Socialism

[JacobIN]

So, my dear friend Harry Smith, asked me to make a thread were we can debate socialism. I am willing, however, keep it on topic, use a valid argument, and don't insult anyone.

Anyways, what I am getting at is that socialism will never work. Period. It wont. Go ahead and form your arguments, Ill be waiting.

[AlexOnToast]

Why won't it ever work?
I honestly have never heard the real argument against it (coz, yknow, I'm a young idiot)

[Vlerchan]

So, my dear friend Harry Smith, asked me to make a thread were we can debate socialism.

Harry is a Social-Democrat and not a Democratic-Socialist or Socialist-Socialist. In US terms he's a Left-Liberal - note: the Democrats are largely Centre- and Right-Liberals. I just want to make that clear now.

Anyways, what I am getting at is that socialism will never work. Period.

The first-world is a majority Social-Democracies. It quite clearly works. You've no leg to stand on here.

[JacobIN]

Harry is a Social-Democrat and not a Democratic-Socialist or Socialist-Socialist. In US terms he's a Left-Liberal - note: the Democrats are largely Centre- and Right-Liberals. I just want to make that clear now.



The first-world is a majority Social-Democracies. It quite clearly works. You've no leg to stand on here.



Keep in mind, I stand for pure capitalism. The only thing the government should be involved in is regulations for safety, minimum wage, taxes, and to prevent monopolies, not prices. The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations. I think I have a fine leg to stand on.

I don't like the american government's role in our economy. Understand that.

[Harry Smith]

Keep in mind, I stand for pure capitalism. The only thing the government should be involved in is regulations for safety, minimum wage, taxes, and to prevent monopolies, not prices. The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations. I think I have a fine leg to stand on.

I don't like the american government's role in our economy. Understand that.

So do you oppose the 2008 Bailout?, because a pure capitalist would hate that to their deathbed

[JacobIN]

So do you oppose the 2008 Bailout?, because a pure capitalist would hate that to their deathbed

If a company runs into the ground, leave em. I don't support them, and they contributed to the rising debt of the US.

[Harry Smith]

If a company runs into the ground, leave em. I don't support them, and they contributed to the rising debt of the US.

But the whole US banking system ran to the ground-if a bailout didn't occur then people wouldn't be able to of got money from the banks, the government would of had to shut down. I'm sure someone with a better banking economics can expand this but the bailout saved the US from collapse. The bailout saved 8 million jobs-that's a lot of people who would of struggled to keep a roof over their head and feed their families

[JacobIN]

But the whole US banking system ran to the ground-if a bailout didn't occur then people wouldn't be able to of got money from the banks, the government would of had to shut down. I'm sure someone with a better banking economics can expand this but the bailout saved the US from collaspe

These things happen. If it leads to the downfall of an economy, then so be it. I would rather have a wrecked economy than the government involved.

[Harry Smith]

These things happen. If it leads to the downfall of an economy, then so be it. I would rather have a wrecked economy than the government involved.

Would you rather have food or no government intervention? It's as simple as that for the 8.5 million workers that were saved. What's the point in having your morals and small government attitude if you don't have a country anymore. It's very selfish to put your own political beliefs above the nation

[Vlerchan]

Keep in mind, I stand for pure capitalism. The only thing the government should be involved in is regulations for safety, minimum wage, taxes, and to prevent monopolies, not prices. The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations.

This isn't anything near laissez-faire- or pure-capatalism. It's just our current system minus welfarism.

I think I have a fine leg to stand on.
No.

Socialism clearly works. You choosing not to support Socialism doesn't make that fact any less true.

You've no leg to stand on.

I don't like the american government's role in our economy. Understand that.
You don't like America's current role in the economy. You seem perfectly fine with government-intervention.

[JacobIN]

Would you rather have food or no government intervention? It's as simple as that for the 8.5 million workers that were saved. What's the point in having your morals and small government attitude if you don't have a country anymore. It's very selfish to put your own political beliefs above the nation

This goes for everybody, if they get so far into a pit where they cannot get out, without government help, then let them. There can always be outside (3rd party) Investors. Nations rise and fall. Same thing with companies, and small business. If they die out, then they were meant to go. Something else will come and take its place.

[Harry Smith]

This goes for everybody, if they get so far into a pit where they cannot get out, without government help, then let them. There can always be outside (3rd party) Investors. Nations rise and fall. Same thing with companies, and small business. If they die out, then they were meant to go. Something else will come and take its place.

'He'll burn the country to the ground to be king of the ashes''.

Your ignoring the entire human side of the argument-what about all the people who starve as a result of the US falling? Or the children who can't go to school?

I'll ask you this-Why is government intervention so bad? It stops crisis, creates jobs and protects the nation. That's the role of the government isn't it?

So far socialism has offered saving a nation-your ideas have offered destroying a country. Do I have to ask which one is better

[Stronk Serb]

Socialism. Workers should not be trampled by the rich. It would be good if a middle-class guy would get elected.

[britishboy]

So, my dear friend Harry Smith, asked me to make a thread were we can debate socialism. I am willing, however, keep it on topic, use a valid argument, and don't insult anyone.

Anyways, what I am getting at is that socialism will never work. Period. It wont. Go ahead and form your arguments, Ill be waiting.
I agree however certain things should remain state owned and controlled.
Why won't it ever work?
I honestly have never heard the real argument against it (coz, yknow, I'm a young idiot)
Want an argument against it? Look at your phone. Turn it on. I don't know what phone you have but it probably has a 1080p screen. Do you enjoy full HD on your phone? Profit pushes private companies to do better, better processors; bigger more crisp screens and faster internet.

