poster which offers a personal note like "I am a proud Conservative" would not consider it too personal to be asked if they are human ?

Why would any human be ashamed to be so, when asked by another human ?

I declare myself human; while admitting that I do employ automation in the form of spell-check, and cut-n-paste of short passages in quote marks, and individual words like names.

Eternal Yerushalayim's name, for instance, I did cut-n-paste. Only to pay the respect of spelling it correctly though.

P.S You know me. i'm Eternal Life with God.

Are you a human ?

Why? Did someone say it was a personal attack?

Not me, in any case. My annoying conservative image was sure like a bot.

Is that an admission that you were deliberately being annoying ? And/or, that you presented a "conservative image" which was not at all sincere ?

I might look favourably on such an admission, if you would undertake never to do it again.

Deliberate obtuseness doesn't pass for "parody". It's just too easy to do. As a worthless and time-wasting role on the forum, it ranks up there with Trolling and Spamming.

You have still not answered my question.

P.S You know me. i'm Eternal Life with God.

Are you a human ?

If you do not intend to answer, please say why not.

Bah, I'm a Conservative Human and stop asking.

Four times, with goading ... to get the answer "yes" to the most basic question.

Yes, I will stop asking you questions.

* puts on Ignore *

[Lietuwininkai]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Really? You think Socialism/Communism works any better than capitalism? So where's your soviet union? Where's your Yugoslavia? The peoples of Europe made it CLEAR in 1989-1991 that we do not want Communism. WE DO NOT WANT IT.

Ok. That does not change the flaws in the example given in the OP. The countries you mention were also not anything close to communism or socialism. USSR claimed to be socialist on the way to communist but most simply categorize them as state capitalism.

If you really want to call USSR socialist though I don't care. If they are socialists then they are authoritarian socialists.

Ah, I should have predicted this typical response. That is all commies can do, is deny the Soviet Union was communist. THEY WERE. State Capitalist is a contradiction of terms, "Tovarisch". Capitalism implies a free economy. A TRUE free market economy. "State Capitalist" is government controlled, which is exactly what Socialism/Communism is. That is after all what Socialism is all about; total government control of all means of production, and thus the entire society, all under the guise of 'Helping the Workers", when in reality the real working class is being shit on.




By the way; can you name ANY socialist country that is not Authoritarian? That is impossible, socialism/communism is always inherently authoritarian (not that I'm against certain forms of authoritarianism)...

[Bergnovinaia]

**Snip**

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Socialist, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Capitalist, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Capitalist party.'

No... just no.

[Collective Systems]

By the way; can you name ANY socialist country that is not Authoritarian? That is impossible, socialism/communism is always inherently authoritarian (not that I'm against certain forms of authoritarianism)...

France.

[Rentalia]

Piece of capitalist rhetoric

Capitalist rhetoric is predicated on the implication that all wealth stems from the productivity of the wealth's possessor. But more than half of the world's wealth gained through inheritance, and the market is designed to increase wealth exponentially, rather than linearly. In other words, most people gain their initial wealth through no productivity of their own, and continually gain more and more wealth throughout their lives through less and less productivity.

The first predictor of someone wealth as 40 is someone wealth at born

libertarian/conservative go crazy when a poor mommy receive help from government for buy cookie to their starving children but close 2 eyes when the plutocrats steals millions thanks to the inerhent internal contradiction of capitalism

[Grave_n_idle]

Piece of capitalist rhetoric

Capitalist rhetoric is predicated on the implication that all wealth stems from the productivity of the wealth's possessor. But more than half of the world's wealth gained through inheritance, and the market is designed to increase wealth exponentially, rather than linearly. In other words, most people gain their initial wealth through no productivity of their own, and continually gain more and more wealth throughout their lives through less and less productivity.

The first predictor of someone wealth as 40 is someone wealth at born

libertarian/conservative go crazy when a poor mommy receive help for government for buy cookie to their starving children but close 2 eyes when billionaire steals million from the inerhent internal contradiction of capitalism

Or, as a wise philosopher once said: "You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start".

[Redwulf]

Without work there is anarchy... So you are gonna force everyone to work?

Yes, in big factories where they will need to chant the name of the Dear Leader in unison, otherwise they will all be shot,

Is that what you want to hear?

Wow, Marx '12!!!!!
Actually, it would be better to have Dead Marx for President and Margaret Thatcher for Vice President '12

You have no idea what communism is, do you?

Communism is where you wear a fuzzy hat, call people "Comrade" in a thick Russian accent and Friend Computer's trouble shooters kill you for being a mutant commie traitor.

[Redwulf]

No, anarchy doesn't imply chaos. It merely implies a lack of rulers or hierarchy (hence, "an-archy" -- "no-rulers"). The anarchist FAQ is a good place to start if you want to learn more about it.

