Well i think that what USA did in Iraq and keep doing today in Afghanistan
is "helping" them after feeling thair minds with the freedom of the west idea
its like you show a candy to a kid, and tell him, "join me and ill give you this candy
and you will get more of them later, if you will try hard enough."
they dont tell him that this candy is far from healthy
but they using his natural interest in this candy
same as ALL people ALL over the word have a natural interest in freedom
but freedom is many things and views, just change the word "candy" for freedom
and the word "kid" for men, and you will get my point.

USA spreads its "freedom" luring people from all over the world to join its capitalistic imperialistic conquest
while no asking what do those people want, they naturally assume that they want to be freed
and then they wounder why so many terrorist movments are over there fighting against USA.

Another propoganda USA using is imaging terrorists as evil murderers who care about nothing
spreading some sort of modern propoganda about how evil they are and how they kill others
yet when was the last time you heard the things those movments are fighting for?
Castro was terrorist too you know, then he became a very powerfull man with USSR following him around
which resulted in the Cuban Missile crisis, and USA went like "OMG they are naional security threat"
and then they throw embargo on them, ignoring how it will effect the people in Cuba.
Luckly during this time Cuba had USSR to help them, but USSR fell to the "candy" trap
as people on the top, took all the money and ran west, leaving scorged fields behind them
while others took over some countrys and are now controlling them.
Those are the Aligarhs, they own countrys such as Ukraine and Russia
for example Ukraine is owned by, i think about 8 fammilys, those 8 fammilys got like 90% of
all the economics in Ukraine, obviously people became greedy when they saw the things
they can get from the "free" west, all the candys in the world had been offered to them, and they took it.

If you will read my word couple of times you will see that it seems like people without knowing it
are naturally assuming that freedom is when you can buy anything you want as long as you
work to gain your share of that capitalistic cake, the problem is that this cake is way to expancive
for most of the people, and many can only afford to look at it, some to smell it, and only few to taste it.
Yet most people are like "today i can only afford to look at it, but if ill try hard enough ill eventualy taste it"
so they work, and learn proffesion, and work, and work, and work, years fly by, some lucky once
manage to come to the stage where they can smell the taste of this cake, some even got luckyer
and are already filling thair mouth full, but what with the rest? which is like what... 80%? who still left with nothing.
And then those from them top are like "you duing it wrong! or, you must try harder!"

While in a communist/socialist country EVERYONE enjoy from the cake
sure its not like the western cake, with little creemy Yachts on it, and little blueberry Penthaouses
but its still a nice cake that everyone enjoy, with no excaptions, and you are born to enjoy it as you are
while if only you undarstand that if you want it to be better you just have to commit yourself to the country
spread the word, people will work harder, economy will gain power, and the cake will be sweater
this is Utopia, and it is not as unlikly to happen as you may think.

 

but im not american, im from former East-block country as you are, so capitalism is not "buried deep in my mind"... and still I say, socialism sucked bigtime here and it was probably even worse in USSR. And yes, there is a lot of people here as well, who think it was better before ´89. But these people are just nostalgic, the lived big part of their lives in the socialism/communism and they miss it, especially the "insurances" it brought with it - you couldnt lose your job for example... and while it is nothing compared to the possibilities they have now, they cant really aprecciate these possibilities, because they are too old now. I can understand their nostalgy, but i do not understand young people (like i suppose you are), who want old times to return. When you can clearly see the difference between former East Block countries and Western Europe - where could we be by now, if not those 40 years of socialism (40 years here, 70 in USSR)

I beliave that the feauture is ours, my genoration was the one to born under socialism
and raised by a former communist parrents, with the western knowlage we now have
with all its pluses and minuses, i beliave the feauture is that we will disband the top elite from its throne
with each day i see more and more people switching to the socialist idea, and by reading and listeting
to them (blogs, youtube, facebook...) i can see that they are very much into socialism/communism.
There is a reason for that, and i beliave that one of those resons are the capitalism we see today
the greed we see everywhere, the difficultys we, as young genoration, meet in life.
For example, i want to go to the univarcity, but i cant, because i am disable and cant work
so that ill be able to afford it, and my parents are far from be "rich" enough.
I also cant treat myself properly, because i cant afford the treatment.

