Socialism

[sxeforlife555]

So, I'm reading up on socialism, and when I came out of the library, my mom said that I was gonna be like adolf hitler, because he was a socialist. I told her that it has nothing to do with that, and that right now we are living in a capitalist society, that exploits its hard workers. What are your ideas on this?

[mouseman004]

So, I'm reading up on socialism, and when I came out of the library, my mom said that I was gonna be like adolf hitler, because he was a socialist. I told her that it has nothing to do with that, and that right now we are living in a capitalist society, that exploits its hard workers. What are your ideas on this?

Hitler was not a socialist, he was a Facist and in fact he was deathly afraid of socialism. I do not beleive in socialism solely based on the idea that it is impracticle and has yet to successfully exist in the real world (although that is debateable based around individual views towards Cuba). I beleive that capitalism does have flaws but that is based more on its execution, not the system itself.

[xANTI-HUMANx]

Hitler was not a socialist. He was a National Socialist, which is what Nazi stands for. It has nothing to do with socialism in fact, more to do with extreme nationalism. As Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism is better called corporatism because it combines the power of the state with the power of corporations." Fascism is ultra-capitalist, not even close to socialism.
And Mouseman- Communism hasn't been satisfactorily practiced. The European Union is socialist, and I wouldn't call them a failure in any sense of the word.

[xsecx]

Hitler was not a socialist. He was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST, which is what Nazi stands for. It has nothing to do with socialism in fact, more to do with extreme nationalism. As Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism is better called corporatism because it combines the power of the state with the power of corporations." Fascism is ultra-capitalist, not even close to socialism.
And Mouseman- Communism hasn't been satisfactorily practiced. The European Union is socialist, and I wouldn't call them a failure in any sense of the word.


the eu isn't really anything. the member states however are to varying degrees socialists, and in those there are examples of failure. Like the NHS in the UK.

[mouseman004]

And Mouseman- Communism hasn't been satisfactorily practiced. The European Union is socialist, and I wouldn't call them a failure in any sense of the word.

Technically that isn't true. The original meaning of socialism (economically that is) was state ownership of the means of production. One of the criteria for membership into the European Union is the maintenance of a competitive market economy. So although states within the european union share some socialist ideas, none of them are truly socialist.

[xANTI-HUMANx]

Sorry, Mouseman, you're right. I was thinking of the more loose application of the term that's thrown around by American politicians, but in terms of what it really is at the heart, it is indeed what you described.
And Dusty- You want to talk about failure, look at the American healthcare system. At least England's doing better than us.

[straightXed]

Sorry, Mouseman, you're right. I was thinking of the more loose application of the term that's thrown around by American politicians, but in terms of what it really is at the heart, it is indeed what you described.
And Dusty- You want to talk about failure, look at the American healthcare system. At least England's doing better than us.


And how is england doing better exactly? Do you know what state the NHS is in?

[xANTI-HUMANx]

To some extent. But I know more about the American system. And, from what I know, there are fundamental differences that makes comparing the US healthcare to the NHS like apples to oranges, especially considering you and I are probably coming from totally different places on the political compass.
Though I am going to point out the corruption around the American system. To quote the oft-repeated line, "I've seen emergency rooms check wallets before wounds." Sure, the American system works great... if you've got employer-provided health insurance.

[xsecx]

To some extent. But I know more about the American system. And, from what I know, there are fundamental differences that makes comparing the US healthcare to the NHS like apples to oranges, especially considering you and I are probably coming from totally different places on the political compass.
Though I am going to point out the corruption around the American system. To quote the oft-repeated line, "I've seen emergency rooms check wallets before wounds." Sure, the American system works great... if you've got employer-provided health insurance.

you really have no idea what you're talking about you should really do some research before you start talking about the NHS and it not being a failure. or bankrupt. or corrupt. or fucked.

[straightXed]

To some extent. But I know more about the American system. And, from what I know, there are fundamental differences that makes comparing the US healthcare to the NHS like apples to oranges, especially considering you and I are probably coming from totally different places on the political compass.
Though I am going to point out the corruption around the American system. To quote the oft-repeated line, "I've seen emergency rooms check wallets before wounds." Sure, the American system works great... if you've got employer-provided health insurance.

