|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted February 04, 2009 06:09 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 06:13, 04 Feb 2009.
|
|
aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 04:57 PM |
|
|
i agree with the initial statement that the internet is a breeding ground for liberal ideologies such as socialism, atheism, etc. the reason for this is that free marketplaces of ideas generally result in many people being converted to the ideas that sound good and noble. it's easier to convince someone of liberal philosphies because they sound nice and make you feel good. i have many liberal philosophies that i embrace such as deism, human rights expansion, i have voted democrat almost my entire life, i have campaigned for my congressman vigorously in 2008 who was Blue, etc. but socialism is one i don't agree with at all. now i'm aware that as the OP pointed out, socialism is the global minority, but here it is the majority so i tread in dangerous waters whenever i mention my stance.
first i admit it is the "safe" choice. capitolism is a gambit, but in the end i feel it is the superior choice
one: socialism doesn't work. it responds to stimuli MUCH slower than capitolism, it results in an inferno of bureaucracy and red tape, it does not promote growth, admittedly it expands the middle class but lowers it's standard of living, potential for unchecked corruption is equally high for capitolism but corruption in a socialist network is even more dangerous than in a capitolist one (and look at the **** we're in now, if we were socialist we would be boned), a lack of privatization results in a lack of competition which retards technological advancement, socialism is easily exploited by the reasonably intelligent, and it removes the "necessity" from the phrase necessity is the mother of invention. without the NEED to make new products and make products better that exists in a capitolist society, we will merely remain stagnant in the position we exist in now which i am not comfortable with. civilization needs to move forward and can't without the friction created by capitolism.
two: i feel like people depend on their government too much as it is. it promotes laziness and a "someone else will do it for me" attitude. the middle class has already developed a sense of entitlement and it will only increase dramatically the more socialism encroaches on societies. capitolism is a key foundation of the American Dream (i'm American), and we pride ourselves on making our own way in the country, or at least we used to. Now we just want it. We took out a loan on a house we couldn't afford? We want the government to intervene. We are becoming a nation of dependents already and socialism is barely even here. we only have had a taste of it and we already we believe that it isn't our responsibility to increase our own standard of life. i see people woh feel the government OWES them the standard of life they want. if you think Americans are fat now, wait until we starts sitting on our butts waiting for government cheese. Socialism leads to a stagnant society with no will and I refuse to live anywhere like that. i'll just keep moving from country to country if i have to.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 07:16 PM |
|
Edited by Wolfman at 19:19, 05 Mar 2009.
|
Agree with you, your points are valid but it is (like everything) a complicated issue. However, it is a dangerous thing to be pro-capitalism and an American on this board. 
Unfortunately, here in the US, socialism seems to be the future. I find it ironic that while China started out with communism and has slowly worked in parts of capitalist ideas while the US seems to be doing the opposite.
I also find it ironic that talk radio is attacking Obama (of course they are though) about his so called "stimulus plan" and other huge spending bills saying, to quote Sean Hanity, the "socialist act of 2009". So what was the $850 billion "stimulus" that Bush put through? It is still spending wasting my money. I don't understand how they ca ignore that. Well I do, Obama is on the "other team", but it doesn't make any sense.
Socialism, without a doubt, encourages an entitlement society. People just think that the government is supposed to give them things. Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing Obama wearing a red suit and fake beard...
As to why exactly the internet is teeming with extreme liberalism (atheism, socialism/communism), I have no idea. I suppose I could give a good BS response that could hold no weight and have it all picked apart as such, but what would be the point?
Since Aquaman threw it all down, I suppose I can do the same.
Personally, I believe that people have several rights. Most of these rights are beautifully laid out in the Bill of Rights and I think/wish that they were upheld in every country. But I suppose that is for another thread...for another time.
I do not believe that the government is obligated to guarantee you a "good" life. You should work for what you have. I also don't believe that the government should hinder you getting that "good" life. As such, I don't believe in socialism. I think it is a slap in the face personally, as if I can't provide for myself so the government has to.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
-- Winston Churchill
I'd rather work to get my blessings, but that's just me.
And I can't remember who it was, but someone said in another thread that capitalism kills people. I got a good laugh out of that.
It was a joke right? ...oh you were serious? My, the internet brings out the worst socialists, doesn't it?
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
|
Question: whom of the Bill of Rights are we talking about?
me? Socialisme is the future. If you say it will hamper progress, look at FOSS. Its the closest thingt to a socialistic community there is.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
i agree with the initial statement that the internet is a breeding ground for liberal ideologies such as socialism, atheism, etc. the reason for this is that free marketplaces of ideas generally result in many people being converted to the ideas that sound good and noble. it's easier to convince someone of liberal philosphies because they sound nice and make you feel good. i have many liberal philosophies that i embrace such as deism, human rights expansion, i have voted democrat almost my entire life, i have campaigned for my congressman vigorously in 2008 who was Blue, etc. but socialism is one i don't agree with at all. now i'm aware that as the OP pointed out, socialism is the global minority, but here it is the majority so i tread in dangerous waters whenever i mention my stance.
