Does socialism work?

[West 36]

Well, I disagree. We already pay taxes, and that should be used to help the starving. There are also charities and agencies which do the same thing. There is absolutely no need for further erosions of our freedoms, which a move to a more socialist government would result in.

Taxes go to more than just feeding the poor, actually not much does by comparison to other forms of government spending, and there are millions of people without decent shelter or food, with barely if any money to get by, and that is what the taxes in a socialist economy would be aimed at changing, but I feel you're talking about more than just the freedom to not be taxed, so do you have any other specifics you're thinking of?

 

[Traitorfish]

There is absolutely no need for further erosions of our freedoms, which a move to a more socialist government would result in.

Arguable. I, for one, feel that the current corporate-oligarchial system is rather oppressive, and that further movement towards socialism and the limiting of private power- particularly that of corporations- that it would entail would be beneficial for many, if not most nations.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Taxes go to more than just feeding the poor, actually not much does by comparison to other forms of government spending, and there are millions of people without decent shelter or food, with barely if any money to get by, and that is what the taxes in a socialist economy would be aimed at changing, but I feel you're talking about more than just the freedom to not be taxed, so do you have any other specifics you're thinking of?

u would think that we have enough food in the world to end global hunger, but then u notice the piles of food @ a local Wal-Mart or other store, whenever the food rots, they just simply throw it out w/o the consideration of the starving people in World

 

[Traitorfish]

u would think that we have enough food in the world to end global hunger, but then u notice the piles of food @ a local Wal-Mart or other store, whenever the food rots, they just simply throw it out w/o the consideration of the starving people in World

Well, while you're correct that we do distribute resources unevenly, that's not a particularly good example- rotting food is no good to anyone, where ever they are, and supermarkets actually go to some lengths to minimise this (I work at one, so I hear about that more than I'd like), as it really just costs them money.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

rotting food is no good to anyone

What about livestock and other animals that may possibly be used to help feed starving populations?

 

[West 36]

Actually a decent argument, feeding everyone would be extremely difficult and, from a business point of view, unprofitable, not to mention we'd have to define how much a person needs, but seeing all that food that does sit around is somewhat upsetting, and what is bought isn't really for survival anymore as much as it is for enjoyment, I think with a very organized effort, many more people could be fed decent food, but thats a far away possibility for now. Also, I've noticed, at least alot around where I live, agricultural fields being turned into developments and such, does anyone know exactly how this affecting the food supply? Is it that we produce more, that new fields are being planted elsewhere, or what?

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Actually a decent argument, feeding everyone would be extremely difficult and, from a business point of view, unprofitable, not to mention we'd have to define how much a person needs, but seeing all that food that does sit around is somewhat upsetting, and what is bought isn't really for survival anymore as much as it is for enjoyment, I think with a very organized effort, many more people could be fed decent food, but thats a far away possibility for now. Also, I've noticed, at least alot around where I live, agricultural fields being turned into developments and such, does anyone know exactly how this affecting the food supply? Is it that we produce more, that new fields are being planted elsewhere, or what?

If I was in control I would use more genetic farms (less land more food) but I have heard about a possible farming technique called "Carbon farming" (I think that is what it is called but I am not sure) but right now...lets stick to genetic foods
PS: And where I live, there is a rumor someone is gonna buy out a feedlot (which is right beside my neighborhood) for horses/cows for houses

 

[Traitorfish]

What about livestock and other animals that may possibly be used to help feed starving populations?

Well, firstly you're assuming that livestock are climate transferable, which they are not- the kind of cow found in Europe or North America differs considerably from that found in Africa, which in turns differs from that found in India. Even in the USA, different varieties of cattle are found in different regions.
Secondly, meat is is not a particular effective food for a starving populationis , as livestock are far more labour intensive than crops and provide a more limited range of nutrients.
Thirdly, my issue was with your example in particular- it seemed to imply that rotting food should be salvaged for re-distribution, which is of course unfeasible.

I quite agree that the West has a food surplus which could and should be redistributed to other parts of the world, but the matter isn't as simple as it is sometimes made out to be.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

Well, firstly you're assuming that livestock are climate transferable, which they are not- the kind of cow found in Europe or North America differs considerably from that found in Africa, which in turns differs from that found in India. Even in the USA, different varieties of cattle are found in different regions.
Secondly, meat is is not a particular effective food for a starving populationis , as livestock are far more labour intensive than crops and provide a more limited range of nutrients.
Thirdly, my issue was with your example in particular- it seemed to imply that rotting food should be salvaged for re-distribution, which is of course unfeasible.

#1- What about the meat?
#2- Well we need to do something with the rotting food
#3- What is so unfeasible about it?