I must admit, i dont know HOW my parents are surviving as they are not as young anymore
and we cant really afford health treatment, and you know how things are with age.
I cant help them nither, cant even help myself, and all this is because im lacking money...
And my parents worked most of thair life for this country...
i am only one excample, there are many others out there, and as you can see, we have all the reasons
in the world to support socialism, while combined with communistic ideas, yet not communism
Free health care, free education, spacial economical sistem, where you work for a low income
yet can afford things equaly as others, do you know how cheap everything will be
when people will work for themselfs instead of a company to pay them?
a factory that dont have to pay to its workers, dont have to pay taxes, and dont have to buy materials
the goods it produces are... free, sure when they hit the market you will have to pay a small amount
as the country need a mony flow as it is like oxigen, without a flow, everything dies.
the money that flows in are used for all the things that are needed, industy, reserch and so on...

CocaColaAddict,

I'm sorry but this display of wussiness has gone on long enough, I'm going to have to confiscate your man card.

Personally I never liked the idea of Socialism or Capitalism.  Always preffered free markets.  After all its only in a free market that you could have a group of die hard socialists living their lives as they want next to a group of die hard capitalists living the life they want.

Communists/Socialists keep talking about greed in reference to capitalism. However they fail to realize that greed is a natural human tendency. You will always want more than less, its just given. Capitalism is a system that takes that instintual greed and uses it to create social benefit through the creation of sustainable business and the destruction of unsustainable business.

Greed is the desire to posses more than what you deserve. By this barometer socialists are also greedy because they want something for nothing. They want free healthcare, free education, more insurance, and they want someone else to pay for it. At least I work for what I own.

Congratulations - you threw a red herring. Do you want to whine about sales, or do you want to talk about the subject at hand?

Well, geez, that didn't happen - because their economy sorta collapsed. Last I checked, we were talking economics, right?

CocaColaAddict - you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, there are some products where reliability is not primary?

Yeah, people buy Xbox 360s. And they buy it knowing full well it's not reliable.

Why? Because reliability isn't always everything for all products.

The Xbox 360 is a gaming device, and gamers are notorious for wamting more power in their systems and are willing to pay extra for it and pay the penalty of reliability for it.

You're right - the Wii pushes to a different market. A market that doesn't want to push graphics to the limit, ans where more reliability makes sense.

Under your system, you would punish the gamers by not creating products that push graphics to the limits.

That's the problem with the system you want - it doesn't concern itself with individual tastes and wishes. It forces everybody to be the same, whether they like it or not.

 

Something for nothing? Wanting someone else to pay for it? Where did you pull that from? Socialism is about collectively paying for something and collectively benefitting from it. It is in no way, shape or form a tool for the purpose of taking from one person and giving to another. You sound like you are more interested in your own lot and walling it off than working with society for a more efficient solution overall, which increases your own lot anyway.

So paranoid that somebody somewhere might benefit from what you put in that you must reject any system with that possibility. And then everybody follows this mindset and everyone individually is worse off.

That is greed.

Like I said, stop butchering the english language and stick to just lying about what socialism is.  Pretending that a public fire department means you're a socialist should be stupid enough, you don't need to call it a factory.

 

A road is not production, it is infrastructure.  Means of production and production itself are two entirely different things.  You're morons, accept it and move on. If you can do that, perhaps then you can stop the nonsense of calling people socialists for possessing minimal public services.  Socialism is public control of the means of production, only controlling the infrastructure doesn't cut it.

This may come new to the socialists, they also earn what anyone works for by means of a state which defines what benefit is allowed to be distributed within the active population - unless PROFIT comes into the equation foreign or local.

It's called International commerce, pick your competitive factors and globalize it. Still profits.

There's no need for a 'socialism vs capitalism' debate. Socialism can exist in a capitalist framework. Anyone who wants to live in a socialist society, can band together with other people who want to. Create group owned industries, housing projects, entire cities if you want. Share all the wealth of everyone who joins the socialist organization. Just interact with people who want to live by their own terms on their own terms. A collective run farm, for example, will just have to use the collective wealth of the workers to trade for equipment, from capitalist businesses. Or they can get it from a socialist manufacturer.

But then again, that's not what socialists want. What good will it be, if successful people are still free to live thier own lives? It's not so much 'we should all share together', it's more 'I want to have what the successful people have'. That's all socialism is.