I don't think my political stance has anything to do with this as it really doesn't factor into how the NHS actually preforms. It is a very different system but you would benifit from actually understanding how flawed it is and what it was built to acheive. On the surface it sounds great maybe but its probably one of the biggest issues that this country needs to address, its continually failing and its really no supprise that is a constant subject of debate from scrapping it all together to the continual question of where has all the money gone? I am becoming more aware of the american medical practice and whilst it is very money oriented and even with health insurance theres costs that can be very high but you pay for a much higher standard of care compared to what you would recieve under the NHS. I know health insurance is an issue but i think you have made a very erronous assertion about england doing health care better, research it some more is my suggestion.

[Straightedge revenge]

you really have no idea what you're talking about you should really do some research before you start talking about the NHS and it not being a failure. or bankrupt. or corrupt. or fucked.
I think you need to live in the UK before dissing the NHS. It does have problems but it is not corrupt.In Some areas of the UK it is not as good as others but on the whole it works well. A lot of people bad mouth the NHS, but the truth is when you need it it is there. As for the UK being anywhere near a socialist country you are far off. All this said and done i am far from being a socialist, but felt your comments about the NHS were way off. Especially when talking to someone from the UK about the issue.

[xsecx]

I think you need to live in the UK before dissing the NHS. It does have problems but it is not corrupt.In Some areas of the UK it is not as good as others but on the whole it works well. A lot of people bad mouth the NHS, but the truth is when you need it it is there. As for the UK being anywhere near a socialist country you are far off. All this said and done i am far from being a socialist, but felt your comments about the NHS were way off. Especially when talking to someone from the UK about the issue.

does being married to brit, spending a fair amount of time over there every year, and having a father in law almost die because of it's ineptitude count? Or a grandmother in law that lost toes because she couldn't be seen in time to save them? You make it sound like I haven't spent any time in a UK hospital, when in fact I have and have seen how well it "works" first hand. I know of personal cases where it wasn't there when my family needed it. My words are based on personal experiences. If it's not corrupt, then why is it bankrupt? If it's so great, then why do thinks like bupa exist? You may not want to make assumptions about people and their experiences until you get to know them.

[straightXed]

I think you need to live in the UK before dissing the NHS. It does have problems but it is not corrupt.In Some areas of the UK it is not as good as others but on the whole it works well. A lot of people bad mouth the NHS, but the truth is when you need it it is there. As for the UK being anywhere near a socialist country you are far off. All this said and done i am far from being a socialist, but felt your comments about the NHS were way off. Especially when talking to someone from the UK about the issue.

I live here and i would agree that there is corruption on both medical and administrative sides. I mean you just have to look at how flawed our system is compared to other national health services from other European countries and how much money we continually throw at it, its a failing system in comparison to others and it really is one of the main issues that is continually under focus in this country. I mean the statement "In Some areas of the UK it is not as good as others but on the whole it works well" may very well be true but its a national health service and it shouldn't fail in one area and be ok in another, it comes down to that whole postcode lottery thing. And that pretty much illustrates that its not always there when you need it, i had huge problems finding a dentist to accept NHS and that is a common problem, likewise with GP's who's reaction to most things is to prescribe anti-biotics (something that has recently been criticized by the government as a possible reason that we are suffering more and more super bugs) are over worked and often misdiagnose health issues as a result. Yes this can happen anywhere but i have had it happen to me, to my step dad and my mother, to most people i speak to. It seems everyone has a horror story to tell from the NHS and it really shouldn't be that common, there are some huge problems with our health service that can't and shouldn't be glossed over or ignored.

[D1988]

does being married to brit, spending a fair amount of time over there every year, and having a father in law almost die because of it's ineptitude count? Or a grandmother in law that lost toes because she couldn't be seen in time to save them? You make it sound like I haven't spent any time in a UK hospital, when in fact I have and have seen how well it "works" first hand. I know of personal cases where it wasn't there when my family needed it. My words are based on personal experiences. If it's not corrupt, then why is it bankrupt? If it's so great, then why do thinks like bupa exist? You may not want to make assumptions about people and their experiences until you get to know them.

I'm totally agreeing with Dusty on this one. I've had enough experiences in my family alone to realise how bad the NHS really can be.

