Why is socialism a bad thing?

glad to hear that you would just let them starve to death, freeze to death, die of dehydration

i have adopted seven cats already, in a small rented house, my landlady is unaware of this but is generally of a good nature [she's a socialist of sorts, a mennonite], so...

as far as spaying/neutering goes, i do not have the extra income to pay for this, nor the means to transport the cats, in fact, the older cats will not go into a trap

the nearest place that will do anything like low cost vet work is 30 miles away, a mighty long walk in the winter, the local vet is unhelpful

a friend of mine is trying to put together a private shelter but there is almost no support for her efforts in this help-your-friends-screw-your-neighbors [lots of libertarians] environment

mansionettes, careful, i almost lost my breakfast there, mostly from laughing, and i actually don't mind the town dying, being a buffalo commons man

no, life is not fair, and that is exactly why we need to go out of our way to be kindest to those who have it the toughest

 

Oh, i was afraid that you'd think that. (Especially since i sort of got in your face at the beginning of my post... )

But no ~ i'd do what i could, also. The thing is, i've come to understand that not only can i NOT do it all, i can't even do a goodly amount of it, and that i have to trust in God (or the LifeForce) to look out for His creatures.

Yeah, older cats are smart cats, that's for sure! The only way i've been able to trap smart/feral cats is with a HUGE trap, that i disguised, and LOTS of Tuna Fish! ROFL

Man, i can't do much, but i'd be more than willing to make a year's pledge of some money for the private shelter. You might even place an add in the Help Wanted Forum ~ WANTED: Animal-loving money mailers. Please send stamped, addressed envelope, WITH check for any amount, to - - - Hey! It could work...

Have y'all checked into the Federal Grant programs? (In fact, you might want to change it to a "Rescue Center" ~ they seem to do okay with getting grants.)

:rofl: The mansionettes are quite a bit larger than the usual farm house, and the way they're being restored (no pun intended) is pretty awesome! i ought to take some pix.

Glad i got a laugh out of you ~ sorry about the mess!

 

Sorry I did not read most of this thread.However socialism has many different definitions.But the short answer is Western European style 'socialism' is a very good thing.

 

Wow.

i Googled "Western European Socialism"

and it doesn't sound so hot...

 

fyrenza

thanks for toning it down a bit, i think you knew i was going to re-post in the animal advocates section

i understand about not being able to do it all, but i think that does not let me off the hook from doing what i can

btw, cats are not socialists

 

:rofl:

Cripes, i didn't even know we HAD an Animal Advocates forum!

i'll be looking for your post!

 

Democratic socialism works, and works quite well.

 

Libertarian socialism would be ideal! And any form of socialism based on anarchist principles. Individual rights must be maintained but services can be offered equally for everyone. People would have absolute right to their bodies, and be able to put anything in their bodies and be able to have any form of consensual sex. The Earth on the other hand will be shared in common. Extended property applies to only those machines in use......and even then we can delegate them as possession rather than property.

Such a libertarian socialist society should be self-sufficient and self-reliant.......with every economy decentralized. Individual communes like the old days will be the norm......perhaps no more than 100-1,000 people per commune, to keep efficiency and cooperation at maximum. This will give plenty of room for people to live the way they choose, instead of all property being owned by some government or corporation.

 

EVERY kind of socialism sounds great,

in theory...

 

it could be argued that the hutterites are essentially socialistic

not as followers of feuerbach or fourier or marx, but a religious communalism

while they have not taken the world by storm, some might consider that to be a good thing

they bake nice things and bring them to glendive, so me likey

 

If you're speaking of Canada,

tell me how you feel about your leaders climbing into bed with Bush,

and, without a single word about the Big Pic and end game to the citizenry,

joined into the NAFTA, and effectively made Canada another state (or two),

as well as joining y'all's economy, and government, with ours AND Mexicos?

'Cuz see? THAT's how socialism works ~ the common schmoe doesn't need to concern themselves with the decisions of government, which is ONLY doing {whatever} for the good of the people.

And that's the bottom line FAIL of socialism ~ people don't respond to being ordered about very well, especially when the things they're ordered to do don't coincide with the individuals ambitions.

i have no idea of the level of your education, but let's just say you made it through High School, and maybe a year of college, where you were majoring in, say, photo journalism. You have some great skills, but, when it comes time for you to be assigned to an employment position, the state decides that they need more nurses, and don't want any camera-bugs.

So now, regardless of what you'd like to be doing, you're stuck like Chuck doing something you don't like, and you aren't doing it as well as you would have been, had it been YOUR choice.

If the state decides that they need a million ditch-diggers so that new water/sewer lines can be laid EVERYWHERE, guess what? You could very well find yourself doing that job.

In a socialism, there is no independant spirit ~ in fact, that type of spoilled "uniqueness" would have to be quashed. EVERYONE must work at whatever the state decides is in the best interests of the whole.

Ants...

 

Exactly!

Christians are to live socialistically ~ but by CHOICE, not by FORCE. We are to share of ourselves, our money, everthing that we've been given, but we get to actually SEE the causes we're contributing to, and we're allowed to exercise judgement regarding our giving.

i know ~ i've said this before ~

You can't force people to care or be nice.

 

I do all of those things by choice and I resent being compared to Christians. None of them whom I've met are even close to living the lifestyle that Christ espoused. Organized religion is no better than organized Socialism. It's an efficient way for a few to exert total control over many.

 

Wow.

