The internet told me I was a moderate liberal, which I have no qualms with, but I'm not going to proclaim that I'm anything, really!
I am completely lost when it comes to politics and government, but hey I'm supposed to learn about that in a year or so anyways! So far "Do unto others..." has led me pretty well throughout my life, and so that's all I need for now!
Aww yiss. This is my shit, lol.
I'm a registered Democrat, but at this point, it's mostly for defensive voting.
I'm in the Liberta… morerian Socialist camp. I could also be called an Anarchist, for the sake of simplicity, though I'm not 100% sold on the complete abolition of states.
I believe that capitalism is an exploitative system designed to benefit a tiny percentage of the population. Capitalism relies on and is inextricably tied with the state's violence and therefore I don't consider authoritarian forms of Socialism (e.g. Leninism) to be any better. I believe that workers, not wealthy capitalists or the state, should own the means of production and that all forms of hierarchy should be critiqued, and challenged when they are found unjustified. I believe that Syndicalism (an organization of radical unions) would be the most feasible way of running a post-statist society.
I'm very far left on social issues, but don't see … [view original content]
As I'm still in high school I am still finding which parties and ideologies I identify with. I am however very supportive of a compromise path of unity between a lot of parties in America, the only way to truly get anything done in this nation is to have both major political parties on your side and create compromises. It's a system that will make small changes which can eventually erupt into large scale reformations. I always thought that my political views fall into an entirely different party than those that are already established.
Worse is getting people who thought they were registered under one party and they are under the other. Honestly I don't have a problem restricting votes in primaries to party affiliations. If you're not sworn to a party, why would it make sense to be able to affect who gets the nomination. I just hated having to ask people what their party was to give them the right ballot.
I'm registered with no-party affiliation as I don't like the bickering that comes with political parties. I really don't like how politicia… morens often make decisions to conform to party lines in order to pander to what they view as their core voting base. I vote based on how close their views match mine (I've voted both Democrat and Republican), but it's often hard to tell with the pandering as it could be ungenuine (and pandering often leads to flip-flopping when it comes to changing their minds on particular issues).
The only downside to being registered without a party is that I can't vote in primaries, as I live in New York which has a strict closed primary system. Here, only registered democrats can vote in democratic primaries and republicans can vote in republican primaries (plus the cutoff for registering with a party if you do want to vote in primaries is extremely early - for this election, the cutoff was in December 2015).
I have a question about one of your influences. What is it about Friedrich Hayek that makes you like him? I don't know much about him myself, but from what I understand, he was a right wing libertarian, which is pretty much the opposite of your views.
Aww yiss. This is my shit, lol.
I'm a registered Democrat, but at this point, it's mostly for defensive voting.
I'm in the Liberta… morerian Socialist camp. I could also be called an Anarchist, for the sake of simplicity, though I'm not 100% sold on the complete abolition of states.
I believe that capitalism is an exploitative system designed to benefit a tiny percentage of the population. Capitalism relies on and is inextricably tied with the state's violence and therefore I don't consider authoritarian forms of Socialism (e.g. Leninism) to be any better. I believe that workers, not wealthy capitalists or the state, should own the means of production and that all forms of hierarchy should be critiqued, and challenged when they are found unjustified. I believe that Syndicalism (an organization of radical unions) would be the most feasible way of running a post-statist society.
I'm very far left on social issues, but don't see … [view original content]
EDIT: Actually, I need not. What you have said on this thread already aligns with my political compass. Were I post my political beliefs, I would be paraphrasing yours at best.
I understand that, however I don't care enough about politics to want to learn about who I should vote for. All I know is that the people running the government are idiots.
Don't giving a shit about it will end up with you losing these rights someday.
Of course not just by your own action (or your passivity i… moren this case), but just for you know; it's this stuff which grants you these rights.
Put in the wrong hands, it might disappear.
I don't care enough about politics to know what's going on.
Sorry but this is a real pet peeve of mine. Do you realize why idiots are in power? Because political illiteracy and apathy keeps otherwise intelligent people away from the polls.
I understand that, however I don't care enough about politics to want to learn about who I should vote for. All I know is that the people running the government are idiots.
Really? Interesting. I hadn't taken you for a Libsoc, though I remember you saying that you had leanings.
