|
|
Xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 12, 2010 06:05 PM |
|
|
What's wrong with Socialism?
Today I spent half the night studying Socialism for myself.
So I googled a bit and the first english result on google that I saw as "Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism".
That is when I discovered that socialism was a hot topic in the US and that many seemed to either hate it, or just don't know what it was while another bunch thought it seemed great.
Living in one of the most socialist countries in the world I was of course instantly hooked upon the article. I soon noticed how most of the article was bullsnow, comparing our socialism with the government of countries like old Nazi Germany, Soviet and todays North Korea.
I made more research and found two hilarious clips from the american channel Comedy Central (we got it here too, must watch it more often) where they were joking about socialism and an amercian guy went to Sweden to ask the swedes about it. As expected, everybody that were asked thought it was great with socialism while the american (I realize that it as a comedy show, but comedy etc often reflects the general views in the society and makes fun of it) dreaded it and was of course surroanded by hot blonde girl everywhere. The show made it pretty clear that pretty much everyone in Sweden liked the socialism we have even ABBAs Björn and some minister who they thought looked like a garden gnome (apparently, we also speak russian here).
I also YouTubed Socialism and something about a kindergarten showed up. The commenter was shocked with that the kindergarten looked much like a normal home and that the people that worked there cooked food every day for the children and that some children even ate breakfast there.
So what is wrong with socialism?
I do not see the flaws. Socialism gives us free healthcare and education. Few homeless. It has worked out so good and many swedes dislike the US system because so many are without healthcare insurances etc (I guess it will become better now).
We work for the government, and the government gives us a ton of things back. I was very suprised that so many amercians (certainly not all though, I am not saying that everybody in the US shares the same view) compared it with communism etc.
I think it would be really interesting to know.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 07:19 PM |
|
|
Nothing is wrong with Socialism.
It's a question of balance. The opponent of socialism is (not capitalism but) egoism.
However, with egoism is nothing wrong either - survival of the individual and so on.
Since we are a SOCIETY (and neither lonely predators nor hives) our task is to combine and unite socialism and egoism to find the balance in the middle.
On one hand we must strive to allow the individual to live up to its full potential, but on the other we must make sure that society as a whole profits from it.
Of course you can debate endlessly on how to do that. 
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 07:30 PM |
|
|
The paradigm according to fukuyama: Social liberalism: the end of history.
EDIT: also, xerox, you know mvass is going to get you!
(will not be participating this discussion on account of xerox)
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 09:37 PM |
|
|
*sits back and waits till an American joins the thread, for fun to start*
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 09:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Living in one of the most socialist countries in the world
No, you're not. Sweden is 21 out of 179.
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. The problems with that are quite obvious.
And, surprisingly, I also agree with JJ's post.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 09:45 PM |
|
|
Yep, I agree with JJ's post as well. I personally do not feel there is anything more wrong with Socialism than Capitalism to be honest. They both have their good points, and their bad.
And take it from this American, Capitalism is just not working. I would love to give the other a try, but I have said that for a long time now.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 09:51 PM |
|
|
*raises hand* I agree with JJ as well.
I wish the OSM was cuddly like this always!
Let's all be... in agreement!
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 10:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Capitalism is just not working
In what way is capitalism "not working"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 10:21 PM |
|
|
The reason socialism appears to be hated here is that heroes is a very capitalistic game.
The very foundation of decisions ingame is reliant on abusing the poor and downtrodden.
"Hmm Should i hire Elaine and raise taxes? Should i use them as fodder to get the loot? Should i just disband them?"
The peasants and the various other level 1's of the game are abused and neglected throughout most of the game. In heroes 3 the only thoughts that emerged when peasants were seen is "Free skeletons". Furthermore the town spends all of its money paying for foolish heroes who enter battle and causing pain and devastation throughout the poor peasants who are willing to sell themselves out for 20 gold pieces in h5, 15 gold pieces in h4, 10 gold in h3 or 20 gold in heroes 5. In fact the heroes 5 map editor contains very graphic images of drowning peasants whom upon being rescued are mugged of their belongings and tossed off the ship. The working (foot)man too is abused like this. Meanwhile those fancy elves get paid hefty salaries and survive many turns. The peasants are abused all around? How many scenes in which peasants were attack by something and slaughtered? 1,2,3, MANY MORE. All without apology or disclaimer that no peasants were harmed during the making of this game. Lets face it. Heroes has raised us to be capitalist pigs and look down on those who seek to change our ways.
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 10:36 PM |
|
|
Mvass, is that a serious question?
Well I suppose it is since you asked. I don't want to get into a debate with you so I will just say this:
The facts speak for themselves. I will keep watching, keep waiting, but most importantly, I'm preparing.
The end is near! 