 

[Traitorfish]

#1- What about the meat?

To transport the meat from the West to the Third World would be inefficient compared to shipping other foodstuffs, such as grain. Some meat could be transported, of course, but it would be in relatively small amounts.

#2- Well we need to do something with the rotting food

Yes, but not eat it. Perhaps we could recycle it by using it as organic fertiliser, but not eat it.

#3- What is so unfeasible about it?

Rotten food is not fit for human consumption, so it's unfeasible to transport it to other nations- if it isn't already inedible, it almost certainly would be by the time it reached it's destination.

As I said, I agree that the redistribution of food is a good idea, but it's a complex issue.

Edit: Stuff in green was missed out the first time. Whoops.

 

[onejayhawk]

As I said, I agree that the redistribution of food is a good idea, but it's a complex issue.

Politics is a significant part of that. The list of times food relief has been blocked at a national border is endless. Often the core issue is a food distribution monopoly of some kind, meaning it is, literally or practically, illegal to give food away.

J

 

[Alpha Killer II]

To transport the meat from the West to the Third World would be inefficient compared to shipping other foodstuffs, such as grain. Some meat could be transported, of course, but it would be in relatively small amounts.

Hmm, I see your point there

Yes, but not eat it. Perhaps we could recycle it by using it as organic fertiliser, but
Rotten food is not fit for human consumption, so it's unfeasible to transport it to other nations- if it isn't already inedible, it almost certainly would be by the time it reached it's destination.

I didnt mean feed the rotting food to the humans, I meant feed it to the animals (Stronger immune systems) but if its inedible for animals too, that recycling idea might sound better

As I said, I agree that the redistribution of food is a good idea, but it's a complex issue.

Of course...

 

[classical_hero]

It depends what you understand by 'socialism'. I don't know any example of working socialism in large scale. In small scale however it might work. Look at family - it is a socialism at work First christians also might be counted as such socialism at work or maybe even communism. The issue is that those first christians formed communities willingly. They were not forced like most people in history that lived in socialistic or communistic states.
In large scale people start to think as follows: if everything is common, then if I will start to work very hard, I will still get the same wage, because my added value divided by ten millions of other citizens will not change anything. Ever more: if I will not work at all or even will steal something, I will still get the same - because when my "substracted value" will be divided among all citizens, it will be nothing. And the system was doomed - people had no impulse to work harder as it is in capitalistic economies.

In small communities or in communities were people had motivation to work hard this system might work - as it works in our families

A lot of Socialism started by those who believed in Christian values. The reason behind this is that back in those days there was no government that adequately looked after people, so there was a movement to help those in need. But just like most things when the Government gets involved, things go downhill. There is a place for socialism to work, but a purely socialistic society does not work, just like a totaly capitalistic society does not work, because they just are to extreme to work.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I think Socialism is best left on paper until we can solve the issues of resource scarcity and the truly unlimited desires of human beings.

If you can at least solve the first one, it would be far easier to keep things running.

 

[Alpha Killer II]

I think Socialism is best left on paper until we can solve the issues of resource scarcity and the truly unlimited desires of human beings.

If you can at least solve the first one, it would be far easier to keep things running.

Well least Socialism is better than Capitalism by these reasons...
#1- Capitalism will ALWAYS need money, thus putting a group of people at the very bottom, leading to a possible revolt that will lead to revolution
#2- Drugs, crops that are grown for the purpose of money, the government (and I am relating to the US) dont care for ur safety --They sell guns at Wal-Mart for god's sake-- they just want u buying THEIR drugs, Crack and Pot isnt legal in the US becuz the best Crack and Pot ARENT GROWN IN THE US
#3- Exploitation, a great example is the people in Africa are mining for gold/other jewels for money instead of farming and using other things they could to feed their people...
#4- And instead of listing all of the other reasons why Capitalism is worser than Socialism will be listed in #4 instead of separate numbers... Colonialism, 14 hour a day working privilege, 7 day working week, children in coalmines, The Opium Wars, Massacre of Paris Commune, Slavery, Spanish-American War, the Boer War, Starvation, Apartheid, anti-union laws, First World War, Flanders, Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, Aerial Bombing, the Soviet Intervention of Armenian Genocide, Chemical Weapons, Fascism, the Great Depression, Hunger Marches, Nazism, The Spanish Civil War, Militarism, Asbestosis, Radiation Death, the Peking Massacre, The Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, the Mafia, Nuclear Weapons, The Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, Production Lines, Blacklists, Thalidomide, the Rape of the Third World, Poverty, the Arms Race, Plastic Surgery, the Electric Chair, Degradation, the Vietnam War, The Military suppression of: Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, Malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, Deforestation, Organized Crime, the heroin and Cocaine trade, Tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, Cancer, Exploitation of labor, and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and Unionists IN THIS CENTURY ALONE

 

[luiz]

How old are you, Alpha Killer? Hopefully not over 7...
And I also hope English is not your first language... "worser"?