Is there anything that pushed you in that direction? For me, it was just a slow transition from Liberalism as I got more into anti-poverty and read more about leftist history. Having a disability also kinda made me realize that the Social Darwinist, 'rat-race' mentality isn't going to get me anywhere.
Are you interested in any particular branch of Socialism? I could explain a few that I find interesting, if you want.
I might later.
EDIT: Actually, I need not. What you have said on this thread already aligns with my political compass. Were I post my political beliefs, I would be paraphrasing yours at best.
I am a Whig, after our meetings I like to head over to the tavern and talk about the latest big thing. Then I go home and do not bother my wife's poor little mind with anything doing with politics as she would never understand what I was saying anyway.
For one, My mother cannot work at all because of her crippled back. Were ot not for the welfare system or the department of human services, we would be homeless. This got me interested in socialism.
Secondly, the Capitalist system, while definitely able to create a thriving society, it cannot create and sustain a generally thriving people. As you have said, the system works off of exploitation. One example within my family would come from my semi-estranged father. Right now, his workplace is slowly sacking people and replacing them with subcontractors. He is working his arse off just to mantain his wage and retain his job.
Thirdly, having a disability myself, the whole idea of a Social Darwinism was not something I would subscribe to.
I generally view myself as a Democratic Socialist, versus your far left Libertarian Socialism. However, with that said, I do still lean into your branch, namely with the power that the government holds.
Really? Interesting. I hadn't taken you for a Libsoc, though I remember you saying that you had leanings.
Is there anything that pushed… more you in that direction? For me, it was just a slow transition from Liberalism as I got more into anti-poverty and read more about leftist history. Having a disability also kinda made me realize that the Social Darwinist, 'rat-race' mentality isn't going to get me anywhere.
Are you interested in any particular branch of Socialism? I could explain a few that I find interesting, if you want.
The people running the government are idiots
I don't care enough about politics to know what's going on.
Sorry but this is a … morereal pet peeve of mine. Do you realize why idiots are in power? Because political illiteracy and apathy keeps otherwise intelligent people away from the polls.
I used to believe I'm something the west knows as liberal, someone who donesn't believe in god, has no problem with gay rights, is pro choice and generally favors freedom of speech (even if its offensive to someone). But seeng how the liberal culture is now in the west (while nothing has changed in my personal believes) I would probabbly have more in common with Farage or Le Pen then anyone on the center left. I don't support the migration, I don't want society to ponder to religious minorities (I believe religion has no place in modern society) and I don't belive in socialism, while I generally believe government should have a role in society providing basic support like healthcare and education. Sadly nowdays your average left are suicidal pro immigration anti freedom nutjobs and the right is pro crony capitalism christian religious nutjobs. Too few sane people in the political class in EU.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone whos not cripple has to work to provide that. Isn't that exploitation too? Society needs a compromise and thats what we have in a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy, rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth. Thats why all the communist countries failed. Socialism like that doesn't work.
Well, a number of things.
For one, My mother cannot work at all because of her crippled back. Were ot not for the welfare system or the d… moreepartment of human services, we would be homeless. This got me interested in socialism.
Secondly, the Capitalist system, while definitely able to create a thriving society, it cannot create and sustain a generally thriving people. As you have said, the system works off of exploitation. One example within my family would come from my semi-estranged father. Right now, his workplace is slowly sacking people and replacing them with subcontractors. He is working his arse off just to mantain his wage and retain his job.
Thirdly, having a disability myself, the whole idea of a Social Darwinism was not something I would subscribe to.
I generally view myself as a Democratic Socialist, versus your far left Libertarian Socialism. However, with that said, I do still lean into your branch, namely with the power that the government holds.
has no problem with gay rights, is pro choice and generally favors freedom of speech (even if its offensive to someone)
So do you have a problem with these things now? It's funny, your positions as a liberal sound exact.y like mine back in the day. Funny how circumstances pushed us to different ends of the political spectrum.
crony capitalism
All capitalism besides entreprenuership is crony capitalism. It's a state-guaranteed system of privilege. Has been since Adam Smith's time. Spot on about the Jesus stuff though.
You might find Corporatism interesting. It's an authoritarian system that's basically a compromise between labor, corporations and the state. Basically, it's Fascism, minus the insanity.
Authority From Above, Confidence From Below.