Technology is the best argument for capitalism you can see how fast it changes for the better, if profit wasn't a motive there would be no development.
Keep in mind, I stand for pure capitalism. The only thing the government should be involved in is regulations for safety, minimum wage, taxes, and to prevent monopolies, not prices. The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations. I think I have a fine leg to stand on.

I don't like the american government's role in our economy. Understand that.
The leaders of any country should try to stimulate and encourage business.

[Vlerchan]

Technology is the best argument for capitalism you can see how fast it changes for the better, if profit wasn't a motive there would be no development.
This is simply untrue.

An opinion like this can only stem from deliberately ignoring thousands of years of world-history.

[britishboy]

This is simply untrue.

An opinion like this can only stem from deliberately ignoring thousands of years of world-history.

Really? Produce a counter argument. Why would Samsung manufacture and develop the S5 when the S4 works fine if they wasn't motivated by profit.

[Harry Smith]

Really? Produce a counter argument. Why would Samsung manufacture and develop the S5 when the S4 works fine if they wasn't motivated by profit.

You quite clearly don't understand socialism-it doesn't stop companies from producing phones...

[Vlerchan]

Really? Produce a counter argument. Why would Samsung manufacture and develop the S5 when the S4 works fine if they wasn't motivated by profit.

The technology Samsung has based their S5 on came about as a result of state-driven efforts to land on the moon - this act did not result in a profit being gained either.

I'm not arguing that monetary profit doesn't encourage development in some cases. I'm arguing that monetary profit doesn't encourage development in all cases. There's numerous reasons to devote oneself to (the developments of) something besides monetary profit.

[britishboy]

You quite clearly don't understand socialism-it doesn't stop companies from producing phones...

Technology is the best example of capitalism, if the companies was state owned would it be evolving so fast, if at all?

The same goes for everything apart from justice and the military.

[britishboy]

The technology Samsung has based their S5 on came about as a result of state-driven efforts to land on the moon - this act did not result in a profit being gained either.

I'm not arguing that monetary profit doesn't encourage development in some cases. I'm arguing that monetary profit doesn't encourage development in all cases. There's numerous reasons to devote oneself to (the developments of) something besides monetary profit.

Ok fair argument but I say this, we can see everything is being cut so I do doubt that money would be released for development that isn't necessary. I am not pure capitalist, certain things must be state owned. I hate mercenaries and prisons managed by private companies.

[Harry Smith]

Technology is the best example of capitalism, if the companies was state owned would it be evolving so fast, if at all?



Not really-I'd argue that the Soviets produced some of the best technology of the second world war, heck the submarine, the tank, railway and many other great BRITISH inventions were created thanks to aide from the state.

Look at the internet-that's the best argument for socialism. As you saw during the Olympics the creator of the internet said...

This is for everyone

That's a very socialist invention and really has spurned on our economic growth of the last 20 years

Ok fair argument but I say this, we can see everything is being cut so I do doubt that money would be released for development that isn't necessary. I am not pure capitalist, certain things must be state owned. I hate mercenaries and prisons managed by private companies.

Oh yeah-the government cutbacks are the best example of capitalism right?

[Vlerchan]

Ok fair argument but I say this, we can see everything is being cut so I do doubt that money would be released for development that isn't necessary.

In this case do you agree that the state needs to play a role in providing what is necessary?

I'm talking here: healthcare; water and food allowances; rudimentary housing; etc., etc.

[britishboy]

Not really-I'd argue that the Soviets produced some of the best technology of the second world war, heck the submarine, the tank, railway and many other great BRITISH inventions were created thanks to aide from the state.

Look at the internet-that's the best argument for socialism. As you saw during the Olympics the creator of the internet said...

This is for everyone

That's a very socialist invention and really has spurned on our economic growth of the last 20 years


All those things were developed and funded by the government but the government does not have an unlimited pot of money! If we was super rich and the government would develop everything with huge budgets I would be on your side, life would be brilliant! But that can't become a reality.

If you remember after WW2 while Britian wasn't the worst we wasn't the best either and we simply couldn't keep up that rapid sending that was of course justified due to the war but today it is not.

Also military and justice should stay state owned as I have always said.

What we will end up doing is having state owned railways and services still relying on private companies to build and develop faster trains.

[britishboy]

In this case do you agree that the state needs to play a role in providing what is necessary?

I'm talking here: healthcare; water and food allowances; rudimentary housing; etc., etc.

Yes I agree however I will say let private companies in those sectors still exist.

[Harry Smith]

Technology is the best example of capitalism, if the companies was state owned would it be evolving so fast, if at all?

The same goes for everything apart from justice and the military.

All those things were developed and funded by the government but the government does not have an unlimited pot of money! If we was super rich and the government would develop everything with huge budgets I would be on your side, life would be brilliant! But that can't become a reality.

If you remember after WW2 while Britian wasn't the worst we wasn't the best either and we simply couldn't keep up that rapid sending that was of course justified due to the war but today it is not.

Also military and justice should stay state owned as I have always said.

What we will end up doing is having state owned railways and services still relying on private companies to build and develop faster trains.

You completely ignored the point about the Internet-an example of a socialist free invention. It's easy to ignore something when it proves your argument incorrect isn't it?

[Vlerchan]

Yes I agree however I will say let private companies in those sectors still exist.