And Ed mentioned NHS dentists, there is now only 1 NHS dentis near me, it opened not so long ago and it's books were full up in a few days, people queued on the telephone line for 2 hours to get through and register with them. I have no dentist right now and haven't done for probably close to 2 years. This is just one minor example of my NHS related experiences and this is probabaly the least shocking one.

[xsecx]

I'm totally agreeing with Dusty on this one. I've had enough experiences in my family alone to realise how bad the NHS really can be.

And Ed mentioned NHS dentists, there is now only 1 NHS dentis near me, it opened not so long ago and it's books were full up in a few days, people queued on the telephone line for 2 hours to get through and register with them. I have no dentist right now and haven't done for probably close to 2 years. This is just one minor example of my NHS related experiences and this is probabaly the least shocking one.

yeah. my inlaws and sister in law's old dentist quit and now they can't find anyone taking nhs patients. way to go NHS!

[D1988]

yeah. my inlaws and sister in law's old dentist quit and now they can't find anyone taking nhs patients. way to go NHS!

And for a minute or two, I actually wondered why the yanks thought we had bad teeth.

I am seriously considering going to the private dentist that my parents use, mostly because I am paranoid something serious happens with my teeth. But thats going to add another bunch of money on to my monthly bills I have to pay, and on apprentice wages it isn't all that easy.

[straightXed]

I'm totally agreeing with Dusty on this one. I've had enough experiences in my family alone to realise how bad the NHS really can be.

And Ed mentioned NHS dentists, there is now only 1 NHS dentis near me, it opened not so long ago and it's books were full up in a few days, people queued on the telephone line for 2 hours to get through and register with them. I have no dentist right now and haven't done for probably close to 2 years. This is just one minor example of my NHS related experiences and this is probabaly the least shocking one.

Just so you know there should be somewhere near you that can give you emergency treatment (contact NHS direct for details on where) but you are only permitted one emergency, after that visit its up to you to find a dentist or suffer with whatever you have bothering you. Or of course pay for private treatment but that kind of defeats the idea of paying money to support the NHS.

[force majeure]

I probably know better than you lot when it comes to the nhs.
having visited it frequently as a child, and with my dad working there and all..

but didn't this start off as a debate about socialism?

the main idea behind which is that wealth, property, influence and decision making should be controlled by the wider community and distributed accordingly. (including the destruction of set "class" lines.)

and also that the workers own the means of production. (facilitating them to make their own decision as a collective without any self-appointed leader - completely autonomous, with complete control over thier workplace.) Instead of simply using a process of collective bargaining, (as used in the capitalist model.)


and to answer all the nay-sayers.
the socialist model has been proven to be truely successfull.
no, not in cuba. but in ancient Athens. (implimented roughly 500 B.C.)

however, the term "socialist" is used very loosely in our society.
most "socialist" organisations have appointed leaders, (generally just out to make themselves look as if they're sympathetic to the workers pleas, while simultaneously silencing any dissent within thier ranks, in order to put THEMSELVES - not the people they claim to represent - into a position of more power.)

And thus: dont follow what most people say socialism is. most of them are simply back-stabbing middle-class monotanous b*stards trying to make themselves out to be better people than they actually are so that they can climb higher up the social ladder.

and: END RANT.

i suggest you check out the democracy of ancient athens, the best read i can guide you to would be:
"Every cook can govern.." by C.L.R. James (available from bewick editions. (Detroit, MI))


I hope this has been of some use.

[xsecx]

I probably know better than you lot when it comes to the nhs.
having visited it frequently as a child, and with my dad working there and all..

but didn't this start off as a debate about socialism?

the main idea behind which is that wealth, property, influence and decision making should be controlled by the wider community and distributed accordingly. (including the destruction of set "class" lines.)

and also that the workers own the means of production. (facilitating them to make their own decision as a collective without any self-appointed leader - completely autonomous, with complete control over thier workplace.) Instead of simply using a process of collective bargaining, (as used in the capitalist model.)


and to answer all the nay-sayers.
the socialist model has been proven to be truely successfull.
no, not in cuba. but in ancient Athens. (implimented roughly 500 B.C.)

however, the term "socialist" is used very loosely in our society.
most "socialist" organisations have appointed leaders, (generally just out to make themselves look as if they're sympathetic to the workers pleas, while simultaneously silencing any dissent within thier ranks, in order to put THEMSELVES - not the people they claim to represent - into a position of more power.)