I used to believe I'm something the west knows as liberal, someone who donesn't believe in g… moreod, has no problem with gay rights, is pro choice and generally favors freedom of speech (even if its offensive to someone). But seeng how the liberal culture is now in the west (while nothing has changed in my personal believes) I would probabbly have more in common with Farage or Le Pen then anyone on the center left. I don't support the migration, I don't want society to ponder to religious minorities (I believe religion has no place in modern society) and I don't belive in socialism, while I generally believe government should have a role in society providing basic support like healthcare and education. Sadly nowdays your average left are suicidal pro immigration anti freedom nutjobs and the right is pro crony capitalism christian religious nutjobs. Too few sane people in the political class in EU.
"Communist" countries would mean those countries gave the power to their people after dictatorship.. which they never did. So you can call talk about "Stalinism" or "sovietism" but not communism.
Also I'm not sure they gave wealth to the poor and the needy.. At least I never saw this stated anywhere. Reducing the fall of the USSR of "killing incentive" is quite simplifying History.
What you call "socialism" is applying in Europe, and it still produces wealth.
So socialism like that works; at least aswell as a "strong" capitalist country.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone whos not cripple has to work to provide that. … moreIsn't that exploitation too? Society needs a compromise and thats what we have in a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy, rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth. Thats why all the communist countries failed. Socialism like that doesn't work.
I'd be a much happie camper on pay day if my taxes were mostly going to people like Ram's mom. Unfortunately, a lot of it goes to floundering social programs, the Pentagon and corporate subsidies.
I would also argue that the amount skimmed from my paycheck by the bosses (by pocketing surplus value) is much higher than the amount I pay in taxes. Plus, none of that money goes to things that may benefit me, unlike taxes.
On a more basic level, I think you mischaracterize the views of most Socialists (including myself). Most of the people who advocate a high-taxation welfare state are Social Democrats. Socialists support the welfare state, but only as a stopgap to reign in the worst excesses of capitalism.
We also have little love for the Soviet Union and consider it a failure in most regards and a huge betrayal of the workers. There's still some Marxist-Leninist weirdos who think it was great, but they're the minority. I think your assessment that government micromanagement killed the Soviet Union is pretty much spot on, though I'd also add that they had an unsustainable military industrial complex that made it much worse.
Most Socialists want the following things.
-- Worker control of the means of production and democracy in the workplace.
-- Abolition of usury, rent-seeking and private (but not personal) property.
The paths we intend to take in order to get there are different, but that’s the endgame for most Socialists and Anarchists. There’s plenty of valid criticism that can leveled at the ideology, but reducing the incentive to work through taxation isn’t one of them. In fact, I bet most people would find work more constructive and appealing if they had a real stake/say in what they produced and weren’t forced to sell their labor on the Capitalists’ terms.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone whos not cripple has to work to provide that. … moreIsn't that exploitation too? Society needs a compromise and thats what we have in a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy, rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth. Thats why all the communist countries failed. Socialism like that doesn't work.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone who is not a crpple has to work to provide that
I understand that perfectly.
Isn't that exploitation too?
No, for exploitation implies an unfair advantage. She literally cannot work for her own wage, and thus requires assistance. I would hardly call that an unfair advantage.
Society needs a compromise and that's why we have a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy. Rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth.
Capitalism could be a great system were it to work right. The problem is that things like TNCs employing people in developing countries on low wages in dangerous workplaces, monopolies, lobbying, etc completely undermine this idea. Furthermore, capitalism is a sporadic and unpredictable system. As a result of these things combined, we see things like the Great Depression or Global Financial Crisis happen.
Also, I only mean that those that cannot work at all (as in cannot, as opposed to shall not) ought to be given pensions to substitute wages. Hell, even now with what my mother is given, she still lives below the poverty line. Here, in Australia, the poverty threshold for a family with two kids (my mother is a single mother) is 841 AUD per week. She recieves only 550 AUD per week.
That's why all communist countries failed. Socialism like that does not work
No.
I am talking about Democratic Socialism. What you have said there is a straw man argument regarding a Marxist-Leninist Single Party state dictatorship built upon centralised economy.
EDITS EVERYWHERE: Strewth, tiredness does not help you when you are trying to come up with a philisophical counter-arguement.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone whos not cripple has to work to provide that. … moreIsn't that exploitation too? Society needs a compromise and thats what we have in a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy, rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth. Thats why all the communist countries failed. Socialism like that doesn't work.