I don't care about popularity, majority or minority. And for the record, I'm a socialist -- a strange type unlike you have ever seen before, far from communism (saying this as Deadman, who is also a socialist or communist, said it to me so if that comes from a socialist, but also from a capitalist (mvass) then draw the conclusions ).
so let's address stuff about socialism which you targeted:Quote:
it results in an inferno of bureaucracy and red tape
depending on the system, this could be true. that's not always bad as people abuse many things a lot. if you think they don't, then make nukes available commercially. Good for capitalism.
Quote:
it does not promote growth
that may not always be true, but even if it were, who cares about growth? It's one of the worst things that could happen to our planet with overpopulation and all that. the key is NOT growth. Growth is bad. They key is quality, not quantity.
Quote:
admittedly it expands the middle class but lowers it's standard of living
and what's wrong about that? at least it RAISES the lower class. I assume you live in middle class correct? then of course socialism isn't going to appeal to you (especially if you believe in the american dream fantasy). Doesn't mean it won't appeal to those in the lower class.
You tell me which is more efficient: individual or simple-pack predators or an ant colony.
Quote:
potential for unchecked corruption is equally high for capitolism but corruption in a socialist network is even more dangerous than in a capitolist one (and look at the **** we're in now, if we were socialist we would be boned)
I agree but that depends on the system. Economical freedoms can't be abused as much as, say, Personal Freedoms. If they are abused, we need solid system to prevent it or protest/mark points against it.
Quote:
a lack of privatization results in a lack of competition which retards technological advancement
complete utter nonsense. Ever thought that the fact that WE are so inclined on competitive mentality that we think of anything else not efficient? I suggest you take 5 people and put them alone on an island without any external support. See if they'll be competitive or cooperative. It is our fault and our stupid mentality that makes us love competition. You think, broadly speaking, machines in a factory would be more efficient if they competed with one another? Please.
Quote:
and it removes the "necessity" from the phrase necessity is the mother of invention. without the NEED to make new products and make products better that exists in a capitolist society, we will merely remain stagnant in the position we exist in now which i am not comfortable with.
oh who cares what YOU are comfortable with?
You want to force demand? If people don't need it, then they aren't going to make it. who cares that you want people to make it?
Quote:
civilization needs to move forward...
since when do you dictate what "civilization" should do? last time I checked, civilization is made up by people. you are very socialistic with that phrase, or should I say communistic -- i.e you decide what people "need to do" that is, "move forward", whatever the hell that means (for sure moving forward into capitalism is NOT "forward" in my opinion). it can also be abused of course. decision by majority can always be abused.
Can all you capitalists just answer me a question?
How do you "claim" property in capitalism? If not, where do you buy it from? Who "owns" the unexplored areas?
Capitalism is all well and good but it ALWAYS avoids questions such as "how did you come to possess this, privately?" because it knows that it CANNOT answer them with 'capitalistic' answers.
What's more than an abuse if you claim a piece of thing and then put a price tag on it, or say "this is mine"?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 09:59 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 22:15, 05 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
You tell me which is more efficient: individual or simple-pack predators or an ant colony.
Depends on whether you count ant-eaters as predators.
But regardless of that, this brings up the biggest issue with most systems, especially certain forms of socialism...
Humans are not ants. Nor can they function that way. Humans have their own feelings, thoughts, needs and emotions which vary from one to another. Humans do not operate under a hive mind, no matter how we may seem from a distance. Every human is first and foremost an individual. An antish level of uniformity, if even possible, would destroy us as a specie. Remember: efficiency, as well as more or less everything humans created, exists in order to make lives better (or at least that was the general point). Lowering the quality of lives and freedom in order to increase efficiency is everything that socialism should stand against.
Of course, I'm not saying that's what you stand for. That's just my view on why most socialist ideologies would be harmful for every human being as a person. As for capitalism, it has its pros and cons just as well which I've addressed over and over again (I'm just adding this so that you don't think I'm on their side or something ).
Now, this is directed at everyone:
I always found that the most rational thing to do is to seek the golden middle instead of clinging to one side or the other. So, in a way, some might classify me as a socialist, yes. But I'm also an individualist. And an anarchist, at least in the aspects of life where it's possible to be one.
You can't have freedom if you embody it in an idea which you then impose on everyone. No matter what that idea is. Christianity is also about freedom, but look what the Church did. Just like socialism. Just like capitalism or democracy. Different systems, different views on "freedom".