I've no reason to be against allowing companies to give poor people free stuff. It doesn't seem like it would be particularily profitable - which might result in such companies losing out in the long-run.

[britishboy]

You completely ignored the point about the Internet-an example of a socialist free invention. It's easy to ignore something when it proves your argument incorrect isn't it?

You mean fiber optic? Wireless ethernet? The Internet was developed for military use, which I have said several times should remain state owned. The internet has came along way since then with nearly all websites such as YouTube motivated by profit, would you use the internet if there was only those charity and indie websites?

[britishboy]

I've no reason to be against allowing companies to give poor people free stuff. It doesn't seem like it would be particularily profitable - which might result in such companies losing out in the long-run.

No that would never happen unless PR was the motive, I mean continue letting people buy private health care.

[Harry Smith]

, would you use the internet if there was only those charity and indie websites?

How much did you pay to use VT? Oh wait it's free. How much did you pay to use youtube? Oh wait it's free. How much did you pay to go on the Daily Mail Website-oh wait it's free. How much did you pay to use hotmail-oh wait that's also free. Your whole idea about capitalism driving technology is pretty weak

That was the essence of an internet based device.

The actual World Wide Web was invented by a British person, who could of quite easily sold it for billions-instead he gave it to everyone. This disproves your point that only capitalism encourages technological growth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Your point before about WW2 was completely wrong-you don't really know British History do you? We became extremely socialist AFTER WW2

[britishboy]

How much did you pay to use VT? Oh wait it's free. How much did you pay to use youtube? Oh wait it's free. How much did you pay to go on the Daily Mail Website-oh wait it's free. How much did you pay to use hotmail-oh wait that's also free. Your whole idea about capitalism driving technology is pretty weak

VT is the only true argument there. YouTube is motivated by profit, are you 5 years old thinking that because the you don't pay they don't make money?

Capitalism is driving technology, it is a fact. Tech companies make huge profits that they then invest into better tech. If no profit or competition existed nothing would be developed, or you taxes would be increased to take on this new bill.

If you was leader or somehow had the power to set how the UK is run, what would you own, what would be private.
Because certain things like water can be state owned in my opinion.

[Harry Smith]

VT is the only true argument there. YouTube is motivated by profit, are you 5 years old thinking that because the you don't pay they don't make money?

Capitalism is driving technology, it is a fact.

Then why didn't Tim Berners Lee sell the internet for billions? I'll make it nice and simple for you-if Capatlism was the driving force of all tech then he would of sold it and charged people to use it-he didn't-that proves that you're wrong. Understand now?

Your confusing socialism with communism-do you want me to explain the difference?

[Vlerchan]

No that would never happen unless PR was the motive, I mean continue letting people buy private health care.

Sure.

As long as you accept that there's good reason for he state's existence - i.e., socialism - in a number of sectors in the economy then my points been made.

[britishboy]

Then why didn't Tim Berners Lee sell the internet for billions? I'll make it nice and simple for you-if Capatlism was the driving force of all tech then he would of sold it and charged people to use it-he didn't-that proves that you're wrong. Understand now?



Firstly I am not sure if he could have secondly your logic is just wrong, because we are in a capitalist society doesn't mean everybody has that political belief. Look at VT, comes from a capitalist society but yet it is not run for profit. Just because we're capitalist doesn't mean everybody is cut throat and greedy.

I do actually doubt he could have even sold it.

You're getting desperate and your arguments are equally desperate.

[Harry Smith]

Firstly I am not sure if he could have secondly your logic is just wrong, because we are in a capitalist society doesn't mean everybody has that political belief. Look at VT, comes from a capitalist society but yet it is not run for profit. Just because we're capitalist doesn't mean everybody is cut throat and greedy.

I do actually doubt he could have even sold it.

You're getting desperate and your arguments are equally desperate.

Uhm yes he could have-he'd simply set it up on a subscription base-to access the world wide web you have to pay X about each month. It's simple as that.

Just because we're capitalist doesn't mean everybody is cut throat and greedy

What are you talking about? Your argument was that Capitalism drives forward great technology-my point was that socialism also does that. You don't need capitalism to expand technology or your economy. The soviets produced the best tank of the war under a communism society-which proves your point to be invalid. Do you have any evidence that socialism stops technological growith? The feudal system encouraged tech growth, the communist system encouraged, an anarchist system encourages tech growth. It's not just
capitalism

OH god forbid I'm desperate

[phuckphace]

Keep in mind, I stand for pure capitalism. The only thing the government should be involved in is regulations for safety, minimum wage, taxes, and to prevent monopolies, not prices. The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations. I think I have a fine leg to stand on.

you're contradicting yourself a bit there. there is never going to be a "pure" system of anything whether it be capitalism, socialism, anarchism, whatever. it's impossible. so I'm kind of confused as to why you say you want pure capitalism but then say there should be regulations and taxes. it's either one or the other my friend.

really though, it's pointless to argue about whether some unspecified form of socialism would "work" or not, because virtually every country on earth has what is known as a mixed economy or in some cases "welfare capitalism" meaning they all have market economies that coexist with a public safety net of some sort. even the so-called "socialist" Scandinavian states are still significantly capitalist. it's done this way for a good reason: there is no one-size-fits-all solution to everything. in some areas it makes the best sense to have a market solution and in some cases a public or "socialist" solution is best. if you do it right, both systems compliment one another very well.

this is what I don't get about the people who bitch about government "interference" in the economy. we have checks and balances in government to keep them from becoming Stasi 2.0, just as we have economic regulations to avoid East India Company 2.0. why should we restrict government but let capitalist money barons run amok with no accountability or oversight?

