State Property... huh?

@Trickofthehand

I believe killmeplease was referring to the period following WWII in which it did become a superpower on par with the US.

However I also wish to point out that his claim of Russia's lack of 'foreign investment' is a tad bogus. Russia forced it's sattelites to pay for Russian industrialization and most of Russian technology came from espionage in the US and captured scientists, mostly German.
 
We are clearly becoming socialist. Its more than just business hand outs, that is overlooking a lot of important facts.
Before this list let me provide the following caveat. I see some of these things as socialist, but that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with them, so don't expect me to debate every point here as though I am advocating for or against it...
*GM is owned by the government (though it voluntarily chooses not to vote, because this time even the government has recognized it doesn't know what it is doing).
*Several banks are de facto owned by the government for taking bail out funds, and are subject to federal rules that are not approved by congress and the president (such as pay caps, etc)...
*Sallie Mae & Freddie Mac are completely government backed, this led to the problems we are now facing just as much as the deregulation did... which both parties supported, specifically in the repeal of the Glass-Seagal act, overwhelmingly
*All college loans now go through the federal government
*Medicare/Medicaid on a federal level
*Social Security
*trying to nationalize Health Care to a single payer system (eventually), which is 1/6th of the current PRIVATE economy...
*US Post Office
*And if you look at a lot of government agencies, one could argue that many of those are industries that have been nationalized (and some would argue unnecessarily)

Using these points as evidence that the USA is "clearly becoming socialist" is a real reach. Sort of the equivalent of accusing someone who puts lettuce on a cheeseburger of being a closet vegetarian.

Credible definitions of socialism include government ownership and adminstration of the means of production. This simply isn't the case for any of the bailed-out companies. All the government is effectively doing is subsidizing the losses while allowing profits to remain privatized. Pay caps are a trivial point - even if they were being effectively enforced, which they're not.

I'm not sure how the growing gap between the rich and poor in the USA can be reconciled with an assertion that the USA is becoming socialist, either. Plutocratic, yes. Socialist... hardly.

And you do realize that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security and Medicaid have all been around for 40 years or more, right? These are not new institutions. You must also recognize that social security and medicaid have faced determined efforts to erode their benefits, as opposed to incrementing them, since the 1980s?

Corporations are still strong, sure... but, some companies are nationalized (and more are headed that way), not 100%, but very rarely is this the case.

Were you trying to make a point here? :confused:

It's a slow course. I actually think that Marx had it somewhat right, that eventually society moves to socialism... I don't know that it will ever move to true communism though. There are many reasons, but my main one is that the bigger a community gets (which through population rise it continues) the less likely people are going to be to ever support such a plan. Communal communities on small scales can work... but not on such a large scale as, well, basically the entire world as Marx envisioned eventually.
Who knows though, there is a lot of time.

You may well be right. But a handful of short-term, emergency measures undertaken over the last 2 years doesn't come close to offsetting the erosion (or elimination) of social benefits and corporate controls over the last 3 decades.

I recognize that there is political hay to be made in seeing socialism around every corner and under every bed, but to say that the US has become MORE socialist in recent years defies credibility.
 
You dismiss my long term examples as not being new... that makes no sense.
You dismiss my short term examples as being short term... that makes no sense.
So, what would you recognize? Seems you don't want to recognize anything that contradicts what you think. I gave you examples, you dismissed them on a basically meaningless basis. Then a weird analogy about lettuce and vegetarians.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion.
Political efforts of one party or another, that have been unsuccessful, are meaningless in this discussion, for the record.

Anyhow, I agree to disagree with you. It is clear you have an agenda and that it is probably rather far to the left. That's fine, its your prerogative of course.
 
I guess we just have a difference of opinion.
Political efforts of one party or another, that have been unsuccessful, are meaningless in this discussion, for the record.

Anyhow, I agree to disagree with you. It is clear you have an agenda and that it is probably rather far to the left. That's fine, its your prerogative of course.

:rolleyes:

No further to the left than you are to the right. Rather less, in a reasonable person's estimation.

As I was saying, there is political hay to be made by seeing socialism under the bed and around every corner, and there is also political hay to be made by painting moderates as extremists.
 
Nice stealth edit.

You dismiss my long term examples as not being new... that makes no sense.
You dismiss my short term examples as being short term... that makes no sense.
So, what would you recognize? Seems you don't want to recognize anything that contradicts what you think. I gave you examples, you dismissed them on a basically meaningless basis. Then a weird analogy about lettuce and vegetarians.

I guess you aren't clear on what context is. :p
 
:rolleyes:

No further to the left than you are to the right. Rather less, in a reasonable person's estimation.

As I was saying, there is political hay to be made by seeing socialism under the bed and around every corner, and there is also political hay to be made by painting moderates as extremists.
Well, my score on the beloved test was 0.12 to the right on the economic left/right scale.
I am SURE you are farther than -0.12 to the left. So, let's see what "reasonable" people make of that?

