woot!go sggg!
This is a little OT but didnt the US use more socialist(ie the government reduced the power of the free market for a while) policies to recover from the great depression?
Printable View
woot!go sggg!
This is a little OT but didnt the US use more socialist(ie the government reduced the power of the free market for a while) policies to recover from the great depression?
Yeh I think so. That period of US history is far from my strong suit... but if I recall correctly from my US History class a lot of things like welfare and other social programmes were started around that time.
Yes this is true, but when things do go wrong you can have horrible results for those in and around it. What happened in russia is a good example of how wrong it can go. It's a little bit harder to commit crimes in the name of democracy and make sense than it is to do in the name of communism and socialism. If you do a injustice against a man you can?t say you did it for democracy because you infringed on his freedom. But you can harm others unjustly in the name of socialism and communism and just chock it all up to for the "Common Good". Of course there is one way to get around this I will agree. You can get around all political ideologies by just chocking it up to him being a spy of some other conflicting group or view. "Oh we had to kill him because he was a dirty <put politcal group or nation here> spy." Its not logical to do this in a democratic nation but in most cases you can get away with it because others will fear a similar fate for taking up for him.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
The problems you were referring to were not problems that took place in the "short while" (during the Russian Revolution). Also, just because Stalin and other members of the Soviet part abused the name of communism, does not mean it's communism's fault. Just like how when the US abuses the name of deomcracy it's not democracy's fault.
I disagree with you that socialism and democracy can coexist. First id like to start with the basic def's of Democracy, Socilism and Communism.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
I added that in there because I was trying to show examples of how things which do work well.
Here you are implying something very strange. You make it sound like demcracy and socialist programmes are incompatible. That does not make sense. Of course every country that I cited there is quite democratic. More democratic than the US is, as a matter of fact, because the citizens have more say in their governments because among other things, they have proportian representation (which is to say a parliament where each party gets a say in governing the country based on the % of vote that they receive). Socialism comes in because they have more equitable distrubutions of labour and wealth, more social programs, state ownership of certain industries (to the benefit not detriment of it's citizens), and so on. There are even many political parties out there called "social democrats". These are not alien concepts.
de?moc?ra?cy
1. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
com?mu?nism
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
so?cial?ism
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Were it is obvious why Democracy and Communism contradict each other, in that one promotes the individual and the other promotes the collective over the individual. It is not so blatantly obvious with Demo and Soci. For this id like to quote Ayn Rand.
"When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights." No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the "right" to treat human beings as chattle."
And in claiming control over the life of individuals for the sake of majority it is no better than Communism, having the "I" serve the "thou" and die for it if it is felt that such is necessary. You either care about the individual or the masses, those two priorities are the main differences of socialism and a democracy.
Yes basing blame on race is irrational. But my argument was neither that the nazis nor this man was being racist. Yes Nazis were racist but im not using that part of it in my example. There is a lot more to what the nazis did other than pure racism. If anything the racism was used to save the people high up time, why bother selecting people when you can kill the major group that most of the trouble makers belong to? It is true that a good deal of the poor were normal Germans and a great deal of the wealthy and intelligent were Jewish. The common man saw this, and it was easy to use in Nazi propaganda. You add this to the magical smoke screen the nazi's created about a super race and its very easy to make it look like pure racism. There was so much more to it than that though. By doing what they did, they got rid of the wealthy and those who might oppose them financially. By doing so they also got rid of those who were educated and got them out of a place to use what they knew to discredit the Nazies ideals. It also created a ora of fear and horror "don't mess up, you might be next" that helped keep others in line. They scape goateed those in the way and destroyed them once they got enough people to believe it. For you to talk like it was a pure matter of racism discredits who these people were and the lives they lived. They didn't die purely because they were jews. They died because of the power and knowledge they had as a group of people. They died because of what made them special and how that same thing could get in the way of the "changing times".Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
The difference is, blaming someone for societies ills based on their race is 100% irrational. That has nothing in common with criticising certain specific policies and groups for actions they have taken to unjustly accumlate wealth and power, not to mention and surpress other groups. You have a right to disagree with his conclusions, but to compare them to racism simply does not make any sense at all.
Anyway, you think he is making a scapegoat. I think his criticism is valid and based on solid facts. We disagree, that's fine.. but your analogy is unfair.