And thus: dont follow what most people say socialism is. most of them are simply back-stabbing middle-class monotanous b*stards trying to make themselves out to be better people than they actually are so that they can climb higher up the social ladder.

and: END RANT.

i suggest you check out the democracy of ancient athens, the best read i can guide you to would be:
"Every cook can govern.." by C.L.R. James (available from bewick editions. (Detroit, MI))


I hope this has been of some use.

using an example from 2500 years ago isn't really relevant.

[xGriffox]

using an example from 2500 years ago isn't really relevant.
i'm not arguing for socialism, but why isn't it relevant?

[xsecx]

i'm not arguing for socialism, but why isn't it relevant?

because the world is a vastly different place than it was 2500 years ago, so if that's the most recent example of it "working" then it's a lot harder to make the statement that it would/could work in the world today. It's like saying that a functional example of anarchy was prehistoric man. Time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems.

[xGriffox]

because the world is a vastly different place than it was 2500 years ago, so if that's the most recent example of it "working" then it's a lot harder to make the statement that it would/could work in the world today. It's like saying that a functional example of anarchy was prehistoric man. Time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems.
simply because times change it doesn't mean lessons can't be taught from the past. I fail to see how because something happened 2500 years ago it becomes entirely irrelevant as a valid means of societal organization. You are correct, time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems, so tell me, why is it that such a system could be worked out 2500 years ago and not today?

[mouseman004]

simply because times change it doesn't mean lessons can't be taught from the past. I fail to see how because something happened 2500 years ago it becomes entirely irrelevant as a valid means of societal organization. You are correct, time and context matter in terms of socio-economic systems, so tell me, why is it that such a system could be worked out 2500 years ago and not today?

If it worked so well, it would still exist.

[xGriffox]

If it worked so well, it would still exist.
This is a blanket statement which holds little validity. Something can work outrageously well only to one day be squashed by a world empire. (keep in mind i am not supporting socialism here, i am merely arguing a point)

[mouseman004]

This is a blanket statement which holds little validity. Something can work outrageously well only to one day be squashed by a world empire. (keep in mind i am not supporting socialism here, i am merely arguing a point)

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

[xsecx]

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

and we have a winner.

[force majeure]

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

it was not that better systems were created, but more powerful systems.
the basic reason why the athenian system failed was more to do with the freedom it allowed its opposers to have.
the athenians fought the roman and persian empires as well as those who opposed them in thier own state.
they fought everyone untill they were eventually overpowered.

ancient greece remains the greatest producer of great astronomers, mathmaticians, poets, playwrites and philosophers (including ones who opposed it - freely, i should add,) the world has ever seen, despite the fact that athens had a population about 100 times smaller that most modern cities.

but again.
beside the point.
we're not supposed to be talking about why it succceeded or failed.
simply the ideas and concepts of socialism.

(by the way, i am not a socialist.)

[xsecx]

it was not that better systems were created, but more powerful systems.
the basic reason why the athenian system failed was more to do with the freedom it allowed its opposers to have.
the athenians fought the roman and persian empires as well as those who opposed them in thier own state.
they fought everyone untill they were eventually overpowered.

ancient greece remains the greatest producer of great astronomers, mathmaticians, poets, playwrites and philosophers (including ones who opposed it - freely, i should add,) the world has ever seen, despite the fact that athens had a population about 100 times smaller that most modern cities.

but again.
beside the point.
we're not supposed to be talking about why it succceeded or failed.
simply the ideas and concepts of socialism.

(by the way, i am not a socialist.)

how can you talk about the ideas of something without discussing it's application? What's the point? I also think your statement that ancient greece produced the greatest anythings at this point is a romanticized overstatement.