Well if you don't get the fruits of your labor because that money is given to someone who is cripple, you basically are forced to work instead of that person and you can't really refuse to give those taxes away. We do this because we are a sane and compasionate society and it already happens. We let outselfs to be exploited for the benefit of cripples but to a certain degree, there are many cripples in Bosnia after the war but I doubt you would want your taxes increased to fix their problem?
You see democratic socialism is a pipe dream, you can't have it. If you will put the rich on 90% of taxes they will leave with their money bags to the next country that is still a mixed economy with reasonable taxes. And thats not just the people with inherited wealth but the people behind innovative products, the Steve Jobs type of people. What will you do then? And if everyone will get the same basic salary no matter a macjob or programmer nobody will take up the challanging jobs. The economy will be messed up in a very short period.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone who is not a crpple has to work to provide tha… moret
I understand that perfectly.
Isn't that exploitation too?
No, for exploitation implies an unfair advantage. She literally cannot work for her own wage, and thus requires assistance. I would hardly call that an unfair advantage.
Society needs a compromise and that's why we have a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy. Rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth.
Capitalism could be a great system were it to work right. The problem is that things like TNCs employing people in developing countries on low wages in dangerous workplaces, monopolies, lobbying, etc completely undermine this idea. Furthermore, capitalism is a sporadic and unpredictable system. As a result of these things combined, we… [view original content]
I still believe those things but the people that associate with the left in EU don't. They would suppres freedom of speach not to insult some minor backwards religious group, allow third world population to replace the more enlightened european population. Btw I do actually like Corporatism, its the perfect mix of strong state and economy based on innovation. In a sense its actually what China was doing as well and how it created the economic boom it ejoys. Cheap labor isn't all to it because unlike Idia or Balgladesh it no longer is a cheap labor country.
has no problem with gay rights, is pro choice and generally favors freedom of speech (even if its offensive to someone)
So do you ha… moreve a problem with these things now? It's funny, your positions as a liberal sound exact.y like mine back in the day. Funny how circumstances pushed us to different ends of the political spectrum.
crony capitalism
All capitalism besides entreprenuership is crony capitalism. It's a state-guaranteed system of privilege. Has been since Adam Smith's time. Spot on about the Jesus stuff though.
You might find Corporatism interesting. It's an authoritarian system that's basically a compromise between labor, corporations and the state. Basically, it's Fascism, minus the insanity.
Strong state yet the one that do not interfere into its citizens life too much (in amount of regulations of daily life stuff). Absolute freedom of speech, f**k political correctness.
Semi-conservative, since I don't believe in God yet I came to conclusion that church is the shield and sword of my people's culture despite having numerous flaws that needs to be addressed. Capitalism all the way since it's the best working system in my opinion. socializm limited to the very nessesary minimum you don't work you don't eat as a general rule. Anti-migrant, Anti-islam, anti-EU.
Have nothing against Gay or Lesbian people being married but I'm against adoption for those people. LGBT activists, 3rd wave feminist, Black Lives Matter people royaly piss me off as well as all those who preach ,,tolerance" multi-kultural ideology.
They would suppres freedom of speach not to insult some minor backwards religious group, allow third world population to replace the more enlightened european population.
I still believe those things but the people that associate with the left in EU don't. They would suppres freedom of speach not to insult som… moree minor backwards religious group, allow third world population to replace the more enlightened european population. Btw I do actually like Corporatism, its the perfect mix of strong state and economy based on innovation. In a sense its actually what China was doing as well and how it created the economic boom it ejoys. Cheap labor isn't all to it because unlike Idia or Balgladesh it no longer is a cheap labor country.
Well if you don't get the fruits of your labor because that money is given to someone who is cripple, you basically are forced to work inste… moread of that person and you can't really refuse to give those taxes away. We do this because we are a sane and compasionate society and it already happens. We let outselfs to be exploited for the benefit of cripples but to a certain degree, there are many cripples in Bosnia after the war but I doubt you would want your taxes increased to fix their problem?
You see democratic socialism is a pipe dream, you can't have it. If you will put the rich on 90% of taxes they will leave with their money bags to the next country that is still a mixed economy with reasonable taxes. And thats not just the people with inherited wealth but the people behind innovative products, the Steve Jobs type of people. What will you do then? And if everyone will get the same basic salary no matter a macjob or programmer nobody wil… [view original content]
There will always be people on top and people on the bottom, its the nature of every individual to seek supremacy. It can be channeled for the benefit of most or for the benefit of few (like in North Korea). If you get rid of "bourgeoisie" you will have a new class of power. In soviet system they where called apartchniks (people of the state apparatus) those who can access state reasources easily and grab them for personal benefit. Thats what you will get.