 

Whats that? you dont like what i have to say? you dont respect me or my oppinion? GTFO man!
next time try to say something smart/usefull

 

It is impossible, such idea was tested in Israel, as many former soviet citizens moved to Israel
and had something that was called "Kibutz" (i think it from the word "kvutza" which means "group")
they still there today buy they are limited to the countrys progress/economics/laws
the sistem works like that: everyone must contribute by working for "free" for the "kibutz" for couple of hours
every day, which is mainly farming jobs, the output is then sold outside, and the incomes are collected
and then destrebuted as needed, for example to buy a new car, or to build a new house...
I had a girlfreand from a "kibutz" once, when i came to visit here i saw that the kibutz own about 20 cars
everyone can use them as they want, for free, even the fuel.
everyone who hit age 18 also gets his oun house, and everyone go to school payed by the kibutz
even though it is a nice, supportvie sistem, it is too small, limited to the size of the kibutz
and to the small size of its population, which results in problems when someone is unable to physicly work
or if someone used the kibutz money to promote himself and then left.
Many kibutz's in Israel are dissapiering, as Isarel throw very high taxes at them
and basicly taxing them to death. i think its due the fact that Israeli goverment noticed
the ammount of money running in those kibutzs and wanted its share, so they came up with new laws
spacialy designed so that the goverment will recive its nice fat share of the kibutz money.

a socialist/communist sistem must be on its own, with its own laws
its own trading sistems, education sistems, and technological advances...
for excample today in cuba there are Nuclear Physicians working as waitresses
mainly due the fact that they are not needed, as the countrys techological level is too low
and its too low because of the embargo and because USSR died and can no longer support them.
while back in USSR they could of find a great job, and do what they like for living.

I just wrote my senior thesis on this topic. I figured I would add a few things. (some may be repetative as I do not have the time to read all 200+ replies)

First, here's a quote from my paper:

"From a combination of the Red Scare and the Cold War, socialism (and its related theories) has become categorized as an oppressive and corrupt government, usually ruled by a dictator, with an insufficient economic system; yet few Americans accurately understand the ideals or philosophy behind the theory."

What most Americans do not realize is that the American economic system is not, nor was it ever, a pure capitalist system. Almost all business conforms to some form of government/state regulation of some kind. The anti-monopoly competition laws are probably the most well-known.

Here are a few points (some of these are not facts):

1. capitalism is supposed to be restricted by competition; however, this is not always the case (i.e. monopoly)
2. i believe capitalism underestimates the human capacity for greed
3. socialism destroys poverty, greed, and unemployment by erasing class structure
4. capitalism is tolerated because it works
5. interesting fact: Marx based his ideas of socialism on Aristotle's theory of perfectionism, the persistence of will in obtaining the optimal quality of spiritual, mental, physical, and material being, meaning humans will always strive for perfection even if it cannot be achieved

I believe some one already mentioned Karl Marx. They are right to ask you to look him up. I'd go so far as to call him the cofounder of communism and modern socialism. In Karl Marx' novel, Critique of the Gotha Program, he explains wealth should be distributed "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

I would also like to note that I am an American living in Italy. So I only have some experience with both systems from an American perspective; however, I am a strong believer in Marxism and am not ashamed of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In that case, I would categorize it into two major categories:

1. A voluntary socialism where you can voluntarilly give your money/talent/resources to a collective, or decide not to if for some reason you don't think the collective is headed in the right direction.
2. An involuntary socialism where you must give to the collecctive, whether you agree with the collective and its principles or not.
   

#2 is IMHO a very bad direction to go in, as it often becomes very corrupt due to no checks and balances. When there are no options, then it is easy to abuse. Despite your claim that "It is in no way, shape or form a tool for the purpose of taking from one person and giving to another," I would very much disagree. It often is such a tool. Sorry, but it's true. In the case of a government doing it, it is almost always involuntary. They don't give you the option to not pay for it - it's taken out of your taxes whether you want it taken out or not. So yes it often is a case of taking from one person and giving to another.

That's the purpose, yes, but I don't think it ends up working that way when actually implemented.

You can't get rid of greed simply by erasing class structure! It's an emotion; anybody can experience greed in any type of society. Socialism underestimates greed far worse than capitalism does.

Interestingly enough, the free market economy does much to erase class structure: It used to be you couldn't change classes - you had to be born into them. Now anybody can change "classes" and indeed the term has become rather meaningless.

So I'd propose that both systems are classless - the difference is that socialism tends to be a forced equality. Think about the Borg from Star Trek - that's the idea behind government enforced socialism. You're part of the socialist group, whether you like it or not.

