|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV |
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted March 09, 2009 10:14 AM |
|
|
46 million Americans have no health care? I don't believe that.
36 million live in poverty? I don't believe that either unless you use some kind of totally warped definition for poverty.
@Angelito, that's getting into some pretty complicated stuff. Although the discussion of home ownership rightfully belongs in the larger discussion of capitalism vs socialism, it's just too involved to get into in detail.
However I WILL say that I have/had a personal stake in the mortgage problem. I owned stock in one of the failed mortgage banks and lost something like $12-15K. It's something I've been following for 10-15 years now.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 10:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's fairly obvious that NO system will work flawless, when a couple of people own most of the real worth, leaving the rest only their ability to work.
Quote:
And that's (and has been) the whole problem, the ownership of the Earth: the land and what is in it. Even if capitalism WAS the best possible system,we'd still have the fundamental flaw that there has never been even half of an equal chance for everyone
In the US, more than 80% of people buy a house. That's hardly a "couple of people". And if I'm not mistaken, 80+% is more than "half of an equal chance for everyone".
But then most of the people who post in the Other Side these days never let trivial things like facts get in the way. Facts can be such a bother sometimes.
Since you insist on personal polemics, I wonder whether your ability to read is somehow inhibited or whether you are seriously handicapped:
Does this
Quote:
As it is, too big a part of the actual profit of business operations is wandering in too few pockets which is ultimately bad for society as a whole, since it's of no use for anyone to own a private wealth in the billions of bucks. You could say that if the difference in owning a couple of millions and owning a couple of billions is really to be felt for the owner of that money it can only be disadvantageous for the rest of society (and before you start attacking that you may think a bit about it).
look to you as if I was talking about the simple kind of home the usual US/European middle-class citizen is striving to "buy" these days, paying loans for 20 and 30 and 40 years when their "ownership" is limited to a couple private square meter space they will lose again as soon as they fail to be able to pay the monthly rates? Does it really matter whether you BUY 5000 square feet of ground from someone OWNING that piece of land, transferring ownership, or LEASE the land from the body of society for a fixed number of years with a priority option to continue use for a yearly fee (that grows in accordance with inflation)? NOT for the middle-class house owner, not in effect - but think about the owner of a Texan land owner, owning 500 square miles of land that happen to sit over some billion gallons of oil.
Now, note that at least in Germany you pay a (relatively low) tax for owning ground, which would be something like a leasing fee anyway. Note further, that you can be disposessed of land, if that land is needed for society, society currently paying the going rate for it, whether you like it or not. So there is no reason whatsoever to define a private ownership for land and everything under or in it.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 10:57 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 11:00, 09 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
46 million Americans have no health care? I don't believe that.
36 million live in poverty? I don't believe that either unless you use some kind of totally warped definition for poverty.
I didn't believe it either. See what successful propaganda can do to a mind?
This is hardly a matter of belief, though. We're talking about poverty, not God.
Here's where I got that info on health coverage and poverty. I mean, I heard it from Michael Moore first, but I don't tend to believe things until I check that on some other source.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 11:04 AM |
|
|
We crossed posts. But here's what I wrote and maybe I'll get a change to look at your links later.
-------------------------
@Bak, just a quick note before I go to bed, before my statement gets taken way out of context.
This whole thing with the medical system and insurance in the US is extremely complicated and virtually impossible to explain. But whatever numbers you are seeing for the so-called number of Americans without health insurance is basically a highly oversimplified and distorted political football.
An only slightly less oversimplified version is that these numbers that get thrown around are basically Americans who don't have some sort of personal/private insurance. This would be akin to saying xx% of Americans don't have transportation, when it really means they don't own a car, but still have access to public transport.
Health insurance comes in many forms. In a sense (again this is a quick oversimplification before I go to bed), *ALL* Americans have health insurance of some sort. And not just Americans. If you came here as a tourist and got in a traffic accident and severely hurt and unconscious, the ambulance would come and take you to the hospital and they would treat you. They would worry about how/if you could pay later. Without going into the detail, if you couldn't pay you would just get it for free.