I don't like the american government's role in our economy. Understand that.

despite what you're saying, I think you would actually like it a lot less if the government really decided to take their hands off the economy and just let things go in a free-for-all. I think after about a week of walking to school in a HAZMAT suit to protect you from the acid rain and paying tributes to the local warlord and his bandit clan, you'd be begging for more government

[britishboy]

Uhm yes he could have-he'd simply set it up on a subscription base-to access the world wide web you have to pay X about each month. It's simple as that.


You don't know how the internet works do you?...

[Harry Smith]

You don't know how the internet works do you?...

No I don't, please inform me. I'm just a retarded mess

[Canadian Dream]

These things happen. If it leads to the downfall of an economy, then so be it. I would rather have a wrecked economy than the government involved.

You would rather have a second Great Depression than government intervention? That's just selfish. Let me ask you just why would you rather have everyone in the country's lives taken down then have government intervention? There would be absolutely no benefit earned from that, just a very unstable country about to deteriorate. Without government, companies take advantage of people, make them pay prices they shouldn't pay (the health care system is a good example) and as Harry Smith said there would be big downfalls not being taken care of.

[britishboy]

No I don't, please inform me. I'm just a retarded mess

http://megamindpnup.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ruswp_diag3.png

I'm sure that has created more questions than answers but it is the most simple I could find that doesn't have the internet as a cloud. Think of the internet as a wire wire. Connecting servers to servers and servers to clients. That's the basics of course, to work there needs to be IP addresses and protocols. (HTTP and FTP for example)

[phuckphace]

You would rather have a second Great Depression than government intervention? That's just selfish. Let me ask you just why would you rather have everyone in the country's lives taken down then have government intervention? There would be absolutely no benefit earned from that, just a very unstable country about to deteriorate. Without government, companies take advantage of people, make them pay prices they shouldn't pay (the health care system is a good example) and as Harry Smith said there would be big downfalls not being taken care of.

he's just a kid who thinks "wrecked economy" means a graph with a falling line. when he's a little older and wiser he'll regret saying that

[britishboy]

he's just a kid who thinks "wrecked economy" means a graph with a falling line. when he's a little older and wiser he'll regret saying that
No need to be rude but I was just about to tell him the same thing. A wrecked economy affects every single person from every background.

[phuckphace]

I actually would have agreed with him just two years ago. but then I got a job and quickly got a taste for how things really are, needless to say I have little patience these days for 13 year old anarcho-capitalists who live off their parent's money while posting on the internet about how we should privatize everything

[Harry Smith]

image (http://megamindpnup.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ruswp_diag3.png)

I'm sure that has created more questions than answers but it is the most simple I could find that doesn't have the internet as a cloud. Think of the internet as a wire wire. Connecting servers to servers and servers to clients. That's the basics of course, to work there needs to be IP addresses and protocols. (HTTP and FTP for example)

I was being sarcastic-you obviously didn't get it. Well done.

You've still yet to answer why their was Technological growth during the Feudal period or in Soviet Russia. By your theory only capitalism can help technology grow. Sure people produce products to then sell them but that still happens in a socialist state, the better thing is that under socialism there's actually economic fairness involved not just a big business exploiting it's workforce into suicide, rioting and murder

[britishboy]

I actually would have agreed with him just two years ago. but then I got a job and quickly got a taste for how things really are, needless to say I have little patience these days for 13 year old anarcho-capitalists who live off their parent's money while posting on the internet about how we should privatize everything

I don't disagree with privatisation of certain sectors (actually they're already private, I'm for keeping them private) I disagree with his no care attitude towards the economy. Rich or poor the economy affects us all.

I was being sarcastic-you obviously didn't get it. Well done.

You've still yet to answer why their was Technological growth during the Feudal period or in Soviet Russia. By your theory only capitalism can help technology grow

I notice you have dropped the previous argument. Capitalism doesn't develop tech, money does. My argument is that is technology was state controlled it wouldn't be developed unless it needed to be developed.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[phuckphace]

more technology isn't always a good thing. yes there is technology that adds convenience and safety to our lives like microwave ovens and cars, but too much pointless and faddish technology can make our lives shallow and disconnected. virtually everything has its advantages and disadvantages including technology. partly why gung-ho capitalists irritate me so much is that most of them tend to hold an almost religious reverence of technology like it's magic and will solve all our problems. in reality it solves some but creates others.

[britishboy]

more technology isn't always a good thing. yes there is technology that adds convenience and safety to our lives like microwave ovens and cars, but too much pointless and faddish technology can make our lives shallow and disconnected. virtually everything has its advantages and disadvantages including technology. partly why gung-ho capitalists irritate me so much is that most of them tend to hold an almost religious reverence of technology like it's magic and will solve all our problems. in reality it solves some but creates others.

I'm using technology as an example of how capitalism benefits our lives. For example faster processors. Whether or not tech will solve all our problems is a different debate.

[phuckphace]

yes bro I'm acutely aware of how Apple makes the iPad 0.33mm thinner every year and how Intel has a tick-tock schedule for their processor die shrinks. now let's discuss the state our society will be in when kids who were raised by the Electric Babysitter grow up and start running it. can't see that turning out too well but hey, maybe Intel can use the magic of capitalism to come up with a free market solution to the problem

[Harry Smith]

it wouldn't be developed unless it needed to be developed.