That's great, it wonderful even. But pointless to what I was saying. The letter was aimed at the U.S. and thus my comment was in regards to the republican and democratic parties IN the U.S.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
It's also the opinion of my quite patriotic pro-US Political Science teacher in my US university. Political ideology is not simply a matter of left and right. If you had to make a chart of ideologioes you need to use a different kind of chart. Think of it as a chart where the x-axis goes from freedom-to-order and the y-axis goes from outcomes-to-opportunity. The 2 parties in the US 2-party system (one of only two 2-party systems in the world), do not represent all 4 quadrants. Basically, what is referred to as "liberal" in the US, is viewed as quite conservative in many other parts of the world.
How can you tell me socialism is about equality and protection for all people no matter what, then try to tell me its ok to make the rich and poor come closer together? Are you going to do that with magic? Probably not, most likely it will be in some form of law that when broken will result in negative force. How can a person be equal in such a system, a system were people take a backseat to a statistical wishes of the masses. Is the equality you speak of the sort from animal farm? "Everyone's equal, just some are more equal than others" How can you at one moment advocate freedom, equality and protection for all people and then advocate having people serv others forcefully? Also how can everyone be equal when someone must be in control to vote on these things and protect them? The kind of equality you seem to talk about is the sort where everyone is equal because everyone has jack-shit, and their lives mean just about as much as what they have, jack-shit.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
Yes, those are my opinions. Just like your beliefs are your opinions. I don't think there was ever any question about that.
As for your questioning of my opinions, I don't mind if you disagree but I don't think you fairly characterised them. The strong do not have to get "enslaved", but systems should be in place so that the weak do not get taken advantage of by the people with the means to do so. What socialism is about is equality and protection for all people no matter what. It's it the opposite of enslavement. It releases people from ecomomic slavery. Everyone gets a chance to succeed. How much they succeed is up to them!! People don't need to be insanely wealthy. But they can still be well off. There are plenty of millionaires in Scandinavia, you know. The difference is just that there are just a lot less billionaires and, of course, homeless people! All people need to eat and need health care and medicine. No matter what. Society as a whole should work together to give these people a chance. IMO it is better to live in a society where the gap between rich and poor is small, and not large. A reasonable gap can still exist, and people still need to work hard to succeed in life, but if they are destitude, the state can help them and help them get back on their feet, instead of letting them rot on the streets. If raising that bar on poverty to levels to where no-one suffers means that the richest of the rich have to pay more in taxes, that's ok with me. They're still going to be the most wealthy.
Oh, you want to talk about how wonderful socialism is with health care and medicine? Socialism has a big part of why medicine cost so damn much in this nation. Socialism is the policy that has over regulated it, made form upon form, group upon group to make sure that your generic tylonal doesn't kill you. All these forms, groups, triple redundances, insurance and high-priced lawyers and what not are what drive up the prices of medicine and care in this nation not big bad medicine companies trying to rip you off. Back before all of this socialism got started in medicine, when my Grandad was Dr. he charged $2, and this $2 could be paid in anyway you wanted, off the record. Be it a little work, maybe a favor, or a trade of some other sort of food or need. Now my Dad, who is also a Dr., charges 35$ a visit. This is low for a visit, and he knows this and does so, so more people can afford it. He also take's Medacare so the poor are more likely to afford him. If you are not familiar with Medacare, when you agree to use it, its sets the price per each thing done by the Dr. regardless of how much the actually things used in the procedure cost. My dad has made a negative $1200 these past few months because of this. So I know first hand how great it is when socialism chooses YOU to be the one who must loose out for "the common good". Thank you Socialism for trying to negate the life my dad has lead. Thank you for trying to make him a public servant on the same scail as a school janitor. Thank you for wanting to pay him jack when thousands of dollars were spent to achieve his dream. Thank you for ruining my families life style to were there never will be another Doctor in my family, and thank you for jacking up the prices of medicine in this nation and taking human kindness out of it. Oh and don?t give me any shit about prices being jacked up to pay for free things for doctors. It is current law and has ben one for a long time that Medical companies can not spend more than $5 on a gift to a Dr. My dad doesn't get free meals from these people, about all we get is shitty pens, and free medicine. My dad gives away this free medicine they give him instead of writing people a prescription that they are going to have to PAY for.
That's not a illusion, it's a dream. And who are you to tell them what dreams they can and can not have? Dreams are one of the few pure things that move society. If it wasn't for people dreaming of doing the impossible we wouldn't have flight, personal computers, or even have a nation known as the United States of America. If a dream of being billgates gets them through the work day so be it, its there dream to have.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
That is so much better than having more than 95% of the wealth in the hands of less than 5% of the people. The \"American Dream\" is that every dumbass thinks he is going to be the next Bill Gates, when most of them end up as little more than wage slaves. That is not freedom. That is an illusion of freedom designed to pacify the stupid. Freedom is achieved when all people are free to eat, learn, and succeed.