All things are chaotic. Even order.

[Redwulf]

He's not infallible, in anycase. But he's a much better option than revolution.

The "infallibility" only matters because the commie in question was wrong. Do you admit the Regan was wrong?

Anyone who is fallible is wrong.

Nope. Try again.

Let him stick with that statement. He just admitted to being wrong.

[Redwulf]

Hey, Eternal, nice flag!

I reveal myslef after a year of mock conservatism.

'Oh it's the end of the world, it's the end of the world, it's the end of the world as we know it...."

And I feel fine.

[UNIverseVERSE]

"A stateless society is not a chaotic society. An anarchistic society is a chaotic society."

By definition, a stateless society is an anarchist society.

[Nordicus]

No. A unemployed worker wants to work, but he can't, and not because he is lazy.

LMAO Yea and the sky is purple! What reality are you living in. A person on the dole is too lazy to work. That wasn't talking about pentions or anything of the sort!

I'll have you know that my father just got off of unemployment; he is now working again. Unemployment isn't something that a person can be on forever (that is welfare), and it requires that they actual submit proof that they are looking for a job. If they stop looking, they stop getting benefits.

Seriously, learn what the fuck you're talking about before you go insulting people.

But socialism means, not tutoring her friend to help her raise her GPA, but redistributing GPA points so that everybody has the same GPA, regardless of their performance or effort; as a result, before very long, people will realize that their effort makes no difference in their individual GPA, since it all gets redistributed, so they will quit studying, and their GPAs will go down, thus lowering the overall GPA point pool so that there are fewer GPA points to go around, and EVERYBODY suffers, even those few who still persevere in studying.

That's not socialism, that's communism. It helps you learn your economics from a source other than pundits. Glenn Beck and his inability to differentiate between communism, socialism, and fascism comes to mind.

Nay, contribution in any form is contribution. So we cannot buy a phone, but must work for it?

That's completely irrelevant to the original claim of:

Investing can be considered a form of working.

[Rethan]

Ah, I should have predicted this typical response. That is all commies can do, is deny the Soviet Union was communist. THEY WERE. State Capitalist is a contradiction of terms, "Tovarisch". Capitalism implies a free economy. A TRUE free market economy. "State Capitalist" is government controlled, which is exactly what Socialism/Communism is. That is after all what Socialism is all about; total government control of all means of production, and thus the entire society, all under the guise of 'Helping the Workers", when in reality the real working class is being shit on.

Socialism =/= Communism. Either you genuinely misunderstand that, or are being wilfully ignorant of that fact. The Soviet Union was communist. It was not socialist. Your argument is flawed and slander.

By the way; can you name ANY socialist country that is not Authoritarian? That is impossible, socialism/communism is always inherently authoritarian (not that I'm against certain forms of authoritarianism)...

India, France (most of Europe would more than likely qualify compared to America), Sweden.... Want more?

[UNIverseVERSE]

Ah, I should have predicted this typical response. That is all commies can do, is deny the Soviet Union was communist. THEY WERE. State Capitalist is a contradiction of terms, "Tovarisch". Capitalism implies a free economy. A TRUE free market economy.

Nonsense. State capitalism refers to a for profit system where the means of production are primarily controlled by the state. You're equating 'capitalism' with 'free market capitalism'.

"State Capitalist" is government controlled, which is exactly what Socialism/Communism is. That is after all what Socialism is all about; total government control of all means of production, and thus the entire society, all under the guise of 'Helping the Workers", when in reality the real working class is being shit on.

Also nonsense. Socialism and Communism are about worker control of the means of production. The difference is subtle, important, and exactly why the USSR was neither.

[Rethan]

Also nonsense. Socialism and Communism are about worker control of the means of production. The difference is subtle, important, and exactly why the USSR was neither.

I was unaware of this subtle difference, thank you for enlightening me. So was the Soviet Union therefore State Capitalist?

[Nordicus]

So was the Soviet Union therefore State Capitalist?

Personally, I'd categorize the Soviet Union simply as "bloody stupid economics," and leave it at that.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I was unaware of this subtle difference, thank you for enlightening me. So was the Soviet Union therefore State Capitalist?

I would argue something like that, yes. In particular, the USSR was not Communist because it still had an extensive authoritarian state, which is incompatible with both Marxist communism and anarchist communism. It was somewhat socialist, but the means of production were not controlled by the workers, but by an external bureaucracy, and operated for the profit of that bureaucracy, which then paid wages to the workers. So it was essentially a capitalist system operated by the state.

Edit: However, I've never particularly cared about this -- the USSR was formed by attempting to apply Marx's theories. Its failure is therefore no issue for those who consider Marx's approach to communism to be fundamentally flawed.