Le Pen is someone who is against freedom of speech; we're talking about someone who is from the extreme right and talked about ending tv journal like Le petit Journal in a whisper.
Left against freedom of speech? First there is no such thing about left, seeing the government there isn't leftish but applying a right policy.
Secondly, they have many faults, but against freedom of speech? No. Basically no; preferring a extrem right party over a pseudo leftish one because "muh freedom of speech is oppressed" is pure non sense.
Also I thought you were living in Africa and praised Capitalism/America.
Authority From Above, Confidence From Below.
I used to believe I'm something the west knows as liberal, someone who donesn't believe in g… moreod, has no problem with gay rights, is pro choice and generally favors freedom of speech (even if its offensive to someone). But seeng how the liberal culture is now in the west (while nothing has changed in my personal believes) I would probabbly have more in common with Farage or Le Pen then anyone on the center left. I don't support the migration, I don't want society to ponder to religious minorities (I believe religion has no place in modern society) and I don't belive in socialism, while I generally believe government should have a role in society providing basic support like healthcare and education. Sadly nowdays your average left are suicidal pro immigration anti freedom nutjobs and the right is pro crony capitalism christian religious nutjobs. Too few sane people in the political class in EU.
Comments
Don't giving a shit about it will end up with you losing these rights someday.
Of course not just by your own action (or your passivity in this case), but just for you know; it's this stuff which grants you these rights.
Put in the wrong hands, it might disappear.
From what I noticed the more you're for ,,social safety" the more it pushes you left regardless of the rest...
Well damn, I looked at the chart and you're the first one to get it.
How's the weather up there, General Franco?
It's a few things, I think.
What you mentioned
Strangely worded and bad questions (particularly the astrology one).
People not understanding the implications of the questions, not unfderstanding how they connect to broader concepts.
Just right!
enter link description here
Well, not Western European, anyway.
I don't agree with any specific party of government system.
My personal belief is 'Whatever's best for the greatest amount of people.'
You should post about your philosophy.
Left-Libertarian.
Or whatever the correct term is.
According to "Secret Hitler" the fascists are dirty reptilians.
The internet told me I was a moderate liberal, which I have no qualms with, but I'm not going to proclaim that I'm anything, really!
I am completely lost when it comes to politics and government, but hey I'm supposed to learn about that in a year or so anyways! So far "Do unto others..." has led me pretty well throughout my life, and so that's all I need for now!
Can you explain what Anarchists are? Also Liberalism in greater depth.
As far as I know, these systems, or at least Anarchists support Lazze-faire capitalism, which ultimately turns me away from the idea.
Left leaning independent.
As I'm still in high school I am still finding which parties and ideologies I identify with. I am however very supportive of a compromise path of unity between a lot of parties in America, the only way to truly get anything done in this nation is to have both major political parties on your side and create compromises. It's a system that will make small changes which can eventually erupt into large scale reformations. I always thought that my political views fall into an entirely different party than those that are already established.
Worse is getting people who thought they were registered under one party and they are under the other. Honestly I don't have a problem restricting votes in primaries to party affiliations. If you're not sworn to a party, why would it make sense to be able to affect who gets the nomination. I just hated having to ask people what their party was to give them the right ballot.
I have a question about one of your influences. What is it about Friedrich Hayek that makes you like him? I don't know much about him myself, but from what I understand, he was a right wing libertarian, which is pretty much the opposite of your views.
I might later.
EDIT: Actually, I need not. What you have said on this thread already aligns with my political compass. Were I post my political beliefs, I would be paraphrasing yours at best.
I understand that, however I don't care enough about politics to want to learn about who I should vote for. All I know is that the people running the government are idiots.
Sorry but this is a real pet peeve of mine. Do you realize why idiots are in power? Because political illiteracy and apathy keeps otherwise intelligent people away from the polls.
Really? Interesting. I hadn't taken you for a Libsoc, though I remember you saying that you had leanings.
Is there anything that pushed you in that direction? For me, it was just a slow transition from Liberalism as I got more into anti-poverty and read more about leftist history. Having a disability also kinda made me realize that the Social Darwinist, 'rat-race' mentality isn't going to get me anywhere.
