Socialist or Communist?

Communist nations are not good tests case for or aginst communism since none were able to meet the basic qualification to be classed as communist in the first place.

 

Why was this?

 

They failed to create a classless society and they by focusing on getting wealth via exports rather then welfare of the people they abandoned the basic ideology of Marxism.

 

The problem with this seems to be financing and managing all of this. Countries that have socialized healthcare like Canada,Britian and France for example have had problems with long waiting lists for things like surgeries and other medical procedures. Canada and Britian are considering some forms of privatization to relieve these medical waiting lists. France has had to put in reforms related to financing it's healthcare system. Swedes are currently having heated debates on wether or not to raise income taxes even more because some feel that they need it to keep their welfare programs as they are.

So financing and managing socialist programs seems to be a juggling act.

 

Maybe that was because they couldn't figure out how to do that?

 

They never really tried as none really allowed a debate just like we don't really allow debates in Western nations about materialism (For example Bush never had to defend the idea of materialism)

 

There are other ways of learning besides the education system, which I agree is long overdue for a major overhaul. You can find plenty of "radical doubt of knowledge" right on this message board. In a communist country, your access to such things would be extremely limited.

The difference is that today people CHOOSE to run around doing everything they do. In the United States, capitalism has improved the economy to the point where it's no longer necessary for most people to work 16-hour days. It's rapidly doing the same thing for third-world nations.

How many people starve to death in the United States because they can't afford food? My guess is less than 100 per year (but I'd welcome some statistics). The US government DOES provide food to citizens who can't afford it. It also provides some shelter for the poor, but there are plenty of private charities to do the bulk of that.

The people you see on the street corners begging for change are mostly there because of mental illness, not because their finances have crapped out on them. Of course there are exceptions, but that is the primary cause of homelessness.

No it isn't. People in capitalist countries are better off than people in communist countries in a number of ways that almost everyone would agree are good things: More leisure time, more access to medicine, more civil liberties and civil rights, better access to information, more control over their own lives, etc.

 

How can you not have a materialistic view of things? If you want food that materialism, or a bed to sleep, or a computer to express your ideas on.

 

Still our society is based on knowledge not wisdom. Just look at game shows, notice they too are based on knowledge not wisdom.

Regardless capitalism has brought the rat race. Capitalism created a society where having fun at expese of productivity is looked down upon.

Yet with the resources the US has everyone as in everyone could be feed, sheltered and looked after from cradle to grave also there is enough resources to afford reduction of production in order to create a lesiure society. If the USs wealth is not used to end poverty or bring fun to the US populas then what good is USs wealth?

Communist countries are and have been materialist too which is why they were not communist.

Right but if want to end your hunger via providing the energy your body need through food that is not materialism as the food is just a means.

 

Q. When will we finally realize that capitalism doesn't work?


A. When it stops working.

 

When did it start working? There is still poverty

 

When did capitalism start out to end poverty? that's like saying a microwave doesnt work becase it can't wash clothes.

 

The poor in this country have microwave ovens, televisions, even internet access and cable.

The poor in socialist countries are lucky if they even have a roof over their heads because the economies are worse and unemployment in those places tend to be higher. Remember, in the United States, employers are taxed and taxed heavily for every employee on the payroll. And in socialist countries, employers are taxed even more, often making it difficult to keep more people on the payroll. Leading to higher unemployment.

I happen to own a small business, and it is just obscene how much of a cut the government takes. And we live in a supposed "Capitalism". If you too were a business owner, you too would see just how tough it can be for a company to keep many people on the staff, because the government takes even more money for every person you pay.

And homelessness occurs all over, because homelessness isn't the fault of the government or any economic system. It's usually the fault of the individual who wrecked their own life to the point that they have found themselves homeless.

.

 

I hardly think game shows are an adequate representation of society as a whole. If you're a manager or CEO, people will be a lot more concerned with your ability to solve problems and think creatively than with your SAT score.

It has? No, individual societies do that. While there may be places where that is true (Korea, Japan), it's not true in the United States and certainly not in Europe.

In fact, it is socialists who often look down on people for having fun at the expense of productivity ("Another tax cut just so The Damned Rich can sit on their asses and buy another sports car?!")