[mouseman004]

it was not that better systems were created, but more powerful systems.
the basic reason why the athenian system failed was more to do with the freedom it allowed its opposers to have.
the athenians fought the roman and persian empires as well as those who opposed them in thier own state.
they fought everyone untill they were eventually overpowered.

ancient greece remains the greatest producer of great astronomers, mathmaticians, poets, playwrites and philosophers (including ones who opposed it - freely, i should add,) the world has ever seen, despite the fact that athens had a population about 100 times smaller that most modern cities.

but again.
beside the point.
we're not supposed to be talking about why it succceeded or failed.
simply the ideas and concepts of socialism.

(by the way, i am not a socialist.)


My point is that if it was such a good system then it should have been a powerful system itself. If it worked so well, then there shouldn't have been an oppourtunity for more powerful systems to overtake it.

And I am not really sure what your trying to prove by explaining the great thinkers that came out of Athens. That has little or nothing to do with the idea of socialism. Ghandi came out of India during British imperial rule. Does that mean that British Imperial rule was good for India?

[force majeure]

My point is that if it was such a good system then it should have been a powerful system itself. If it worked so well, then there shouldn't have been an oppourtunity for more powerful systems to overtake it.

And I am not really sure what your trying to prove by explaining the great thinkers that came out of Athens. That has little or nothing to do with the idea of socialism. Ghandi came out of India during British imperial rule. Does that mean that British Imperial rule was good for India?


to be frank,
there are quite afew indians who believe that it in fact, was.

my point is that it was a more powerful system - proportionally. the other systems simply had overwhelming man-power.

and the other point was that the autonomy of the society meant that the standard of education was raised for all people, not just a certain group. this, coupled with the workers owning the means of production make possible all sorts of advancements in society, technology etc.

[xGriffox]

My point is that if it was such a good system then it should have been a powerful system itself. If it worked so well, then there shouldn't have been an oppourtunity for more powerful systems to overtake it.

And I am not really sure what your trying to prove by explaining the great thinkers that came out of Athens. That has little or nothing to do with the idea of socialism. Ghandi came out of India during British imperial rule. Does that mean that British Imperial rule was good for India?
good systems for people don't neccesarily translate to powerful system against invaders. this is the point you continue to miss.

[mouseman004]

good systems for people don't neccesarily translate to powerful system against invaders. this is the point you continue to miss.

The point you continue to miss is that if it was the most superior system, why would the invaders not use that system themselves? If it was such a superior system it woud probably have been used by more than one civilisation in 2500 years.

[xGriffox]

The point you continue to miss is that if it was the most superior system, why would the invaders not use that system themselves? If it was such a superior system it woud probably have been used by more than one civilisation in 2500 years.
It would entirely lie within the value of that society which invaded them. If their emphasis was more firmly on imperialism obviously a system with weak military and strong social emphasis would not be appealing.

Now i have a question for you, in the case of the native americans and other groups of hunter gatherers, those who invaded them did not adopt their system. By your logic, this would be because the invader's system was superior. However, the hunter gatherers largely refused to adopt the system of their invaders even at threat of annihilation. So tell me, does the invader's system still stand as superior even though many people chose to die rather than accept it?

[mouseman004]

Now i have a question for you, in the case of the native americans and other groups of hunter gatherers, those who invaded them did not adopt their system. By your logic, this would be because the invader's system was superior. However, the hunter gatherers largely refused to adopt the system of their invaders even at threat of annihilation. So tell me, does the invader's system still stand as superior even though many people chose to die rather than accept it?

Yes because even though people died rather than accepting it, it still prevailed as the dominant system. I am not arguing this based on opinion, I am arguing it based on the definition of success or being superior. For example, I myself might be a socialist, but I would not be able to argue that socialism is a superior system to capitalism because socialism has failed where capitalism has succeeded. I could argue that I preferred socialism, but i would be wrong to say its a superior system. Do you see where I am coming from?

[xGriffox]

Yes because even though people died rather than accepting it, it still prevailed as the dominant system. I am not arguing this based on opinion, I am arguing it based on the definition of success or being superior. For example, I myself might be a socialist, but I would not be able to argue that socialism is a superior system to capitalism because socialism has failed where capitalism has succeeded. I could argue that I preferred socialism, but i would be wrong to say its a superior system. Do you see where I am coming from?
ah, yeah. i got ya. It seems we were more so arguing over the definition of superior.