What? Your making no sense- Companies develop something if there's a flaw in the market, the government does that exact same. You just keep coming out with obvious statements that add nothing

I haven't dropped it, you just fail to understand that the internet is an example how capitalism isn't god gift to the earth because the WWW was created for everyone not just the rich and powerful that Capitalism provides for

I'm using technology as an example of how capitalism benefits our lives.

For the 12th time-Socialism can do this as well, it's nothing to do with Capitalism-it's called Human nature

You've yet to answer my point about the T-34 Tank-one of the most successful tanks in the world developed by a Socialist country, or Sputknik developed by a socialist country, or the TSAR Bomb developed by a socialist country

[britishboy]

What? Your making no sense- Companies develop something if there's a flaw in the market, the government does that exact same. You just keep coming out with obvious statements that add nothing

I haven't dropped it, you just fail to understand that the internet is an example how capitalism isn't god gift to the earth because the WWW was created for everyone not just the rich and powerful that Capitalism provides for



For the 12th time-Socialism can do this as well, it's nothing to do with Capitalism-it's called Human nature

You've yet to answer my point about the T-34 Tank-one of the most successful tanks in the world developed by a Socialist country, or Sputknik developed by a socialist country, or the TSAR Bomb developed by a socialist country
You are going around in circles.

The internet was created for military use.

No companies develop something for profit as if they don't somebody else will and take their customers. This is called competition.

The government will only develop something if it needs to be developed as there is not an unlimited pot of money and if they did your taxes would increase.

I have answered your point several times.

"Capitalism doesn't develop tech, money does. My argument is that is technology was state controlled it wouldn't be developed unless it needed to be developed." Incase you didn't understand that the soviets developed the tanks and other things because they needed to. Socialism could develop tech faster than capitalism but instead of a private company paying for it, taxes would be,

[Harry Smith]

You are going around in circles.

The internet was created for military use.

No companies develop something for profit as if they don't somebody else will and take their customers. This is called competition.

The government will only develop something if it needs to be developed as there is not an unlimited pot of money and if they did your taxes would increase.

I have answered your point several times.

"Capitalism doesn't develop tech, money does. My argument is that is technology was state controlled it wouldn't be developed unless it needed to be developed." Incase you didn't understand that the soviets developed the tanks and other things because they needed to. Socialism could develop tech faster than capitalism but instead of a private company paying for it, taxes would be,

You do know that the government does get money from other places apart from tax right? This whole scarmongering about the big bad government increasing our taxes for a socialist agenda is complete lies. The best way for a socialist government to make money is by re-diverting funding away from useless projects such as Nuclear weapons, royal families that don't pay their taxes and companies like Amazon.

Companies don't have unlimited pots of money either you know, the people who develop the Tech don't care if it's the government or a company who pay them

[tovaris]

Socialism (http://www.demokraticni-socializem.si/manifesto-of-the-initiative-for-democratic-socialism/)...
A good first step.

[jayce_xt]

I'm laughing hysterically on the inside because everyone thinks Capitalism's primary identifying feature is "its unique ideology of competition and supply-and-demand".

Competition and supply-and-demand are not some sort of central dogma that is exclusive to Capitalism; they are just phenomena that apply to ALL of economics. In Socialism, as well, we see competition and supply-and-demand. In Socialism, however, the driving force isn't profit, but utilitarianism (i.e. the greater good of the people). It's really funny to see people go on about how amazing Capitalism is because "Capitalism embraces free markets and competition, whereas Socialism and Communism [insert blatantly fallacious statement here]". Capitalism's key feature is NOT competition or any such similar thing.

Capitalism's key feature is THE IDEA THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

THAT is what separates it from Socialism. Allow me to demonstrate with an example. Suppose we have two nations. They are identical in nearly every way. They even both have the same primary commodity: oil. But they differ in a key way.

Nation A does not allow for individuals to own oil deposits. Nation A demands that the oil deposits belong to everyone who lives in Nation A, and so all share in the costs, labor, and profits. Nothing may be done with Nation A's oil deposits that the majority of Nation A's people do not will. That is how economic systems that are NOT Capitalism work.

Nation B, however, allows for individuals to own the oil deposits. Thus, individuals who have staked claims on the oil deposits may manage the costs, labor, and profits as they see fit, and NO OTHER MEMBER of Nation B has a say in it. If the individuals owning Nation B's oil deposits require that half of all profits go to them, and the other half go to the rest of the people laboring in the oil deposits, then so be it. After all, those individuals who own Nation B's oil deposits may do whatever they like with them.

That is Capitalism: corruptible and inefficient.

[Danagal]

Socialism is for lookers.

[britishboy]

Socialism belongs in the past.

[tovaris]

Socialism belongs in the past.

you are right in a way, you only missed one word or two. Its not the past but the future.

[Harry Smith]

Socialism belongs in the past.

Why do you always make such blank useless statements. If socialism belongs to the past then why do we have the NHS? That's one of the most socialist inventions

[britishboy]

you are right in a way, you only missed one word or two. Its not the past but the future.

We've moved on past it. Certain things can be state owned like water, (you pay for it anyway, no difference if it is in your tax) justice, military and health care.

[Harry Smith]

We've moved on past it. Certain things can be state owned like water, (you pay for it anyway, no difference if it is in your tax) justice, military and health care.