That is simple Bullshit. Financial aid and assistance is based purely on need. It wouldn?t be so hard for upper-middle class people to pay for college if it wasn't so. The poor and needy you claim have no way to get money are the very ones most likely to receive scholarships and finical assistance. Hell the government will pay for a unmarried woman with children to go to college and she would be on that low part of the economy you claim can not get money. Part of the reason it cost more to go to college in the US is the number of collges the US has in comparison to other nations. The US also gives more people the option to go to college while most other nations use odd grading scales and really hard acceptance test to keep people out. It's no wonder it cost more to go to school in the US when you have more people going, more schools, and a larger number of bigger and better schools than in other nations.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
Well, I agree 100% about education! There\'s something positice. That\'s one of the most important things that can be done.
But once again, it\'s also your downfall. All people should have access to education and should be able to receive an equal high quality education. This is not the case in the US. Compare the cost of universities in the US and, well, anywhere else. The realistic opportunity for quality education is not available to all US citizens, like it is for citizens of other countries. Even for what many consider upper-middle class Americans, getting an education can mean huge debts. Forget about them, it\'s even harder to afford an education when you\'re poor and need to work, or you\'re homeless and need to eat...
bah I could say the same damn thing, just say temp causes it. Look at the nations of the world then take the annual tempature of how hot it is and then compare that to crime. Weird how the hotter it is the more killing that goes on.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
Also, you speak of stopping people from \"being bad\". Would you like to compare the crims statistics of a country like Canada or Norway with the US? If you don\'t think that\'s a fair example you can compare comparable cities from the Canada and the US. There are a lot less people \"being bad\" in more just societies, because there is less motivation and reason for them to do such things.
Its really a objective thing. Is it any more a crime to kill people than to take away from people to give to others just so those people don?t steel. All you?re doing is putting in a middle man, called the government who never calls what it does a "crime". Instead of the criminal taking it directly, the government does and gives it to him. The result is the same. You're also over generalizing here, to say that all criminals come from the poor and that they are immoral. And then continuing to say that by using socialism to lift up the poor they are no longer poor and the problem is fixed.
Yeah and they also have smaller populations and live more controlled lives. Woow go Canada for having a smaller population. Over all you are sending mixed signals on this. How can making more laws to break in fact keep people from breaking them? Wouldn't stasticly more laws be broken just because there are more out there to break. I mean the more things on the floor the more likely I am to step on something.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
Yet, the jails in the other countries I cited are not quite so full. Thanks, for helping me prove my point.
Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
It does not have to be planet-wide, that\'s just silly. Certain things which are right for some cultures are not right for others. But all countries should protect the human rights of their citizens, of course. It\'s unrealistic to have every citizen vote on every issue that ever comes up in government. Not only do the common people lack the expertise, but it\'s not practical!! However, you can have far more fair systems of representation than you have in the US, so that the voice of the people is heard and carried out and the people can have more of an impact and say in how their nation operates. Like I mentioned about, having a system of proportional representation makes it possible for all voices and views to have a say in government in accordance to how popular they are. That\'s just one example of how to put more say in the hands of the people.
yeah, but doesn\'t that go against what you said about letting the people have complete controle. I mean, you did just say that most people are not intelligent for it didn\'t you? On one hand you want to have elected representatives who vote, aka people in charge, and you also want everyone to be equal and have equal say? How do you plan on doing this? The Borg?
They had planned to add this to the bill going through congress to change the current TV signal formats. A good counter point to it was that even though it guaranteed that all sides would be heard, it didn\'t outlaw people still spending there own money to campaign, and thus they would get what they paid for, plus the time the government and thus the people paid for.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
Also, another example is that elections should not be financed by huge corporations and special interests so that the common person has very little impact or chance to run for office. Unless they are bankrolled by special interests - like they are in the US - the people have very little say in what happens. Like I keep saying, common US citizens are good people. If they had the facts and had a say, they would change things. But they don\\\'t. Much of public policy is not decided by the people, it is dictated to them and decided for them. Of course these same special interests also control the media too, so they people don\\\'t even know what is going on or what to object to. Unless you are a part of that establishment, you have no way to make an impact or run for a significant office in the US or change a damn thing. This process should be open to everyone regardless of their political views.