Are you interested in any particular branch of Socialism? I could explain a few that I find interesting, if you want.
I am a Whig, after our meetings I like to head over to the tavern and talk about the latest big thing. Then I go home and do not bother my wife's poor little mind with anything doing with politics as she would never understand what I was saying anyway.
Well, a number of things.
For one, My mother cannot work at all because of her crippled back. Were ot not for the welfare system or the department of human services, we would be homeless. This got me interested in socialism.
Secondly, the Capitalist system, while definitely able to create a thriving society, it cannot create and sustain a generally thriving people. As you have said, the system works off of exploitation. One example within my family would come from my semi-estranged father. Right now, his workplace is slowly sacking people and replacing them with subcontractors. He is working his arse off just to mantain his wage and retain his job.
Thirdly, having a disability myself, the whole idea of a Social Darwinism was not something I would subscribe to.
I generally view myself as a Democratic Socialist, versus your far left Libertarian Socialism. However, with that said, I do still lean into your branch, namely with the power that the government holds.
Is "Fuck It" a political alignment?
C'est la vie.
Not my problem
But it is, since they rule your life when in power.
So, by what right do you call them idiots when you don't know anything about what they do or stand for?
You'd probably like egoism then.
Authority From Above, Confidence From Below.
I used to believe I'm something the west knows as liberal, someone who donesn't believe in god, has no problem with gay rights, is pro choice and generally favors freedom of speech (even if its offensive to someone). But seeng how the liberal culture is now in the west (while nothing has changed in my personal believes) I would probabbly have more in common with Farage or Le Pen then anyone on the center left. I don't support the migration, I don't want society to ponder to religious minorities (I believe religion has no place in modern society) and I don't belive in socialism, while I generally believe government should have a role in society providing basic support like healthcare and education. Sadly nowdays your average left are suicidal pro immigration anti freedom nutjobs and the right is pro crony capitalism christian religious nutjobs. Too few sane people in the political class in EU.
What you need to understand is that for your crippled relative to get food or housing someone whos not cripple has to work to provide that. Isn't that exploitation too? Society needs a compromise and thats what we have in a mixed economy. Capitalism provides wealth and a small % of it is given to the poor and needy, rise the % too much and you kill the incentive that creates wealth. Thats why all the communist countries failed. Socialism like that doesn't work.
So do you have a problem with these things now? It's funny, your positions as a liberal sound exact.y like mine back in the day. Funny how circumstances pushed us to different ends of the political spectrum.
All capitalism besides entreprenuership is crony capitalism. It's a state-guaranteed system of privilege. Has been since Adam Smith's time. Spot on about the Jesus stuff though.
You might find Corporatism interesting. It's an authoritarian system that's basically a compromise between labor, corporations and the state. Basically, it's Fascism, minus the insanity.
"Communist" countries would mean those countries gave the power to their people after dictatorship.. which they never did. So you can call talk about "Stalinism" or "sovietism" but not communism.
Also I'm not sure they gave wealth to the poor and the needy.. At least I never saw this stated anywhere. Reducing the fall of the USSR of "killing incentive" is quite simplifying History.
What you call "socialism" is applying in Europe, and it still produces wealth.
So socialism like that works; at least aswell as a "strong" capitalist country.
I'd be a much happie camper on pay day if my taxes were mostly going to people like Ram's mom. Unfortunately, a lot of it goes to floundering social programs, the Pentagon and corporate subsidies.
I would also argue that the amount skimmed from my paycheck by the bosses (by pocketing surplus value) is much higher than the amount I pay in taxes. Plus, none of that money goes to things that may benefit me, unlike taxes.
On a more basic level, I think you mischaracterize the views of most Socialists (including myself). Most of the people who advocate a high-taxation welfare state are Social Democrats. Socialists support the welfare state, but only as a stopgap to reign in the worst excesses of capitalism.
We also have little love for the Soviet Union and consider it a failure in most regards and a huge betrayal of the workers. There's still some Marxist-Leninist weirdos who think it was great, but they're the minority. I think your assessment that government micromanagement killed the Soviet Union is pretty much spot on, though I'd also add that they had an unsustainable military industrial complex that made it much worse.
Most Socialists want the following things.
-- Worker control of the means of production and democracy in the workplace.
-- Abolition of usury, rent-seeking and private (but not personal) property.