Almost everyone IS fed and sheltered, except the people who choose not to be.

Thanks, but I'd prefer not to have Big Brother watching me every moment of my life.

Poverty HAS been nearly eliminated in the United States, we merely upgrade our definition of "poverty."

As for bringing fun to the US populace...Why do you think games, movies, books, and a whole slew of other industries are able to prosper?

So communist countries aren't communist because when actually practiced, the theory proves to be unfeasible. Got it.

 

A CEO was only given knowledge of how to be a CEO not given the tools to challenge the reality that is presented to him/her. You don't have philosopher kings let alone a movement to make everyone a philosopher since we live in a society that is anti-intellectual as the society wants its knowledge to be unquestioned leaving debates not debates of logic but wars of compeating knowledge.

This is another area Marxism failed as the revolution was to have Marxist knowledge compete with capitalist knowledge instead of making everyone a philosopher making the massess too enlightened to be ruled by capitalism.

When was the last time that a US city stoped at the first snow fall just because the people thought they'll skip work to have a huge snow ball fight? Capitalist nations still spend more time working then on lesiure.

So you rather have corporations watch your every moment of your life? "This is the Time Warner, you are humming a song we hold copy rights to, pay up or go to jail"

The US is wealthy enough to make sure that a single mother doesn't have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet yet doesn't.

They are a source of consumption, I ment just having fun without spending money.

It is freasible you just have to free your mind.

 

Oh and at least in nations like the USSR people questioned their role and the reality provided to them, they couldn't do much about it but they gained wisdom via disillusionment of the reality presented to them. While Americans on average accept their reality and role with little if any question leaving them less aware of reality.

 

And who are good tests?

 

Of course they are. CEOs are among the most influential people in the country, and can change the reality around them a great deal.

Is that a bad thing?

While it's true that most people do not understand critical thinking, I don't see how that is the fault of capitalism. That's a cultural phenomenon more than anything else.

The system is based on the idea that everyone won't call off work on the same day (that's how strikes can cripple an industry). If you call off work to play in the snow, I doubt many people will notice or care.

Straw man. That has nothing to do with capitalism and is a misrepresentation of the right to privacy and the way copyright laws work.

That's what I'm talking about; you simply adjust the definition of "poverty" upward. I suppose the argument can be made that society should provide everyone with enough food so that they aren't starving (which the United States does). Providing people with everything they need to be happy, for free, is impossible and would be economically disastrous if attempted.

Your mind is not freed if you can gloss over the atrocities committed by communist states because they didn't live up to the ideal...which is really just proof of their failure.

 

That's just human nature: People tend to be more politically active when they're very angry at their rulers than when they're content.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that massive anger at the ruling class in the USSR - and not being able to do anything about it - was a good thing. Maybe if that anger had produced results it would've been different, but as you said yourself, "they couldn't do much about it."

 

CEOs don't question their reality and their role in it anymore then the rest of society. They don't question about why everytime there is abundance in the market it hurts the economy.

Yes, you can't have democracy when everyone is a sheep so until you turn everyone into philosophers the people will not be free.

Consumerism fules it, If people were philosophers they wouldn't fall for "buy this and you'll be popular" so consumerism drives anti-intellectualism.

What is one day worth of output? Why don't companies have ideas like "we made enough profit for the year so we'll ease up and let our workers slack off" The problem with capitalism is there is too much competition plus if you look at the average American household they don't have the flexablity to lose those hours as it is a tread mill of you work to climb the social ladder only in turn to keep working harder to keep.

Still, if you use a store discount card, they have databases of what you buy and when. Some companies have more info on you then the goverment.

It is not impossible, there is more then enough food to keep the world well fed so it is very possible for the US and economics is a man made system that we can change it to fit our needs.

Capitalist committed atrocities too, the US wouldn't be as rich today if it didn't steal land from the Native Americans and had slave labour in its early years. Plus the British Empire done some bad things too.

Are you suggesting capitalist atrocities prove failure of capitalism?

The fact they couldn't do much wasn't good thing but they did challenge the reality presented to them while in the west there is little need for a police state as the people on average don't question their role as drone.