Yeah everyone should have the same rights and freedoms. But Socialism can not fulfil that. At some point someone has to have more power than the masses to distribute and over see those freedoms and at some point someone is going to be treated lower than a human for the sake of the \"Comman good\"Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
Like I said before, everyone should have the same rights and freedoms. There should not be a ruling class.
I don\\\'t understand how you can argue with that. If you want to propose different solutions, I can definitely understand that though...
They did three big things.Quote:
Originally posted by xS
woot!go sggg!
This is a little OT but didnt the US use more socialist(ie the government reduced the power of the free market for a while) policies to recover from the great depression?
1. They made laws outlawing the allmost criminal credit sceams that were going on. Before then it was legal to pay a man a dollar every month for forever for something like a car, refregirator or a oven. At the time this sounded great to farmers because thats usally about the max amount of money they saw on a monthly basis and allowed them to use it. But when the crops didn\'t come in and they made no money. They couldn\'t pay the credit scheme, all there stuff was taken back, including the farm equipment. Then they couldn\'t farm, then lost there house and so on and it further spireled down the economy. Thats also why the governement pays people to grow crops then to mow them down at the end of the year. Its done to help controle crop subly and demand.
Secondly the government started huge building projects to increase the amount of anybody can do work in the nation
Thirdly we went to war and gave many many companies in the US building contracts. By doing so they helped money get back into the hands of americans and got the economy to spiral up.
Sadly this is were the US debt also got started. Those building projects and those Contracts were all paid for on credit.
It had less to do with socilism and more do to with one amazing federial credit and spending jugling act.
Please tell me you are well informed on the subject. Nothing is worse than people protesting Globalisation when they don't have a clue about it. Overall, I'd have to agree with you though.Quote:
Originally posted by phoenix angel wing
Yes people, isn't NAFTA wonderful? /mind-numbingly extreme sarcasm
Free trade is one of the nails in our coffin...
America is full of shit by the way. They preach about free trade all the time, while they hand out massive subsidies to their inefficient farmers. Australia suffers greatly because of this. We have really efficient primary product producers, and we produce goods of the highest quality (especially meat). Because of Americas subsidaries, it is harder to compete against your inferior goods, and as a result we lose a huge amount of profit that is rightfully ours. Unfortunately, We are in no position to stop Americas Hypocritical behaviour (we're simply too small), and with A Texan in power, we have no chance of negotiating a drop in their subsidies.
The EU is no better either.
Australia seems to be the only developed country truly nurturing free trade. By 2010, we will have completely removed all forms of protection.
Not sure about Canada though...
and as a side note, Total income equality simply cannot work. It destroys incentive to work
Socialism isn't the be-all end-all band-aid that most socialist would like to believe. I find it amusing that you bring up Sweden and then health care in the next sentence. Back in high school, I was friends with a Swedish foreign exchange student. At the time I was a sort-of socialist, and so I asked him a bunch of questions about their government. One of the most eye-opening things he mentioned was about their health care system. He said it was terrible, and that the Swedes were trying to get it changed to a private system. It could take over a year to get an appoinment with a doctor, many of the doctors there were idiots, and anyone with money went to the US for anything major.Quote:
Originally posted by sggg
If the US could be more like Canada, Sweden, Norway, or even France or Germany (none of which are communist, FYI) I say they should go for it. Place price controls on things people need and make sure all people have access to things like health care and water. If you want only the rich people tohave those things, then that's where we disagree.
Not really. The government implemented many socialist policies during the great depression, but it didn\'t really help. World War II got the US out of the Great Depression. It\'s amazing what a little war can do for your economy.Quote:
Originally posted by xS
This is a little OT but didnt the US use more socialist(ie the government reduced the power of the free market for a while) policies to recover from the great depression?
Oh, go read Ten Things You Can't Say in America. Elder brings up the socialized health care from Canada and how, overall, it's lead to lower quality care, longer lines, and less performance satisfaction. And yes, he has plenty of studies and facts to back it up. It's understandable; if you want to give something to everyone, the quality will decline. That's a big rub with me and socialism. So the question is...give everyone a less-then-stellar quality product/service so that way 'everyone wins' or have a person work hard for what they want, and get the quality for what they pay for?
While I'm not in tune with Australia, yes, I'm well informed.Quote:
Originally posted by arjue
Please tell me you are well informed on the subject. Nothing is worse than people protesting Globalisation when they don't have a clue about it. Overall, I'd have to agree with you though.