The paths we intend to take in order to get there are different, but that’s the endgame for most Socialists and Anarchists. There’s plenty of valid criticism that can leveled at the ideology, but reducing the incentive to work through taxation isn’t one of them. In fact, I bet most people would find work more constructive and appealing if they had a real stake/say in what they produced and weren’t forced to sell their labor on the Capitalists’ terms.
Never heard of it. From the very descriptive google search definition, not really.
I understand that perfectly.
No, for exploitation implies an unfair advantage. She literally cannot work for her own wage, and thus requires assistance. I would hardly call that an unfair advantage.
Capitalism could be a great system were it to work right. The problem is that things like TNCs employing people in developing countries on low wages in dangerous workplaces, monopolies, lobbying, etc completely undermine this idea. Furthermore, capitalism is a sporadic and unpredictable system. As a result of these things combined, we see things like the Great Depression or Global Financial Crisis happen.
Also, I only mean that those that cannot work at all (as in cannot, as opposed to shall not) ought to be given pensions to substitute wages. Hell, even now with what my mother is given, she still lives below the poverty line. Here, in Australia, the poverty threshold for a family with two kids (my mother is a single mother) is 841 AUD per week. She recieves only 550 AUD per week.
No.
I am talking about Democratic Socialism. What you have said there is a straw man argument regarding a Marxist-Leninist Single Party state dictatorship built upon centralised economy.
EDITS EVERYWHERE: Strewth, tiredness does not help you when you are trying to come up with a philisophical counter-arguement.
Well if you don't get the fruits of your labor because that money is given to someone who is cripple, you basically are forced to work instead of that person and you can't really refuse to give those taxes away. We do this because we are a sane and compasionate society and it already happens. We let outselfs to be exploited for the benefit of cripples but to a certain degree, there are many cripples in Bosnia after the war but I doubt you would want your taxes increased to fix their problem?
You see democratic socialism is a pipe dream, you can't have it. If you will put the rich on 90% of taxes they will leave with their money bags to the next country that is still a mixed economy with reasonable taxes. And thats not just the people with inherited wealth but the people behind innovative products, the Steve Jobs type of people. What will you do then? And if everyone will get the same basic salary no matter a macjob or programmer nobody will take up the challanging jobs. The economy will be messed up in a very short period.
I still believe those things but the people that associate with the left in EU don't. They would suppres freedom of speach not to insult some minor backwards religious group, allow third world population to replace the more enlightened european population. Btw I do actually like Corporatism, its the perfect mix of strong state and economy based on innovation. In a sense its actually what China was doing as well and how it created the economic boom it ejoys. Cheap labor isn't all to it because unlike Idia or Balgladesh it no longer is a cheap labor country.
Strong state yet the one that do not interfere into its citizens life too much (in amount of regulations of daily life stuff). Absolute freedom of speech, f**k political correctness.
Semi-conservative, since I don't believe in God yet I came to conclusion that church is the shield and sword of my people's culture despite having numerous flaws that needs to be addressed. Capitalism all the way since it's the best working system in my opinion. socializm limited to the very nessesary minimum you don't work you don't eat as a general rule. Anti-migrant, Anti-islam, anti-EU.
Have nothing against Gay or Lesbian people being married but I'm against adoption for those people. LGBT activists, 3rd wave feminist, Black Lives Matter people royaly piss me off as well as all those who preach ,,tolerance" multi-kultural ideology.
I support you so hard...
Who says the bourgeoisie have to exist at all?
There will always be people on top and people on the bottom, its the nature of every individual to seek supremacy. It can be channeled for the benefit of most or for the benefit of few (like in North Korea). If you get rid of "bourgeoisie" you will have a new class of power. In soviet system they where called apartchniks (people of the state apparatus) those who can access state reasources easily and grab them for personal benefit. Thats what you will get.
What. The. Fuck.
Le Pen is someone who is against freedom of speech; we're talking about someone who is from the extreme right and talked about ending tv journal like Le petit Journal in a whisper.
Left against freedom of speech? First there is no such thing about left, seeing the government there isn't leftish but applying a right policy.
Secondly, they have many faults, but against freedom of speech? No. Basically no; preferring a extrem right party over a pseudo leftish one because "muh freedom of speech is oppressed" is pure non sense.
Also I thought you were living in Africa and praised Capitalism/America.