A HUGE portion of both the state and federal budget in the US goes toward paying for health care for people who don't have PRIVATE insurance. Again, this is oversimplified and yes, there are people who fall through the cracks.
As I said, it's a political football. Politicians love to talk about the xx number of Americans without health insurance, as if they don't have ANY sort of coverage. And it simply is not the case, but it does score emotional points with voters. Due to the complexity of the system, very few people within the US understand it, and it would be virtually impossible for someone outside the US to understand it. So people only see it at the surface, i.e. XX% of American [fill in the blank]....and that's exactly how the politicians want it to be seen.
Time for bed, but I'll just say the poverty numbers aren't what they seem either.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 01:59 PM |
|
|
Angelito:
Quote:
if everyone only does what HE wants...only sees HIS rights...only takes care about HIS ideas...never takes a minute and thinks about how own ideas may effect others (in a bad way probably...), and questions every law which could curtail his free will, this society will for sure die pretty soon.
If everyone doesn't, then society is already dead.
All:
Hmm... what does this have to do with online communities again? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
|
To answer the topic question, socialism isn't prevalent in online communities. What's prevalent is a combination of capitalist "social" democracy and hippie-and-granola green-tea environmentalism. Neither of which qualifies as socialism.
People see that there is injustice in the world - but then they completely miss the point. "I don't get paid enough! I'm not insured!" Those are the symptoms, not the disease. Even if the government provided health care for everyone, this would not solve other injustices inherent in the capitalist system.
Moreover, I must ask you so-called socialists a question. How is the worker's "I don't get paid enough!" different from the capitalist's? They're both motivated by material greed, after all.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 03:32 PM |
|
|
Sorry for this off-topic, just a quick note... You claim that *ALL* Americans have some kind of insurance...That may be what they teach you at the Republican Picnic for Executives*, but according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance). And the figure is about 15% that doesn't have insurance (that is 46 million people) [U.S. Census Bureau. Issued August 2008.] You just go on and claim that yes they do have. LOL.
*70% of those who voted for Republican believe the US system to be the best one, where as only 32% of Democrats agreed.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 04:06 PM |
|
|
I think you missed the point whoever it was was making when they said all were covered. I read it, and I think this is what he meant, that anyone could go to the hospital and get treated. They determine whether you can pay later. You don't have to walk into the emergency room with a gunshot and hold out your credit card to receive treatment.
As an aside, do you really have to bash a particular political party? If you're going to bash a political party, bash them all, because all are responsible.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, you ignored everything I've said and decided to put words in my mouth, awesome.
You said you have the right to carry around a gun for self-defense.
Well ask any terrorist and he'll tell you owning bombs is a form of self-defense against the american pigs.
What makes you more righteous? After all, guns can kill people too.
And a nuke... that's just a bigger bomb!
(I'm not talking about the ICBM but about the warhead)
Quote:
Secondly, what is wrong with you buying land from someone else? OH they get to set the price! How unfair! But you've forgotten...IT'S THEIRS! Why should anyone other than them determine the price? Welcome to common sense 101...
You don't seem to get what I say, or ignore it. It's theirs? Where did they get it from? From their father?
Ok, where did their father get it from? From his father?
Where did father's father (grandfather) get it from? Bought it from God?
Who. Owns. The. Moon. What's the PRICE of the Moon?
Huh?
(unless of course, you say that only socialism works on the Moon, for example -- please replace "Moon" with ANY unexplored area in history, if you don't want to answer the Moon thing!)
Capitalism, of course, never answers this. There's never "a past" because OBVIOUSLY someone must have gotten it "cheap" -- at 0$ price -- it's called CLAIMING property. It sounds good, but it needs a "start", a "push", from some other system, because it is inherently not capitalistic.
Ironically that same dude then SOLD it, or others INHERITED it. Therefore they are indirectly influenced by such claiming done by him. Why should I respect that multi-millionaire's property when his property, if we trace it back to his ancestors (where he "inherited" it from) was the result of CLAIMING? I want to claim there too, you know! It's so cheap!
How is it THEIRS when they didn't even begin with capitalism? You know, it's really nice to say "Ok, let's draw a line -- from this moment onward, we'll distribute the land as following..." but as unfair and hypocritical this is going to be to next generations. Seriously.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 05:12 PM |
|
|
TD sounds like one of the greatest ancient greek politicians.