That's a contradiction then, surely if it was in the 'past' as you state then we would of privatized all our key industry. Socialism is quite clearly the way forward for Britain after the 2008 financial crash when the STATE had to bailout out the banks-it wasn't the other way remeber

[tovaris]

We've moved on past it. Certain things can be state owned like water, (you pay for it anyway, no difference if it is in your tax) justice, military and health care.

your forgetting banks, stores, railvais, ports, international trading, forests,...

Brand new, do read (http://www.demokraticni-socializem.si/manifesto-of-the-initiative-for-democratic-socialism/)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203867

[britishboy]

your forgetting banks, stores, railvais, ports, international trading, forests,...

Brand new, do read (http://www.demokraticni-socializem.si/manifesto-of-the-initiative-for-democratic-socialism/)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203867

No, all those should be privately owned but regulated.

[tovaris]

No, all those should be privately owned but regulated.

hm interesting... In you i hawe saw Heyek turn into Keynes... Interesting

but no thea should be public theyr goal not profit but development
For example banks should ackt as a public servise to the citizents not milking them but helping them develop their soroundings with cheep loan

[Zenos]

Pure socialism assumes the government and most citizens are concerned with the welfare of all - it is very idealistic. All it takes to turn socialism into totalitarianism is a few selfish, greedy people.The truth is that it does not work anywhere. When people are not held accountable for their actions which is the case with socialism, you end up with big problems. I know the liberals love to point to Europe of how great things can be but if you look at the European nations closer you will see they have some very major problems.The fundamental problem is that it eliminates the motivation to work your hardest, be more productive and successful. After all, why bust your hinie if you get the same whether you do or not.


Socialism hasn't worked anywhere over the long term, so there's little reason to believe that it will work in the US. Americans are phenomenally generous. That's not because they are inherently more generous people, but because individual freedom nurtures individual responsabilty and individual generosity. Socialism makes the government, not the individual, responsible for helping others, and charitable giving and volunteerism is much lower in socialist economies.

There are constant protests in France about a number of things... usually regarding their socialist government and society.Europe has more relative economic mobility but only because they keep the top down - you can catch your neighbor because he's not allowed to get ahead.

Europe has more relative economic mobility but only because they keep the top down - you can catch your neighbor because he's not allowed to get ahead.America has more absolute economic mobility. You might not catch your neighbor but you'll more likely catch up to what he makes now.

Look for example at the Eurozone crisis.




heres a article from 1995 way before a lot of us was born and way before so many where indoctrinated into socialist ideals:

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-socialism-failed/#axzz2v93RtpvJ

Why Socialism Failed

Collectivism Is Based on Faulty Principles

JUNE 01, 1995 by MARK J. PERRY

Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!

Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!

In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?

The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.

However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.

The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.

Prices

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.

Profits and Losses

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.

Private Property Rights

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.

The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.

Incentives Matter

Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.

No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.

By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.

As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.

We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.

The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.

Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.

Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.

The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.

Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.


Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-socialism-failed/#ixzz2v93qqer9

[Ethe14]

While pure socialism doesn't work I wouldn't mind a blend between capitalism and socialism.

[Zenos]

Not really-I'd argue that the Soviets produced some of the best technology of the second world war, heck the submarine, the tank, railway and many other great BRITISH inventions were created thanks to aide from the state.

Look at the internet-that's the best argument for socialism. As you saw during the Olympics the creator of the internet said...

This is for everyone

That's a very socialist invention and really has spurned on our economic growth of the last 20 years



Oh yeah-the government cutbacks are the best example of capitalism right?


Sorry the internet is not an example of socialism,plus In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.[/QUOTE]



While pure socialism doesn't work I wouldn't mind a blend between capitalism and socialism.

I'd pass on a combo as that's no good either.I would rather have a true free market.A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are free of intervention by a government, price-setting monopolies, or other authority. A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices.

[Capto]

Free market geeks are hilarious.

Keep in mind, I stand for pure capitalism. The only thing the government should be involved in is regulations for safety, minimum wage, taxes, and to prevent monopolies, not prices. The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations. I think I have a fine leg to stand on.

I don't like the american government's role in our economy. Understand that.

I know this is an old post, but it's just so jarringly self-contradictory that I almost fell out of my chair.

"pure capitalism."

"The government should have absolutely no role in the economy, except for said regulations."

"except for said regulations."

"regulations"

[jayce_xt]

Pure socialism assumes the government and most citizens are concerned with the welfare of all - it is very idealistic. All it takes to turn socialism into totalitarianism is a few selfish, greedy people.The truth is that it does not work anywhere. When people are not held accountable for their actions which is the case with socialism, you end up with big problems... The fundamental problem is that it eliminates the motivation to work your hardest, be more productive and successful. After all, why bust your hinie if you get the same whether you do or not...

... Socialism hasn't worked anywhere over the long term... Socialism makes the government, not the individual, responsible for helping others, and charitable giving and volunteerism is much lower in socialist economies...

... The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty...

... Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise...

...The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

Thanks for posting this enormous steaming pile of refuse, Zenos. I needed a good laugh. It's interesting to note that, for just about all the pieces I left in your quote (your post was just too long to quote in full), the reality is the exact opposite of what you say it is. EDIT: I should probably mention that I'm aware this isn't really your fault, you thinking this way about Capitalism. Just the same dirty lies we're all told here in the United States. Check out the amount of taxes wealthy megacorps evade sometime, or how minimum wage workers are exploited into poverty consistently by large market organizations. It's always worth taking the risk and cracking your eyelids open to the truth. Unless that truth happens to be Cthulhu...

