Everyone that I know who calls themselves a "Socialist" or "Communist" is an extreme hypocrite. A simple definition of Socialism is where âproperty and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.â Socialism also calls for Workerâs Councils to take over the means of production. It is a working class movement. I can respect an organized working class. I am going to be a teacher in the future and will make crap for a salary. But that is my choice. Capitalism gives me equal opportunity to pick my career. I could have been an engineer making at least $50K first year. But because of Capitalism, I have a choice. And I decided to become a teacher. I believe in the Capitalist system because it makes people work for their money. Socialism is an oppressive system that tries to stop the natural order of economics.
Something I have seen lately is the number of âSocialistsâ who have appeared amongst the youth of America. Are they here to go against their parents? Maybe. Every generation has children who do not agree with their parents. Are they here to start a revolution? Possibly... All generations have their âwanna-be revolutionaries.â Or are they here because they want to stir things up? This is what I think they are after. From what I have seen the average left-economist has been a spoiled, rich, drugged up, white kid who wants to rebel against society.
All of my friends who claim to have left-wing economic values are all white and are from wealthy families. I find it a bit weird that they continually talk about how the "white race" oppresses everyone. Even as they argue this, they continually do things to bring down the working class and minorities.
One of my college friends who labels himself as a âleftist socialist revolutionaryâ grows marijuana and sells it for a huge profit. I noticed most of his customers were of ethnic minorities as well. When I asked how this was compatible with Socialism and racial equality, he ignored me at first. He later explained that marijuana was a symbol for the leftist movement. He never explained how selling it for huge profits was compatible with his beliefs though. I continued to press him on the issue, and all he could come up with was âIâm spreading the love equally like Socialism calls for!â His hypocrisy was so evident that I did not even have to continue questioning him.
Another friend of mine who claims Socialism is the greatest thing ever continuously shops at Wal-Mart, a massive corporation. She apparently has no problem with Wal-Mart and her economic beliefs, because she is ill-informed. I asked her if it was okay for a Socialist to shop at Wal-Mart, and she said it was no problem. She did not see the problem with it.
Another example of economic leftist hypocrisy that I have is within the gay community. I know several gay people from college. Many of them wear âCheâ t-shirts. If you do not know who Che is, then look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara, His photo on the right side is a symbol for Socialists and Communists across the globe. In fact, most Historians agree that it is the most important photo of all time. You can see his image on shirts like this: http://www.geocities.com/socialist_action/che.gif). Ernesto âCheâ Guevara was one of the most devoted Communists I have read about. Yet he had thousands of Christians killed for their beliefs. He had hundreds executed for owning large plots of land. More importantly for this argument, Che had thousands of people executed for being homosexual. Now how could any homosexual wear a t-shirt with Cheâs image on it? Economic left wingers love Che for his devotion to Socialism and Communism, yet they blind themselves to the fact that he was a ruthless killer of homosexuals, religious people, and those who owned land. This is yet another hypocrisy of left-wing economists.
The best example I have is of my geography teacher in college. He was a devout Communist. He denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocides (both committed by Communists). He denied the purges of Stalin and the Ukranian Famine he caused. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor). Stalin killed more than Hitler, yet this teacher claimed Stalin was one of the most democratic rulers ever. This teacher stuck by his die-hard Communist ideology. But one day, I found him shopping in a Wal-Mart. Just like my friend who claimed to be a Socialist, this man was shopping in a Wal-Mart. I did not have to say anything to him, but once he saw me there, his face turned red and he walked away. The next class he kicked me out when I argued that the Bosnian genocide was real. In fact, I had just seen a video of Bosnians being killed, execution style, by Communist forces. He told me that the video was fake, and then he kicked me out of class. He could not deal with the truth, so he got rid of me... typical Socialist thought.
I know that we live in a Capitalist society. Socialists and Communists have to live by making money in the society that exists. But when they shop at Wal-Mart (instead of local âMa and Paâ stores), or when they sell drugs for unbelievable profits, or when they support a mass killer like Che, they are being complete hypocrites. I have to wonder about the devotion of these so called âSocialistsâ and âCommunists.â They can claim to be economic left-wingers all they want, but by their actions, they cannot deny their love for Capitalism.
HiddenDistance: Well it's apparent he was getting mad or frustraited because the guy acts like he's never lost a debate. He said these exact words after trying to contradict something I retorted:
Also... why have your previously decent arguments devolved into this? You seem to be disintegrating rapidly. Either post something intelligent or lose with some dignity dude.
After that I decided I has enough of this guy's remarks. That one was just stupid and had nothing to do with socialism or why capitalism is better than it. Besides resorting to that nonsense tells me he isn't debating for fun anymore. So I just left him to suck in whatever victory he kept saying he had.
And I read the entire debate, otherwise I wouldn't have facepalmed. He made that remark(worthy of a facepalm), then you dropped the debate by insulting him. (Also worthy of a facepalm.)
It's not his fault for taking the debate seriously, and it's not your fault you stopped. But both of you made somewhat childish remarks which threw a wrench in the debate.
I didn't make any childish remarks, I just kept trying at and then stopped when he began insulting me, why continue a crooked debate? And to prove I didn't stop because I was out of points, i'll respond one last time.
Provide proof, with examples please.
Well he just said that I can't express myself the way I want because this is a "rivate site". So I would argue that yes, my rights are restricted because this site does not belong to the people!