You need to make the idea appealing enough for everyone to be able to live in it, willingly (and that doesn't include the "like my idea or go to hell" mentality which is so ever-present in systems I've seen by now). An idea open equally to all thoughts, both collectivist and individualist, left and right wing, spiritualist and materialist. That's freedom. And that's what I think we should aspire to, as much as possible at least. That golden middle thingy.
Maybe we should start thinking about that, instead of constantly bickering among ourselves and arguing whose opinion is better.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I always found that the most rational thing to do is to seek the golden middle instead of clinging to one side or the other. So, in a way, some might classify me as a socialist, yes. But I'm also an individualist. And an anarchist, at least in
Your a centrist, get over it.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
Possibly. Though, since a Centrist party was never present here where I live, I was never really able to explore that. But now that I read up on it, yes, perhaps I am. That seems to me as the agnostic equivalent in politics.
But it doesn't really matter how we call ourselves anyway.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 10:33 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:33, 05 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
Depends on whether you count ant-eaters as predators.
The other way around, if ants were big compared to ant-eaters and ate them (vice-versa). My point is, to be an ant, you are severely limited in your situation, yet they manage to "beat" (not physically) those who are gifted with more power and WASTE it.
Quote:
Humans are not ants. Nor can they function that way. Humans have their own feelings, thoughts, needs and emotions which vary from one to another. Humans do not operate under a hive mind, no matter how we may seem from a distance. Every human is first and foremost an individual. An antish level of uniformity, if even possible, would destroy us as a specie. Remember: efficiency, as well as more or less everything humans created, exists in order to make lives better (or at least that was the general point). Lowering the quality of lives and freedom in order to increase efficiency is everything that socialism should stand against.
I didn't say anything about "quality of life" (well whatever that is), but that quality of life can only exist with needs. Needs for what? For survival only? We have way more than that, and I do not disagree with some of them, but I do with others.
In fact the ant-society which focuses on "society efficiency" is more like communism (not mine) and hence maybe Deadman's philosophy (@Deadman, this isn't meant as a pun, just my honest opinion on it).
As for efficiency, I'm not talking about THAT kind of efficiency -- i.e long-live the human-race type of efficiency which I am no more pro than long-live John Doe (and since I am against the latter in the respect that he can do whatever he wants to gain that long-life so to speak, including abuse).
What I mean by efficiency is to stop waste, in all forms (material, energetical, philosophical, etc). Because efficiency is NOT performance -- it is the ratio between waste and performance. If you have 1 performance points and 1 waste point (whatever that is), you have a ratio of 1. On the other hand, if someone has 2 performance points and 10 waste points, even though he has better 'performance' (whatever that is), he is a LOT less efficient -- 5 times less efficient.
Plus "our" efficiency only applies to ourselves as it can logically be deduced -- not abusing other things and not taking that into account as 'bad' because, well, they aren't into the table. Well newsflash, they ARE part of the whole world, so if you are going to abuse that, it's waste. Waste isn't restricted only to humans. Applies even to aliens.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
|
Nicely put, Baklava. Agreed.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
if you think they don't, then make nukes available commercially. Good for capitalism.
*sigh)
Here we go again. I already explained about nukes in a different thread. There is only one reason to buy nukes - just one. And it's a destructive one. Whereas if you're buying people's labor, not so.
Quote:
that may not always be true, but even if it were, who cares about growth?
You do realize, don't you, that growth can mean many different things? Growth =/= an increase in consumption of natural resources. For example, a technology that reduces consumption would count as growth.
Quote:
it RAISES the lower class
But lowers the average.
Quote:
if you believe in the american dream fantasy
The American Dream isn't a fantasy. Just look at my family, and the family of countless others.
Quote:
How do you "claim" property in capitalism?
You see if anyone else has claimed it. If not, then you can claim it.
Bak:
There's absolutely no way you're a moderate. I'm a moderate (although I'm more socially liberal than most moderates). You are a social democrat - which is most certainly left of center.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 05, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
|
I am a moderate. I don't think any label really describes me.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 12:22 AM |
|
|
Eh, you're not a moderate either. You're more of some kind of non-extremist nationalist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 12:42 AM |
|
|
Oh? Why is that? Tell me what I believe?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 01:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
*sigh)
Here we go again. I already explained about nukes in a different thread. There is only one reason to buy nukes - just one. And it's a destructive one. Whereas if you're buying people's labor, not so.
Who decides what's destructive and what's not?
Maybe I am some new scientist who has radical ideas to turn the nuke into a matter-creator. Surely the capitalists will hand me down some, after all, they make profits.