Times are different now than 2500 years back, but I'd just want to say that the idea has been tried and proved effective in a small society.
EDIT: though, it hardly matters nowadays, because if an education is mandatory in your country, you can make your way through anything. (yes, I believe you can do a lot of things with an education, like pursuing what you want to do)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 09, 2009 09:45 PM |
|
|
Deadman raised an excellent point:Quote:
I must ask you so-called socialists a question. How is the worker's "I don't get paid enough!" different from the capitalist's?
TheDeath:
You only buy stuff from other people. When it's not owned by anyone, you can just claim it.
Dagoth:
Quote:
if an education is mandatory in your country, you can make your way through anything
This. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 10, 2009 12:59 AM |
|
|
QFT:
Quote:
Ok, where did their father get it from? From his father?
Where did father's father (grandfather) get it from? Bought it from God?
Who. Owns. The. Moon. What's the PRICE of the Moon?
Huh?
(unless of course, you say that only socialism works on the Moon, for example -- please replace "Moon" with ANY unexplored area in history, if you don't want to answer the Moon thing!)
Capitalism, of course, never answers this. There's never "a past" because OBVIOUSLY someone must have gotten it "cheap" -- at 0$ price -- it's called CLAIMING property. It sounds good, but it needs a "start", a "push", from some other system, because it is inherently not capitalistic.
Ironically that same dude then SOLD it, or others INHERITED it. Therefore they are indirectly influenced by such claiming done by him. Why should I respect that multi-millionaire's property when his property, if we trace it back to his ancestors (where he "inherited" it from) was the result of CLAIMING? I want to claim there too, you know! It's so cheap!
How is it THEIRS when they didn't even begin with capitalism? You know, it's really nice to say "Ok, let's draw a line -- from this moment onward, we'll distribute the land as following..." but as unfair and hypocritical this is going to be to next generations. Seriously.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 10, 2009 01:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Deadman raised an excellent point:Quote:
I must ask you so-called socialists a question. How is the worker's "I don't get paid enough!" different from the capitalist's?
Well if I understand it correctly, it means that "we socialist" advocate higher wages? Well I'm not sure about the others, but I'm not going to increase ALL wages. I'm going to even some of them out (look @ the wage of a CEO and ask me if I will increase it, the answer is pretty obvious isn't it?).
But nevertheless this isn't even the essential part of my ideology -- it may be to other socialists, but it isn't to mine.
Quote:
You only buy stuff from other people. When it's not owned by anyone, you can just claim it.
How do you determine "when it's not owned by anyone"?
I'll just decide I'm going to take that bit of land over there. Oops, people say that it's owned by some multi-millionaire dude. Hmm, what does that mean? Just words?
Or will someone enforce it (aka prevent me from being 'fair')? If so, then who? The government?
Ah, communism enforced it too -- if you took "comrade Stalin's property" so to speak...
if you ask me it's no different.
(my country was communistic once too).
How come others can "claim" and I can't? Talking about equal privileges...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
look @ the wage of a CEO and ask me if I will increase it, the answer is pretty obvious isn't it?
What about the wages of workers?
As for the difference between a multi-millionaire's property and "Comrade Stalin's property" - the multi-millionaire didn't take that property from anyone. Stalin did.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 10, 2009 01:14 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:15, 10 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
What about the wages of workers?
Like I said, I would even them out -- depends on what type of workers we're talking about too, obviously. (even them out includes CEOs too). But like I said, I am not necessarily for everything having the same wage -- that may be others' viewpoint but it's not even strong in mine (although it HAS some of it).
Quote:
As for the difference between a multi-millionaire's property and "Comrade Stalin's property" - the multi-millionaire didn't take that property from anyone. Stalin did.
That's an abstract concept and yes he did, in my opinion, but I'll have to explain my beliefs regarding "time" and "fairness" which would be off topic. (no, really, off topic).
Suffice to say, that it is an abstract concept (i.e taking from 'someone' -- what does that mean? from a piece of paper? I mean, that 'someone' doesn't hold the land in his arms literally ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