[strombollii]

So, I'm reading up on socialism, and when I came out of the library, my mom said that I was gonna be like adolf hitler, because he was a socialist. I told her that it has nothing to do with that, and that right now we are living in a capitalist society, that exploits its hard workers. What are your ideas on this?

I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have already been stated, but the U.S. doesn't have a true capitalist economy. The fact is that the government has far too much of a hand in our economic system to actually make it a true laissez-faire economy.

[Sunlightseven20]

The only difference between socialism and capitalism is that in socialism the slave drivers have guns.


The government has a monopoly on legal violent force. Put them in charge of the means of production and you basically just end up having the same problems with corruption and power hunger that we have in capitalism that causes IT not to function properly... only the corrupt money hungry, power hungry state bourgeoisie has a monopoly on legal violent force because you elected them instead of letting supply and demand empower them. Maybe you'd say the capitalist also controls the means of coercion but, even if so, there's a lot of red tape between he and the guns.

Socialism only works when we ignore completely human individuality and the contrast of ideas. I am me and you are you and we aren't the same thing, we aren't interested in the same things and we don't have the same reasons for being interested in what we are interested in. We haven't done the same work, and aren't worth the same thing to our society. We are not naturally entitled to any resources. We don't need the same resources, goods, or services. We don't even want or care about the same resources, goods or services. We are individual entities not some amorphous globule of united human consciousness and entitlement.

The importance of ideas and the use of ideas is also greatly understated. Socialism is based on this delusion that work produces everything people want or need. If that were true we'd never have advanced past the stone age. There's a lot more to society than the need to bang away with a hammer or pull a lever at a machine all day. People who work only effect what they work on. Nothing more. People with ideas cause all of society to progress and cause the workers to become more efficient henceforth minimizing the necessary amount of exploiting there must be for profits and gains to occur.

"The workers" will never control anything. "The workers" is not an entity. "The Workers" have no collective direction unless some system of bourgeoisie, either state or private, is in place to govern them. They don't get together and figure out how to deal with the distribution of their resources because they are busy.... working.... and if they aren't.... who is?


Socialize and you will inevitably find the former proletariat kicking back his/her feet in the mansion of the bourgeoisie and controlling resources. If you went all the way and managed to brainwash your way into a communist society perhaps eventually the ruling class could diminish... but who on earth would be gullible enough to put all their eggs in THAT basket?? (Sorry to all those state capitalist nations out there that did. Better luck next time!)

To the socialist alone it is the corruption element and the state bourgeoisie that are the end of the road. Welcome to state capitalism.

Socialism needs to be moving in the direction of communism, and that means eventually all existing civil liberties have to be given as allowances by the government and a police state must be in place. Ideas must be controlled... guided in a uniform direction. The objective is, after all, co-existence, right? Even the socialist apologists on this board speak of a collective thought process as workers unite to control their means of production. The state must control all property and that includes ideas because like any old fascist tyrant knows... if you make everyone believe the same shit and kick out or destroy anyone who doesn't it's a hell of a lot easier to co-exist.

Uniformity of thought is NOT co-existence. Even if I don't REALLLY have choice in this crazy capitalist machine I'm currently a part of, the illusion of choice is still a one up on what the communist ideal offers. I'll settle. Really.


As for the superiority of the capitalist system, you'd have to be blind (like most people tend to be concerning the monetary system) to miss out on the monstrous beast that is global capitalism. Any single nation that wants to maintain its own sovereignty and still be wealthy enough to purchase red flags and giant portraits/statues of their leaders (with money that isn't AT ALL being taken as a surplus value of the collective wealth and used to exploit and enslave the worker's or anything, haa!) will do exactly as the corporations tell them.

It's funny how the central banks of the world were facets of the communist manifesto itself and how the elite bourgeoisie thought they were such good ideas they'd use them to completely enslave the entire world.


Karl Marx had one thing right: capitalism was and is broken.

It wasn't over though and socialism was in no way able to do anything other than trick people into handing over more authority to the state.

[El Moro]

Its not really a blanket statement. If socialism was proven to work well, and worked outrageously well, there would be examples of it that would have existed between 500 BC and 2008 AD because if it was such a good system, others would probably have used it. However in that time, systems which worked better were discovered or created, hence the reason socialism has not succesfully existed since ancient athens.

Thumbs up.