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mvass, is that a serious question?
Well I suppose it is since you asked. I don't want to get into a debate with you so I will just say this:
The facts speak for themselves. I will keep watching, keep waiting, but most importantly, I'm preparing.
The end is near!
That's not a proper argument, sly creep. (I refuse you to address you otherwise)
"I have evidence and it is too glaringly evidence to show you!"
Then mvass calls you out on it and wants you to show this evidence to which he can respond and deconstruct and you're just like:
"Dude, isn't it obvious?"
That's the cowardly way out! An opinion, but no spirit or reason to back it up!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 10:50 PM |
|
|
I have to say I find the idea, capitalism actually is working (the way things are), a lot creepier than assuming it is not... 
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 11:18 PM |
|
|
Clearifying after Dagoths post below:
When someone claims capitalism is working or isn't working, then it should be considered that there are different objectives which needs to be done, before capitalism have done what it's meant to do. However what these objectives are can differ a lot from person to person.
In your opinion, what's the objective, i.e. what does capitalism need to ensure, before you'd claim it's working?
To give an example, for me, if capitalism means that we'd at a faster rate work towards higher levels of technology and ressources, than without it, then it's working. Ithink it's because through capitalism, transactions becomes much much easier and thereby the flow towards progress increases. Likewise capitalism creates a purpose in peoples mind of creating this flow. It's however dangerous if one forgets the true goals, why capitalism is so good, and replaces these with capitalism itself, like I somewhat accused obama for doing in Elvins VW thread [the one with xboxes, etc.].
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 11:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Capitalism working toward what purpose exactly?
This is such an odd question...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 11:24 PM |
|
|
I don't think so, and what a cowardly comment. LOL 
If the current state of the worlds over all economy is not an indicator as to why captitalism is failing, I'm afraid that your too biast to your own side and you may go down with the ship.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:04 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:05, 13 May 2010.
|
When it comes to the capitalism/socialism discussion, there are really two questions that need to be addressed.
(1) The ethical / philophical question.
(2) The scientific question.
The ethical / philosophical question is one which is interesting but fundamentally a matter of opinion. That's not to say it shouldn't be discussed, but, well, good luck finding a resolution any time soon.
The scientific question is another matter. Anything other than unregulated free markets is a nonequilibrium state. Such systems are unnatural (careful with that word!) by the standards of many scientific theories, which ultimately boil down to basic statistical thermodynamics. To retain semipermanency in such metastable states, energy in required, and the further you go toward complete socialism, the more energy is required. That energy takes the form of both enthalpic and entropic (statistical) analogs, by the way. At some point, the energy cost of such systems becomes unsustainable and the system collapses. Which is why systems exhibiting larger degrees of "socialistic-ness" collapse faster than less regulated systems. Also for socialized systems the energy required to keep the system stable can undermine the whole purpose behind setting up the system in the first place, because efficiency is low and a lot of that energy cost goes to overhead rather than toward any actual tangible end.
Is that an argument for complete, unregulated free trade? Of course not. JJ's post above was very salient. A middle ground which balances the energy cost with payoff to society must be found. Then balance that with the ethical question. Then try to delocalize yourself from the problem and look at what is greater for the system over all and not just you as a single particle swimming around in it.
Then I think you'll see why people are still arguing about it. 
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think so, and what a cowardly comment.
I don't quite know what ohforf meant which is usually the case, since he makes as much sense as reading Hegel in the original language with my knowledge of German.
Also, what shabby state of the world?
Is it so bad?
I don't see serfs having one meal a week on the streets, do you?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:08 AM |
|
|
Economic-wise the future is in the east and not the west.
Quote:
No, you're not. Sweden is 21 out of 179.
That depends on how you define "the most". For me, 21 och 176 (I thought there were over 200 countries btw) is a lot.
I guess I could say that Sweden is one of the countries that socialism has worked best in.
Quote:
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. The problems with that are quite obvious.
It isn't obvious to me. Talking about socialism etc is new to me. We have not talked about it in school yet (though I expect that school will say "Omg communism bad. Capitalism bad. Socialism and democracy good!".).
-
In socialism, a few select people do not have huge fortunes but instead this money is used for the wellfare of the entire people. Of course it is still very possible to get rich in a socialistic society.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, you're not. Sweden is 21 out of 179.
That depends on how you define "the most". For me, 21 och 176 (I thought there were over 200 countries btw) is a lot.
"The most" implies that you're at least at the end of the spectrum and not at the first quarter.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If the current state of the worlds over all economy is not an indicator as to why captitalism is failing
It's an indicator that "something" has failed, but that "something" is in no way, shape, or form capitalism. It's corporatism and excessive government intervention in the economy that caused this recent crisis.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 1 