True Socialism is true Democracy. Literally every citizen has a say in what happens. Power is distributed from the representatives (who very rarely represent the peoples' interests in present-day Republics) to the people. Capitalism is actually a system of exploitation and slavery; for those at the very bottom (read: the majority of the populace), there is very little incentive to work because the compensation for their labor is a fraction of what it's actually worth. Capitalism is playing an immense role in the enslavement of ordinary citizens by the wealthy and powerful, leading to unprecedented levels of poverty and income inequality. And it's all because of that thing you call a "strength": the emphasis on maximizing profits while minimizing losses. The few benefit by the hardship of the many.

But really, great stuff. Tell us what you think about Reaganomics sometime. That joke never gets old.

[Capto]

In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.

Exactly why it's socialist.

[Zenos]

Thanks for posting this enormous steaming pile of refuse, Zenos. I needed a good laugh. It's interesting to note that, for just about all the pieces I left in your quote (your post was just too long to quote in full), the reality is the exact opposite of what you say it is. EDIT: I should probably mention that I'm aware this isn't really your fault, you thinking this way about Capitalism. Just the same dirty lies we're all told here in the United States. Check out the amount of taxes wealthy megacorps evade sometime, or how minimum wage workers are exploited into poverty consistently by large market organizations. It's always worth taking the risk and cracking your eyelids open to the truth. Unless that truth happens to be Cthulhu...

True Socialism is true Democracy. Literally every citizen has a say in what happens. Power is distributed from the representatives (who very rarely represent the peoples' interests in present-day Republics) to the people. Capitalism is actually a system of exploitation and slavery; for those at the very bottom (read: the majority of the populace), there is very little incentive to work because the compensation for their labor is a fraction of what it's actually worth. Capitalism is playing an immense role in the enslavement of ordinary citizens by the wealthy and powerful, leading to unprecedented levels of poverty and income inequality. And it's all because of that thing you call a "strength": the emphasis on maximizing profits while minimizing losses. The few benefit by the hardship of the many.

But really, great stuff. Tell us what you think about Reaganomics sometime. That joke never gets old.

I'll take capitalism over socialism any time seeing as I have a better chance of rising AND making something of myself unlike in a socialist nation.And by the way real capitalism died with 9-11,what we have in America is socialism disguised in the edifice of capitalism,which is why America is going to the dogs

If you want to add content to your post, please click the "edit" button. Thanks! -Albert/Hypers

[Capto]

It's sad to see that people still think that capitalism is a better way to succeed.

Oh well, those whose eyes have been blinded by propaganda will never see, I guess.

Which kind of sucks.

[jayce_xt]

I'll take capitalism over socialism any time seeing as I have a better chance of rising AND making something of myself unlike in a socialist nation.And by the way real capitalism died with 9-11,what we have in America is socialism disguised in the edifice of capitalism,which is why America is going to the dogs

See, that's the enormous myth of Capitalism right there: that you need to rise to anything. Capitalism demands hierarchy so that it can motivate those at the bottom to work their way to the top, completely ignoring that these arbitrary social constructs are not at all necessary to keep pace with either supply-and-demand mechanisms or general prosperity. But without that mirage of "rising up", the slaves won't buy in to the exploitation.

As I said in a different thread, "Capitalism is simply the idea that individuals are allowed to monopolize control over the means of production."

[phuckphace]

I'll take capitalism over socialism any time seeing as I have a better chance of rising AND making something of myself unlike in a socialist nation.And by the way real capitalism died with 9-11,what we have in America is socialism disguised in the edifice of capitalism,which is why America is going to the dogs

you're too old to be posting on VT, Mr. O'Reilly

[Vlerchan]

True Socialism is true Democracy.

This. Economic-power lends itself hugely to political-power.

You can't have a system based around equality (democracy) within a system that is based around (gross) inequality (capitalism).

I'll take capitalism over socialism any time seeing as I have a better chance of rising AND making something of myself unlike in a socialist nation.

Define: 'rising' and then define 'making something of ones-self'.

The last time I checked, and by my definitions, this was possible within a socialist system.

[phuckphace]

ultra-capitalists are really sad people all around. life to them is only about how many iPads you can buy. it must be a miserable existence constantly having to measure your self-worth that way

[Harry Smith]

Sorry the internet is not an example of socialism,plus In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced..

THIS IS FOR EVERYONE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

A free global wide internet is extremely socialist-Tim Berners lee could of quite easily forced everyone to pay £10 a month to access it

[sweet_girl24au]

Please name a fully socialist state which has flourished and prospered with a high standard of living?

Venezuela doesnt count (maybe because its about to implode)

[Harry Smith]

Please name a fully socialist state which has flourished and prospered with a high standard of living?

Venezuela doesnt count (maybe because its about to implode)

Britain in the 1940's and 1950's

[Stronk Serb]

Please name a fully socialist state which has flourished and prospered with a high standard of living?

Venezuela doesnt count (maybe because its about to implode)

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Before nationalism tore us apart, we were flourishing.

[phuckphace]

Please name a fully socialist state which has flourished and prospered with a high standard of living?

there isn't one, just like there isn't a state that is fully capitalist, communist, anarcho-syndicalist or any other system. as I said before a pure system of any kind is impossible to implement.

if we're judging a given system by how well it works in pure form, then no system works ever.

[sweet_girl24au]

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Before nationalism tore us apart, we were flourishing.

Yes thats right, before. But not now.

[sweet_girl24au]

there isn't one, just like there isn't a state that is fully capitalist, communist, anarcho-syndicalist or any other system. as I said before a pure system of any kind is impossible to implement.

if we're judging a given system by how well it works in pure form, then no system works ever.