Better at making money, for sure.
Ok, well why should he get to tell me what to do? This is our country, not his. I think it should belong to the people as a whole. Not have part of it belong to some stranger with more money than me.
Dude.. there's limits to everything under a government. By your logic, we should throw socialism & capitalism out the window because anarchy offers people more rights. With any government that has *laws* you have restrictions. You can't blame that on capitalism. Also... why have your previously decent arguments devolved into this? You seem to be disintegrating rapidly. Either post something intelligent or lose with some dignity dude.
I said everything I'm going to say about that little blip.
Ok, well why should he get to tell me what to do? This is our country, not his. I think it should belong to the people as a whole. Not have part of it belong to some stranger with more money than me.
wow an opposite flash? replace that guy with the govt. and you have some communism
@Hidden Distance, beating down your opponent is effective, yet also a fast way to lose the debater
@VoteSocialist he insulted you, so what? your quitting over mere words? arguments always have debris and if you point that out it gets worse because your directing it towards that rather than the fight at hand
Well he just said that I can't express myself the way I want because this is a "rivate site". So I would argue that yes, my rights are restricted because this site does not belong to the people!
i think of rights moreover as privileges. you have restriction in every place, that's what govt. is for! if this site belonged to the people then it would be ruined due to opinions
@VoteSocialist he insulted you, so what? your quitting over mere words? arguments always have debris and if you point that out it gets worse because your directing it towards that rather than the fight at hand
I decided not to, I'm well over that whole thing. But the debates nowadays just aren't like they were when I first came here. Fewer and fewer people are posting thoughtful responses with sources. The amount of odd off topic posts is well on the rise. But then again, debating is always food for the brain as a friend of mine once put it.
Well he just said that I can't express myself the way I want because this is a "rivate site". So I would argue that yes, my rights are restricted because this site does not belong to the people!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
That has nothing to do with him asking you to back up your argument.
Well he just said that I can't express myself the way I want because this is a "rivate site". So I would argue that yes, my rights are restricted because this site does not belong to the people!
Graham pegged this remark pretty well.
I'm being objective here - I'd consider myself friends with both you *and* Hidden. He posted something a little too aggressive, and you overreacted. You *both* messed up.
i think of rights moreover as privileges. you have restriction in every place, that's what govt. is for! if this site belonged to the people then it would be ruined due to opinions
For the sake of clean debating I shall repeat my argument once more.
The democratic socialism which is the pinnacle of my ideals does not advocate direct control over the means of production by the federal government, that type of socialism has proven to be a complete failure in most places. Sweden, for example has a state funded market economy. One that does not subject the entire populace to brutal totalitarian rule.
Now to the point. Democratic socialism is when the people control the means of production, sound familiar? The tax payers make all of the decisions. They basically make all of the decisions that the upper management CEOs would normally make under capitalism. What's the difference? Since there is more income equality and the worker's knowledge that if their company fails, they'll loose their jobs and will only get the bare minimum that the government can offer them. So they must work hard for each other and ultimately the success of the company. Afraid that someone is going to slack off expecting an equal share? Actually, the workers will penalise their coworkers for not helping out as much. And they'll offer praise to whomever contributed the most and worked the hardest for the over all well being of the company.
So as you see, the government isn't making the decisions in a democratic socialist system, the workers are. The government is just there to fund the building, collect income taxes, pass bill through congress, pretty much most federal jobs purposes they would serve under a capitalist economy. In socialism, think of the government more as back up, not the owners.
In fact, since there are no CEOs hogging all of the wealth, the average middle class family can make even more money under socialism than they would under capitalism. So don't worry about the overall standard of living, because if all goes well, it is sure to go up for the lower and middle class.
I'm being objective here - I'd consider myself friends with both you *and* Hidden. He posted something a little too aggressive, and you overreacted. You *both* messed up.
Hrm, I think it would be best for all of us if we just accepted the fact that both I and comrade Hidden did some pretty childish things for our age. Let us bask in the glory of debating and forget all our animosity that we once held. I will take full responsibility for the heating up of things. Just because one does something bad, that didn't make it right for me to strike back like the U.S. did after the Pearl Harbor incident.
and it starts again, dun dun dunnn (my posts can only be 256 char due to ps3 internet)
So they must work hard for each other and ultimately the success of the company.
good intent does not always work out for success
, the workers will penalise their coworkers for not helping out as much
many false penalisations would occur due to human error
And they'll offer praise to whomever contributed the most and worked the hardest for the over all well being of the company.
human selfishness and greed would fall into play here
What's the difference?
experience as to see what works and what doesn't, sure there could be better ways to do something but would the output be able to save a company after investing in new ways? a quote i recall from thomas edison went something like this: there are 1000 ways to make a lightbulb not work, but only 1 way to make it work
good theory but i cannot see how this would work in the real world
common sense isn't common, opinions would clash = compromise or war. you cannot just expect there will be no conflict
In fact, since there are no CEOs hogging all of the wealth
if you work hard, you should be rewarded. if you aren't then will you want to work hard again? some stereotype set by one CEO shouldn't be used for all... a voice is screaming in my head that i should say they are the biggest charity givers. that is flawed because it would work on the same ratio as a poor person giving little. some statistic in the back of my head says that 2% of rich peoples inherited it...