01-18-2007, 06:23 AM
I know there are some, so I made a thread. I've only been recently researching socialism, but it's seems to be a position that I easily agree with.
01-18-2007, 06:23 AM
02-22-2007, 08:08 PM
Time has shown that a market economy is the most efficient way to distribute and allocate resources.
02-22-2007, 10:22 PM
chergh Wrote:
theosoph Wrote:
Time has shown that a market economy is the most efficient way to distribute and allocate resources.
Er no it hasn't. You just need to look at the distribution of wealth and assets to see that is not true.
10% of the US populationown 71% of the wealth in the USA, the richest 1% own 38% of the wealth. The poorest 40% of the USA population owns less than 1% of the wealth.
World wide the richest 1% own 40% of global wealth and the richest 10% own 85% of the worlds wealth. The poorest 50% of the worlds population own less than 1% of the worlds total wealth. These figures are based on the report of a global study by World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations
This is purely wealth. I'm sure people are well enough aware of droughts and famines in developing countries for me not to need to start highlighting this.
The reason that people generally do not starve in western and developed economies is not because of the efficiency of the market economy in distributing and allocating resources but because of the various welfare systems that exist in these countries, thats not to say malnutrition is not an issue in western economies.
The very reason people become dependant on the welfare state is the failure of the market economy to provide equitably.
I never said anything about wealth or income.
If you look at these figures you will see that the US and other western countries are about in the middle of income distribution equality. Surprizingly Denmark and Japan are in the top 3. To be sure the gap between the extremely rich and poor is vast but this is a far better situation then one where everyone is equally poor such as in Azerbaijan. The countries with the greatest inequality in wealth are in Africa and South America where small ruling elites control all the assets.
The only reason some countries even have a system of welfare is because of wealth generated by a market economy.
02-25-2007, 09:31 AM
timhomer2007 Wrote:
A good example of leftist socialism is in South America. The most well-known leftist is Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. He is rapidly putting the major industries there under state control, and is a fierce critic of U.S. policy.
Bolivian president Evo Morales is as fanatic of the leftist movement as Chavez.
Virtually all of the other socialist leaders in South America are taking a more moderate approach and often have good ties with the U.S. An example is President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil.
While not in South America, Nicaragua is once again led by Daniel Ortega--who, although still socialist, is not the fanatic leader he was in the 1980s.
Colombia and Peru are not socialist, and Colombia was the only South American nation to support the war in Iraq. And we never hear about Guyana or Suriname, so I don't know where they are politically.
Tim
Bolivian president Evo Morales is as fanatic of the leftist movement as Chavez.
Virtually all of the other socialist leaders in South America are taking a more moderate approach and often have good ties with the U.S. An example is President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil.
While not in South America, Nicaragua is once again led by Daniel Ortega--who, although still socialist, is not the fanatic leader he was in the 1980s.
Colombia and Peru are not socialist, and Colombia was the only South American nation to support the war in Iraq. And we never hear about Guyana or Suriname, so I don't know where they are politically.
Tim
Those are good examples of democratic socialism, the sort of veiws held by Albert Einstien, Betrand Russell, and Eugene Debs. I would say that I am drawn most strongly to democratic socialism, along with a direct-as-possible democracy.
02-25-2007, 11:59 PM
The BNP is racist party.
02-26-2007, 11:30 PM
There are many examples of capitalism failing to allocate resources. Concider, for example AIDs and other diseases in Africa and American drug companies. The drug companies will make only the products that sell and the people in Africa can't afford health care. As a result millions of Africans die from easily treatable diseases, and little research is done for incurable diseases like AIDs; instead the drug companies wage a war against dandruff an erectile dysfuction. We live in a sad world.
02-26-2007, 11:32 PM
DNEB. dandruff and ED.
03-03-2007, 09:03 AM
No one has proposed anything violent, and everyone is intitled to their own opinion. There's no reason to close this thread.
03-13-2007, 03:04 AM
No, it means that capitalists consume more of it 
.
.03-14-2007, 08:25 PM
I'm not for the common view of socialism. Besides, these terms have been hijacked long ago. Socialism used to mean helping each other just like when friends help each other for a common good. I'd be ok where there's still a work for reward system. Where the more you help out, the more you and your neighbourhood benefit. But no one forces you to work just as much as everyone else. What happens is that people will feel ripped off that some are working harder than others. That's why I have an actual system in place I'd like to see implemented. It's where you ask for things and also go out and do work for others. So if you see someone that's done lots of work, then you'd be more likely to help them out in return. But you don't use money. Everything is voluntary, but there's also mechanisms for getting exactly what you want too. Anyways, I'd like that better since you never have to worry about food or losing your house and car. Helping the poor and those in need would count for bonus. Stuff like that.
What people fail to realise with capitalism is that while you can very well make millions, the likely scenario is that you will work for someone else your entire life. I'd rather have everyone have a good life than a few that are filthy rich. I want everyone around me to be successful.
I know it's not perfect. Just thinking out loud.
What people fail to realise with capitalism is that while you can very well make millions, the likely scenario is that you will work for someone else your entire life. I'd rather have everyone have a good life than a few that are filthy rich. I want everyone around me to be successful.
I know it's not perfect. Just thinking out loud.
03-15-2007, 11:02 PM
There are all sort of ideas that are much more practical and much less dogmatic than the systems used in North Korea and Cuba. I would be in favor of a fexiable form of government, one that could according to the situation.
What I am not in favor of, is a bunch of rich b*****ds drinking champane and eating at steak bar everyday, while people strave by the millions else where.
What I am not in favor of, is a bunch of rich b*****ds drinking champane and eating at steak bar everyday, while people strave by the millions else where.
03-16-2007, 12:09 AM
Ian Wrote:
I don't care what the rich bastards do tbh.
The suffering of those people does not justify the reward of being rich.
03-16-2007, 03:05 AM
You don't cause it, but you ensure that it will never get better.
03-16-2007, 03:09 AM
This thread should be closed; it's turned into a rant thread.
wilky
09-02-2007, 01:46 PM
Logical paradox Wrote:
I know there are some, so I made a thread. I've only been recently researching socialism, but it's seems to be a position that I easily agree with.
I can recommend a good book.
Try and get your hands on "Arguments for Socialism" by Tony Benn, an English politician.
They stopped printing this book some years ago but I think they may have started printing again. You could try Amazon or Ebay.
Or google "Tony Benn" and have a look at one of the websites.
http://www.b ennites.com/ (broken)