I think your right.

[Stronk Serb]

Yes thats right, before. But not now.

Still, we had better average living standards then for example, the USA. It was in the interest of world powers to break us apart. Croats and Serbs living abroad were indoctrinated that their peoples are victims of extreme oppression. If it wasn't for the foreign meddling, we would stay together and be a regional power. We outmatched all our neighbours combined in our industrial capacity and the size of our economy. We were a local economical, industrial and military power, plus we called the shots in the Non-Aligned Movement, we built and armed half of North Africa and the Middle East in exchange for oil.

[Zenos]

Still, we had better average living standards then for example, the USA. It was in the interest of world powers to break us apart. Croats and Serbs living abroad were indoctrinated that their peoples are victims of extreme oppression. If it wasn't for the foreign meddling, we would stay together and be a regional power. We outmatched all our neighbours combined in our industrial capacity and the size of our economy. We were a local economical, industrial and military power, plus we called the shots in the Non-Aligned Movement, we built and armed half of North Africa and the Middle East in exchange for oil.

LOL I doubt you have better living standards then the USA!

Keep on with the socialist pipe dream ,just wait until socialism totally ruins America,before making the claim that you had better average living standards then , the USA.

[Harry Smith]

LOL I doubt you have better living standards then the USA!

Keep on with the socialist pipe dream ,just wait until socialism totally ruins America,before making the claim that you had better average living standards then , the USA.

In regards to health care I'd say that Yugoslavia had a much better record than America-health companies have been going into certain areas and seeing diseases that are only found in third world countries (late stage untreated cancer etc)

[Stronk Serb]

LOL I doubt you have better living standards then the USA!

Keep on with the socialist pipe dream ,just wait until socialism totally ruins America,before making the claim that you had better average living standards then , the USA.

Learn to read. I said "we had", not "we have", but all citizens of Serbia have access to healthcare and up to university education while a very large percent of Americans don't. Serbs and Croats who lived abroad, on the western side of the Iron Curtain were indoctrinated and trained by former military personell of the US Army. When the nineties came, those men were the backbone of the campaigns launched by both sides. It suited you, because yoo would have no country in the region that rivals you. By essentially establishing a feudal-capitalist system here, instead of a regional power which could challenge half of Europe, you left a few bickering states. Yugoslavia would have emerged from the nineties more powerful then before so you had to fuck it up. Serbia is in a shitty state because of the transition to capitalism, not because it was a socialist republicm

[Zenos]

Learn to read. I said "we had", not "we have", but all citizens of Serbia have access to healthcare and up to university education while a very large percent of Americans don't. Serbs and Croats who lived abroad, on the western side of the Iron Curtain were indoctrinated and trained by former military personell of the US Army. When the nineties came, those men were the backbone of the campaigns launched by both sides. It suited you, because yoo would have no country in the region that rivals you. By essentially establishing a feudal-capitalist system here, instead of a regional power which could challenge half of Europe, you left a few bickering states. Yugoslavia would have emerged from the nineties more powerful then before so you had to fuck it up. Serbia is in a shitty state because of the transition to capitalism, not because it was a socialist republicm



Oh blah blah blah Blame America use we are always to blame!

Look did you ever stop to think that it was the precious EU not America that manipulated the situation behind the scenes to get NATO and thus by Default the US into a needless war because the EU was scared out of it's pants by the fact of Yugoslavia having that kind a power?

Or how about Ethnic Tension in Yugoslavia being a prime player in the break up of Yugoslavia ?

[Stronk Serb]

Oh blah blah blah Blame America use we are always to blame!

Look did you ever stop to think that it was the precious EU not America that manipulated the situation behind the scenes to get NATO and thus by Default the US into a needless war because the EU was scared out of it's pants by the fact of Yugoslavia having that kind a power?

Or how about Ethnic Tension in Yugoslavia being a prime player in the break up of Yugoslavia ?

The tensions were instigated by the western powers. The neo-Ustashas had training camps in West Germany and other countries. They were trained by retired US officers.

[Zenos]

The tensions were instigated by the western powers. The neo-Ustashas had training camps in West Germany and other countries. They were trained by retired US officers.

KEY WORD THERE "retired".

Your blaming my nation for what a bunch of "retired" guys are doing?

That's like is I walked into the Kremlin and shot Putin in the ass with a shot gun loaded with rocksalt,and everyone started blaming America for what I did.

baisclaly you have a group of highly trained ex US military being paided by EU powers to train people to mess up Yugoslavia,and who because America is part of nato manipulated things to get us involved

[phuckphace]

just wait until socialism totally ruins America

:rolleyes: back here in the real world, America will never be "socialist" enough for it to matter. when the collapse does occur it will be almost entirely due to the bubble of "unlimited" economic growth bursting and then seeking equilibrium. neoliberalism and all its attendant horrors will destroy us long before your retarded Glenn Beck visions of a hammer and sickle over the Capitol dome ever come true (that is, never)

[Zenos]

:rolleyes: back here in the real world, America will never be "socialist" enough for it to matter. when the collapse does occur it will be largely due to the bubble of "unlimited" economic growth bursting and then seeking equilibrium. neoliberalism and all its attendant horrors will destroy us long before your retarded Glenn Beck visions of a hammer and sickle over the Capitol dome ever come true (that is, never)

Shhhh:D don't let everyone else know that though,cause you'll ruin our chance to get in on the ground floor and really mop up!:D