 

[Godwynn]

How old are you, Alpha Killer? Hopefully not over 7...
And I also hope English is not your first language... "worser"?

He has no knowledge of history. The USSR definently had a group(s) of people on the bottom.

A mandatory macroeconomics 101 class would do the world some good.

 

[Godwynn]

Well least Socialism is better than Capitalism by these reasons...

This should be good...

#1- Capitalism will ALWAYS need money

Bzzt! I had such high hopes for this little tirade too. Remember this thing called 'bartering'? Came along way before currency was ever thought about.

thus putting a group of people at the very bottom, leading to a possible revolt that will lead to revolution

Wrong on many different counts. In North Korea you have 99.9% of people on the very bottom, they are called the 'common people'. If given a chance to leave peacefully, I bet only .1% of the population would remain, those closest to Kim Jong Il.

#2- Drugs, crops that are grown for the purpose of money, the government (and I am relating to the US) dont care for ur safety --They sell guns at Wal-Mart for god's sake-- they just want u buying THEIR drugs, Crack and Pot isnt legal in the US becuz the best Crack and Pot ARENT GROWN IN THE US

So let me get this straight, the United States government has no care for our safety, but they allow guns to be sold at Wal*Mart and sell us drugs. A real quick question, what drug did the United States government sell you to make you think up something that ignorant?

If the government wanted us to be defenseless, they would not allow guns to be sold at Wal* Mart and would give us all the heroin we wanted for free just to make us not have a care in the world. When we finally do come around, we would be without our weapons to defend ourselves.

But since the government is involved, I wouldn't be too surprised that they would think up something that stupid in the first place.

#3- Exploitation, a great example is the people in Africa are mining for gold/other jewels for money instead of farming and using other things they could to feed their people...

I doubt you have ever heard of such a thing as 'demand'.

I vaguely remember being starving in countries in the former Eastern Bloc. Coincidence?

Allow me to tell you a little story. Mr. Gorbachev (You may or may not have heard of him, the way you trumpet socialism I would think so) took a trip to the damn corpocracy of the United States of America. While there he happened to go into a local grocery store and was amazed at the amount of food there, and wondered why there were long lines back in the Soviet Union just to get bread.

Are you starting to connect the dots here?

#4- And instead of listing all of the other reasons why Capitalism is worser than Socialism will be listed in #4 instead of separate numbers... Colonialism, 14 hour a day working privilege, 7 day working week, children in coalmines, The Opium Wars, Massacre of Paris Commune, Slavery, Spanish-American War, the Boer War, Starvation, Apartheid, anti-union laws, First World War, Flanders, Trench Warfare, Mustard Gas, Aerial Bombing, the Soviet Intervention of Armenian Genocide, Chemical Weapons, Fascism, the Great Depression, Hunger Marches, Nazism, The Spanish Civil War, Militarism, Asbestosis, Radiation Death, the Peking Massacre, The Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, the Mafia, Nuclear Weapons, The Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, Production Lines, Blacklists, Thalidomide, the Rape of the Third World, Poverty, the Arms Race, Plastic Surgery, the Electric Chair, Degradation, the Vietnam War, The Military suppression of: Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, Malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, Deforestation, Organized Crime, the heroin and Cocaine trade, Tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, Cancer, Exploitation of labor, and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and Unionists IN THIS CENTURY ALONE

This is one giant mess. Racism being blamed on capitalism? Please.

Plastic surgery? I say God Bless fake boobies too!

If you want to talk about Malnutrition, go to Democratic Kampuchea, or just google Pol Pot.

Mao's Great Leap Forward, Stalin's purges.

The military suppression of capitalism?! Guess where this took place at.

If you guessed Communist China, you would be correct! Ten points to you!

Starvation?! Don't make me laugh. Go to DPRK and tell me if you are able to feed yourself.

Actually, I'm going to go out on a limb and say if you did go there, you wouldn't even be able to tell us if you did or not since you would not be allowed on a computer or telephone.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Fifty]

Come on, Godwynn! Arguing against socialism by arguing with Alpha Killer is like arguing against capitalism by arguing with an Objectivist. Pick on somebody your own size!

 

[Godwynn]

Come on, Godwynn! Arguing against socialism by arguing with Alpha Killer is like arguing against capitalism by arguing with an Objectivist. Pick on somebody your own size!

You're right, it's not nice of me to pick on retards.