Sorry I edited! My mistake.
I guess that isn't allowed now or something?
 
Well, my score on the beloved test was 0.12 to the right on the economic left/right scale.
I am SURE you are farther than -0.12 to the left. So, let's see what "reasonable" people make of that?

Sorry I edited! My mistake.
I guess that isn't allowed now or something?

It's allowed.

I'm further to the right than you are, according to that scale. But that's not really the point... the point is that I know what "socialism" is, and you don't.
 
the point is that I know what "socialism" is, and you don't.
Why? Because you said so?
Nice try.
I disagree though. I pointed out several socialist items, and your dismissals were far from adequate.

Not sure if I believe you were farther right on the scale, but I really don't care, because you have just declared yourself to be a right and in the know, so, you must be.

Have fun with it!
 
Why? Because you said so?
Nice try.
I disagree though. I pointed out several socialist items, and your dismissals were far from adequate.

I guess if you are using an alternative definition of socialism, your "socialist items" are good enough to convince yourself that you're right. You were curiously silent when I pointed out what socialism actually amounts to.

And I thought your view was that "no one cares" about political spectrum scores? You seem to give them a lot of weight. :lol:
 
Nah, I don't give them a lot of weight. I just know that you lied about yours.
Anyhow, I am done discussing this with you. Have fun, you can have the last word against me and "win". Enjoy it!
Merry Christmas
:D

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen someone saying "you can have the last word", who then goes on to put their own 2 cents in that one last time. :rolleyes:

Think whatever makes you happy, sport.
 
Nah, I don't give them a lot of weight. I just know that you lied about yours.
Anyhow, I am done discussing this with you. Have fun, you can have the last word against me and "win". Enjoy it!
Merry Christmas
:D

I'm pretty sure you lied about yours so you could claim to be a centrist. Seriously, you seem to think socialism is any time the government spends money on social programs or invests in the economy, yet you are over a point to the left of Barack Obama?

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
On the off-topic:
When I was 21, I was all game for heated arguments about literally anything. Now that I'm 33, I came to realize that it doesn't really matter what I say or think because, well, the world is filled with over 6 billion individuals like me of which half lives in Asia. I can count maybe 20 people that I actually bother to argue with (people that can accept a second opinion), because I know them personally. It is my only wish that those 6 billion people move forward in a positive way, not just for themselves but for all the people next to them. Will there be treason, lying, cheating, theft, bullying. murder? Obviously yes, these are valid and unavoidable parts of the game.

What you guys are arguing about is a question that cannot be easily answered. Both pure capitalism and pure socialism require a superhuman, übermensch society (the real concept, not the Nazi twisted one) in which the individual strives to make himself/herself fifty notches above the average. Here, however, in the real world, that's impossible to achieve. Superhuman activity gets watered down in the masses of average folk, and that's how its supposed to be, because it's normal and real. An individual might be 300 years ahead of his time, but the society will drag him back. But not completely. The "not completely" part is the reason we have all these things that we take for granted (electricity, industrial clothing, hot water from tap). Some cultures achieved this by socialism, nacional-socialism (they had some very advanced and smart concepts, one wouldn't believe), capitalism or by some other "ism". It doesn't really matter which one achieved it.

You might be surprised by this fact, but I do not measure the quality of a society by its economic or political compass. If a farmer with 4 years of primary school knows what's the Mendelev's periodic table or who Johann Sebastian Bach was or what's the name of the calendar they use in his country, I don't really care if it was pure capitalism or pure socialism that achieved that. A human being gets richer by his own knowledge and wisdom, not by fanatically defending a (by the laws of our cosmos) very abstract concept of whether you should be allowed to push little green papers or someone else will push them for you. It's literally as important as whether you will play Risk or Monopoly on the New year's eve party. Both capitalism and socialism are trivial concepts compared to the essential concepts of every human being: survive, evolve, reproduce yourself and your experience. I wouldn't say they don't matter, because they do, but opposed opinions of this magnitude that are in the world today are a product of another person's opinion, aka PROPAGANDA. Brainwashing that has been doing its job very throroughly on both sides of the iron curtain. The only difference is, western propaganda was a sweet candy, while the eastern one was a bitter pill. Human being slike sweet and fat, so I guess the West go that one right. 1:0 for West. Huzzah.

Have a nice 2010.
 
How? Well, as greed and corruption don't exist in civ (unlike RL), your citizens are perfectly happy to go move onto collective farms and give all the food produced to the state, which is then distributed without any officials taking more than their share.

Compare this to RL, where people resist moving to collective farms, don't produce at optimum efficiency because "for the good of society" is not enough motivation to work hard (unlike civ, where it is), and state officials take all the good food and leave the scraps for everyone else.

It's not that communism doesn't work, it's that human nature doesn't allow for communism.

i loled at this guys whole post
 
Back
Top Bottom