Unfortunately, most people do not follow that philosophy. While I myself carry the philosophy of continual improvement, most people I have met do not - they think that because they not perfect, they will not even try. A socialist system with these types of people would not work.

. . . and it pretty much stops there. It accounts for needs, but does not account for wants. It's a bare minimum society type. There is no acknowledgement of differences between individuals, and there is not attempt to allow people any enjoyment.

People do not need to understand philosophy behind the theory. People need to understand that "an oppressive and corrupt government, usually ruled by a dictator, with an insufficient economic system" is direct consequence of applying these ideals in real life.

But this sort of control doesnt make this system socialistic as well. It is still capitalism. Completely pure market system without some sort of protection/guarantees from government and adjacent legal system is as utopic as socialism or anarchy. Nobody says capitalism is flawless, but it still works unlike socialism.

Yes, this is definitely not fact. 

Oh yes. I dont want to be rude or something, but you are just another "strong believer" who never experienced "joy" of living in a socialistic/communistic country. Your beliefs are based on some theoretical bullshit, not on reality.

 

 

I never once said someone was a socialist for for those things.

The whole point was that both capitalist and socialist theories are implemented in society right now. The evil socialism which you decry is being used to your benefit. As I said before, it isn't a dichotomy. It's not one or the other. Calling somone "a socialist"is really "more socialist and less capitalist than I am" (and again, they are not clear opposites by any stretch).

If you are still sticking to the "it's not a factory" defense then clearly you have a different definition of socialism than everybody else. It's not me butchering the english language here. And who ever said roads are production? I said there are means of production. It's self explanatory even. It's everything that facilitates a product being made. Do roads help move stuff (and people) around? Is moving stuff around important for producing goods? Then it's means of production.

What part of this simple concept of what socialism actually is don't you understand?

 

 

Go on, you just keep building that strawman there. It's easier to hate something when you can make it into whatever you want.

omg people fix your quotes, what up with all the over enters?

Privatize everything, and you'll end up with failure not success. For more reasons than you can predict;

- Profits would keep on being distributed within invisible corporation X'es.

- Ownership & decisional control would keep on trying to lower workforce salaries to generate more of it.

- The global economics would keep hi-jacking populations' standards of living until work is no longer valid or sufficient.

- Urban infrastructure would keep collapsing under immobilization waste of obsolete super-industrial (Toffler' Future Shock) capacities bound to incapacitate itself from lack of reasonable profits.

- Stock markets would keep climbing into a bubble so big, commercial war would ensue. As shown by state driven intervention aimed at creating corporate welfare.

- Rich vs Poor dynamics would middle up just enough to maintain greed and criminalization levels into cavern apes survival kits in wallets.

- 65% of the world's would be owned & operated by a single "entity", buy competition don't beat it. Fishes metaphor.

- The 35% remaining would raise its profits daily.

- The above percentages would either stabilize into fairness or keep disminishing revenues of ALL until famine kills the rest.

THAT is Capitalism. Not based on thesis, not even observed from current status.

A simple deduction of facts.

 

Or simple assertions of consequences masquerading as "facts."

Agreed! What's up with the scrolling, Brewski?

Standing corrected, find me a medium so that guessing can also prove me wrong. I prefer speculation to ongoing statusquo, not that anyone could alter it on purpose though.

I was bored so i made a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXFNSANyI8 

Socialism is one in which the government maintains the means of production.

Psychoak, your answer, although showing wonderful imagination, is neithera model of clarity, nor vaguely related to the commonly accepted response. Either you're saying Infrastructure is not 'production', in which case we have another strawman since no one said socialism own production (as if the cars produced by a government owned factory were somehow permanently attached to the government), or you're stating that infrastructure is not a 'means of production', in which case you're doing another [citation required] thing, since the Wikipedia entry Means of Production has as it's second sentenc:

Your statement is literally contradicted by the actual definition of the term "Means of production". You really need to look these things up before typing.

Jonnan

I'm assuming by terrorists, that you mean the Islamic extremists for this.

First of all, Fidel Castro has quite a bit of support from the Cuban people, and actually promised democratic elections in Cuba (Which he obviously failed to provide). While currently, the terrorists in the Middle East are constantly becoming unpopular by a great amount of civilians.

Considering that terrorists as a whole are deliberately targeting and murdering civilians, support for their 'cause', no matter good or not, is rephrensable on a worldwide and moral level.