Sorry if i offended your (tender?) sensibilities

but the Christians i hang around? We each have a very personal relationship with our God ~ no one presumes to tell anyone else how nor what they should think about what the Bible says to them.

Well, anyway, does this mean we're off for the ball?

 

Eh. I feel terrible that Stephen Harper likes Bush. But I'm far from surprised. He's a far right-winger neocon.

As for NAFTA, that's not Democratic Socialism. In fact, our Social Democrat Party sternly and strongly opposed NAFTA secret meetings and agreements. They campaigned on abolishing it for several years, and have recently sort of mulled the idea since they represent a large number of working class families who depend on foreign interests.

So, in fact, the socialists oppose NAFTA in Canada and sternly want to abolish the SOA, the SPP, the Amero, etc. all that stuff.

All of the socialists I know are FAR more involved in government and concerned with politics than any anarchist, libertarian, or centrist combined.

I don't think Americans have a good grasp of the ideological paradigm, particularly when it comes to "isms" that apply to countries outside of the USA. There seems to be a blockage in communication whenever I make attempts to discuss it.

 

WOW. You are so brain-washed I'm dumber for just reading that. And I'm not trying to offend you, either. Believe me. But that's the most narrow-minded thing I have ever heard of.

Socialism isn't about giving ultimate dictatorship to the State and limitless authority to tell me what job I am assigned to. But that's cute. I thought I was reading an Orwell novel with that little hypothetical example.

A democratic socialism is what I'd like you to Google, please. I'm talking about a 'yellow socialism' that exists out there that totally rejects Marxist theory and Communism. I mean, that is what Democratic Socialism is founded on to some extent - they reject the slip and pull towards anything Communist. The idea of a social democracy within a mixed economy frame work.

Here, I'll help you to better understand the terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism

 

I never said that there AREN'T any proper Christians out there. Just that I've never met one.

If you don't have a problem going to the inaugural ball with a Socialist, Neopagan, Primitive, I don't have a problem going to the inaugural ball with a Capitalist, Christian, Texan.

 

Sorry that reading my post "dumbed you down," but you have yet to point to any examples of the ideology that you propound as being ~ well, all of those titles. In fact, i gleaned this from that first link:

And i'm sorry, but i really don't want to spend my time studying/reading about any type of socialism.

It doesn't work, especially not if you intend to have a massive government presence in place as an OverSeer AND an Upper Class who will leave before they give up their freedom of choice and their possessions.

i tried to use an analogy that you might find abhorent, and it appears that you did, but let's picture a real-life situation that would HAVE to be implemented in order to have even a basic socialism ~

WATER

My folks live out on a ranch. It's 4 miles (6.5 km) to get to their place, on one of the 2-lane "highways." From the other, it's 2 miles (3.25 km), and we're talking about one lane, DIRT roads that are practically impassable in wet weather.

There are some other folks that live out there, but not very many ~ perhaps 15 others.

Okay, we go socialist. The state begins pumping all of the underground aquifers down to the point that we now need "city water." The nearest Water Service is 30 miles (48.25 km) away. i have no idea where the water treatment facilities are, but besides needing to get the water TO us, they'd also have to lay pipes to carry away sewage.

Do you have any earthly idea how much something like that would COST??? To give you some sort of idea, when my folks got their electricity, they had to pay for the poles and lines to be installed. To run those lines for about 2 miles (3.25 km) cost in excess of $5,000 USD. That was 25 years ago.

That's just ONE of the "basic services," and any wealth that is available to be spread around would certainly be used to provide basic services to every citizen, eh?


This ideology isn't something that is so cut-and-dried, that there could be some quick, easy answer, and we've seen too many examples of how it can all go wrong, with very few examples of it actually working.

 

Fyrenza,

I think you failed to see what I was saying in my last post. I agree that nothing should be forced upon anyone.....that really isn't the point. You are basically saying in your posts that socialism cannot work because no one wants some state, overseer, upper class, ect. to force everyone to to share the wealth....or whatever else. This again assumes that socialism is only about the variety that Stalin and the like tried to force upon people. But this has nothing to do with socialism and the freedom that is essential in any socialist soceity.

You can't have equality without freedom. That is why all those countries claiming to be the ideal socialist/communist system failed. Now let's take for example Anarchist Spain during the the 30s......the system established there actually worked without any of the major failures found in other "socialist" states. If the US and UK helped them against fascist Franco during the civil war there would be a shining example of socialism with autonomy.

There have been countless other pre-modern examples throughout history....many parts of the world had a system where things were shared in common and decentralized. This even exists to a certain extent to this day in tribal societies. And not to mention such societies were the norm before the neolithic revolution......before established religion, war, and slavery that absolute property rights triggered.

Libertarian socialism would look something like everyone living like they are family. You don't expect profit from your community because everyone in the community is expected to share everything as if they are family. This is not to say people will not have the rights to their own possessions......the bottom line is that one individual, family, or group of people will not end up monopolizing all the land and wealth at the expense of others. Barter and the like would be allowed obviously in respect to the general ethic of liberty.....basically the community just works together to provide everything equally to everyone with the littelest of effort. Self-sufficiency would still be the norm meaning you will get to keep much of the product of your labor.

Read up a bit on;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

 

Libertarian socialism? That very term makes no sense as the two contradict each other. Libertarians supposedly believe in a decentralized government, while socialists believe in centralized government. The aspects of centralized government control pretty much contradict everything libertarians appear to believe in, which centers around the belief that governments can not provide freedom but only take freedom away.