The Reality Of Pure Socialism

If government would just mandate banks provide loans based solely on need, totally disregarding ones ability to repay, then everyone could live happily ever after.

But then isn't that about what government is doing now, but in a more round about way?

 

Problem with banks is, that if you already have and don't need, you get the money. If you need and don't have--they won't give you any.

 

scratchem wins !!!! We should all live in "oby" land. Eat the rich. Blame the koch's and kick the can. I'm retiring . Too much BS for me. Ah , how long do you give obamunism? Seriously?

 

Ahhhh--he's no different than any of the rest of 'em. They get clued in as to how things work before they even get in office. It's get it while you can, don't even THINK about bucking the HUGE money people--just relax and get your share and shut the fuck up or there may be a reversion to the "kennedy solution". The oil people OWN this country.

 

What would you say the "kennedy solution" was? Asking bobby to come sniff Marilyn? Or perhaps finding semi-tard bro ted a part time summer job as a "lifeguard" off the Chappaquidick coast?

 

I'd say it was killing the shit out of 'em for going against those they shouldn't have gone against. I guess the liberals did it, eh??

 

Ha , interesting point. Well , an ISLAMIC TERRORIST killed bro Bobby ; and well , just heard another very interesting interview with Mark Lane , yet , still questioning the "wandering single bullet" theory. Truth could be stranger than fiction. More fascinating than any of todays diversions.

 

The reality of government? Actually, I believe socialism can work quite well at a small scale.

 

there is no such thing as an ideology of socialism, there is instead,
what is called "socialism", is not letting fanaticism of ideology, stand in the way of doing the right thing.

when a country earns its keep, without the tyranny of the dominance of aggressiveness, it gets labeled "socialist". that's all it is.

 

When a country earns its' keep, it should be labeled 'productive' NOT 'socialist'.
When a government takes from those who are productive to provide who do not earn their keep it should be labeled 'socialist'.
When the people of each individual society within a country by choice provide charitable aid to those who are in need they should be labeled 'free'.

 

"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" is NOT Randian babble.
As best I can find it originated by Louis Blanc in 1851, and was also used by Marx in his 1875 'Critique of the Gotha Program', and as I understand it, it was the final goal of moving from a Socialist society to a utopian Communist society.

 

there is no such ideology as socialism.
it is what any nation gets labeled for trying to earn its keep, by those who find its attempting to do so, an inconvenience to their own dishonesty.

sorry but really. there is an ideology called marxism. there is communalism, which might optionally be ideological.

but there is really seriously no such thing as an ideology called socialism.

 

While I don't necessarily agree with what you just wrote, I have no problem using the term Marxist as a replacement for Socialist, but in reality the U.S.A. in the early 20th century laid the groundwork for becoming a Collectivist State, governed from the top which is, in my opinion, the source of the problems we are leaving for future generations to have to contend with.

 

Except for the cold war, emphasis on private enterprise, immigration, consumerism, every president since Carter, etc.

The US is one of the least collectivist societies in the world. I've lived in true collectivist societies in Asia, as well as socialist states in Scandinavia and I can tell you right now that the notion that the US is turning socialist or is in any way a left wing nation is the product of right wing propaganda.

 

That's true, and it's a noble goal.

Socialism is 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his contribution'.

Socialism is more about rewarding effort than socioeconomic class, while Communism assumes that consciousness has evolved to the point where people don't get hung up on ownership and entitlement and work because they know it's the right thing to do.

 

Well Rand did use it to illustrate one of her points ('Atlas shrugged' I believe it was) but thanks for the further background.

 

Any one older then high school age who thinks Rand is intelligent or deep has the brains of a rock. She's just a selfish women who tries to make being selfish a virtue.

"Socialism" does work but the problem is most people only think of the USSR and think that is what it is. No that was a corrupted vision of it. Like any form of goverment it is still possible for a select few to pervert it for their own end. Look at a country like Norway and tell me they are not happy. They are also free but they are socialist. America already practices socialism. What do you think SOCIAL security is? The goverment just gives you money because you paid taxes and are old. That is what it is. People just need to believe in it.

 

I don't know why you quoted me but you can save your insults and quasi-pedantry for someone else, because neither do I agree with Rands ideas, nor do I oppose socialism.

 

That was not my intention.