And capitalism is not concerned with that either. You can't just claim to be capitalist while you impose your preferences on what's legitimate, what's destructive and what's profitable. At least when I do that, I admit I am socialist and imposing restrictions on economic freedoms.Quote:
You do realize, don't you, that growth can mean many different things? Growth =/= an increase in consumption of natural resources. For example, a technology that reduces consumption would count as growth.
No I don't realize as that kind of definition is surely stupid, if it's valid (I'm not claiming it isn't, I just find it stupid).Quote:
But lowers the average.
Explain.
Quote:
The American Dream isn't a fantasy. Just look at my family, and the family of countless others.
Yeah and look at the beggars.
No wait! They are lazy bastards! They WANT to starve or they do not want to work. In short they LIKE their conditions and are not willing to work to improve it, right?
Right?
Quote:
You see if anyone else has claimed it. If not, then you can claim it.
Unless they are black of course. Or if he/she speaks your language. Or if he/she is the "enemy" (of your country), in which case you can pillage villages and do stuff to their properties. Or unless they are advanced aliens who have no idea what the word "private" means. Or maybe they're animals. Or maybe it's a BEAR in HIS CAVE but you kick him out.
Also, suppose you are some explorer into America in a world where it isn't populated by people at all. Suppose then everyone finds out about it. Who "owns" it? Who is hypocritical to dare to set a "line" to "private" and then dare to not allow anyone else to take away it from him, but he DID TAKE IT?
How more hypocritical can this get?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The American Dream isn't a fantasy. Just look at my family, and the family of countless others.
Sorry, but this made me laugh pretty loud.
Let's compare the numbers of all families where the "american dream" became truth (but we should of course subtract all the families who made their money with drug dealing and similar illegal stuff...so maybe 80% of Miami won't count then ), and those who live just above the line of poverty....and then all those who live below that line.
It's similar to a lottery. All pay...a few will win. Of course you can work hard for your money and try to get a self made millionaire like Ves for example, but then imagine: How many people would get that rich with making pics/videos of nice girls? If we would have 10 million photographers, none of them would be rich, because their offers would flood the market, therfore the prices will decrease towards zero.
There are only around 15 players in 1 basketball team. Even if you would have 2 million basketball players on the same high skill level, they wouldn't all become millionaires, because there isn't enough place for all of them.
As a conclusion: The american dream is possible....but only for a few (compared to the rest)
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 02:48 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Maybe I am some new scientist who has radical ideas to turn the nuke into a matter-creator.
Then you should be able to have the nuke - under some kind of supervision, of course.
Quote:
I'm not claiming it isn't, I just find it stupid
How's it stupid? Growth doesn't necessarily mean more stuff, it just means that the stuff-to-labor/resource ratio is more favorable.
Quote:
Explain.
Socialism takes away incentives to work. Therefore productivity drops, and the average person is made worse off.
Quote:
Yeah and look at the beggars.
The American Dream doesn't mean you just sit on the streets and beg. You have to actually try. And even they could make their lot better. There are adult education courses - they could try those. And then they could get some entry-level jobs. And after working hard at them, they could get promoted, and so on. And even an entry-level job is better than begging.
Quote:
Who is hypocritical to dare to set a "line" to "private" and then dare to not allow anyone else to take away it from him, but he DID TAKE IT?
There's absolutely nothing hypocritical here.
Angelito:
You do realize, don't you, that ways of getting rich are only limited by human creativity?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then you should be able to have the nuke - under some kind of supervision, of course.
He bought it! Now leave the guy alone since it was paid for.
I got a question, would you approve an univerals gun ban and stop of production(museums are allowed to keep copy's since its history)?
Quote:
How's it stupid? Growth doesn't necessarily mean more stuff, it just means that the stuff-to-labor/resource ratio is more favorable.
Look at it like this, everybody can get an idea. Everybody can also figur our someting usefull then spread the word. So it won't stop unless we extinct ourself.
Quote:
Socialism takes away incentives to work. Therefore productivity drops, and the average person is made worse off.
Socialisme only takes away the lust for money, passion is still there. Passion will be taught, not greed.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 05:16 PM |
|
|
|
aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted March 06, 2009 05:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Socialisme only takes away the lust for money, passion is still there. Passion will be taught, not greed.
no it doesn't. people have been inherently greedy since long before the likes of capitolism. people will not work or make efforts to advance the world on good will alone (some will, the masses won't). socialism leads to stagnation. without the drive to succeed presented with capitolism people will be happy with what they have. this is counterproductive to the advancements of societies. if we were all content with what we had there would be no progress. Capitolism is one of the most ideal systems to promote progress because it rewards it. in socialism you get rewarded whether you contribute or not, and if a person doesn't have to contribute, odds are he won't.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
| |
|
|
