Do you find yourself agreeing with Socialism?

I dont know if I see the connection because I embraced the ideals of Socialism before I did Atheism. With that being said however yes Marxism and Atheism definitely go hand in hand. But I whole heartedly disagree with your statement that Socialism and Communism are synonymous, Communism is simply a branch of Socialism, for example latin american nations such as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are all currently in practice of Democratic Socialism but not Communism.

Socialism and capitalism are by no means opposites. On the contrary; well-implemented socialism implies capitalism, because capitalism combined with progressive taxation is the most efficient way of redistributing wealth. The countries that incorporate the most socialist ideas (mostly found in Scandinavia) indeed all run capitalist systems, while inequality in "socialist" nations like Cuba and China is much greater.

I'm also a socialist, but I couldn't really tell if it's due to my lack of beliefs. Capitalism has always been and still is, a system by which an elite exploit the people (and today the whole world).

I'm sort of socialist, but sort of not. I think party lines are dumb, people should believe what they believe. I don't really think my political beliefs fit so easily into any category, although if pushed, I usually describe myself as a Socialist-Libertarian. But I'm not really in full agreement with either of those.
In any case, capitalism and socialism aren't opposites. Most Socialists I know are capitalists, they just don't believe that a free market has any sort of use unless there are enforced boundaries. Which I would have to agree with, seeing as more or less every major economic disaster in memory resulted from a lack of enforcement on monetary policies.

Socialism? No, thanks. :)

nm8732 said:
I love how socialism is like this big bad word anymore. I bet half of you don't even know what it is. The conservative media has brainwashed you into thinking - Socialism = evil as FUCK
I'm not socialist...just saying that maybe some of you guys should do some reading before you dismiss socialism as wrong.

Yes, Fox News has done its work very well. I haven't come across a single American who understands what socialism means. Or liberalism for that matter.

Master Onion said:
KazetNagorra said:
Yes, Fox News has done its work very well. I haven't come across a single American who understands what socialism means. Or liberalism for that matter.

Fox News is not the culprit. It's actually a cultural thing, much older than any right-wing news channel.

Personally, as an enthusiastic supporter of the Free Software/Open Source meritocracy-style movement that I am and as much as I like the idea of a Star Trek-style society, where everyone is free to pursue whatever they like instead of having to deal with one's own survival first, I don't believe in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" kind of revolution. Sadly, the proletarian class is actually much too easy to manipulate, specially without good public education and the vested interested of the dominant class in maintaining the poor ignorant.

Besides, there are some self-regulated socio-economic mechanisms that are taken for granted in capitalistic systems that don't seem quite to work in theoretical socialistic systems, but I digress since IANAE (= I Am Not An Economist).

("Theoretical", because Soviet communism is, according to self-proclaimed communists, fake communism.)

It is interesting, however, how utopian societies depicted in science fiction are usually the result of much more social-changing agents, like matter replicators in Star Trek or the end of death in Cory Doctorow's Down and Out the Magic Kingdom. :)

Socialism is not as theoretical as it may seem. While communism has failed for obvious reasons (lack of accountability), the other main side of the socialistic spectrum, social-democracy, has succeeded, particularly in Scandinavia, but it is a significant movement in most European countries. In the abstract, socialism strives simply for equality of oppurtunity amongst social classes, genders and ethnic groups. This is achieved in practise by combining a capitalistic system with high taxation of the rich and high degrees of redistrubution of wealth.

The irony of the matter is that it's much easier to fulfill the American Dream in a country such as Sweden, Denmark or Norway than in the US itself.

Master Onion said:
Well, with such a vague definition of socialism it's hard to be against that, just as it's very hard not to acknowledge capitalism's terrible shortcomings. But how does one come around and achieve those things? Socialism actually accommodates so many different points of view, it's much more than just a system of mixed economy, that I don't think I can choose a small branch of socialism (better described as social democracy) and say that "I agree with socialism", it doesn't make sense to me to use such a peculiar definition, specially one that refutes two important key figures (Marx and Engel) ideas of social revolution through class struggle. But then again, I am not a political scientist or economist. ;)

But if, among other things, supporting the idea of good public education and health care is socialism, then sure, I am a socialist. :)Well, there is a third very important figure in the history of socialism, John Stuart Mill, the founder of social-liberalism (though I don't think he called it that way). His ideas have had a significant impact on political thinking in Europe. But I agree, "socialism" is so broad that saying "I am (not) a socialist" is a pretty meaningless statement much akin to "I like food".

That depends on the current definition of "the American dream", whatever that is or used to be. If it means "getting rich the fastest", I am sure litigious prosecution in the US is unmatched worldwide. :)Well, if you take "the American Dream" as a metaphor for class mobility, then my point is valid.

Hanidu disse:
I'm a libertarian.
Socialism kills liberties, even if socialism means public education or health care, it creates monopoly for some services and has a tendence to become communism.

I don't believe the claim that "socialism has a tendency to become communism." I don't think, for instance, that countries that have currently adopted social democracy are becoming communists. If anything, social democracy is in decline and being replaced by regular capitalism.

If there would be private education, the money for school would be paid directly to the school, without any officers. There would be no taxes for public education - people would have more money (for education, if they want to learn something, or for something else if they don't want to. It's simple.).

Well, what about poor people that can't afford private education? Wouldn't you be completely denying them or their children access to even basic education? Where are the opportunities for people who happened to be born poor?

I don't believe the claim that "socialism has a tendency to become communism." I don't think, for instance, that countries that have currently adopted social democracy are becoming communists.
I don't try to say that socialism is straight way to communism. In socialism government tries to 'help' people, and people get used to go with their problems to agencies. Everyone wants something, teacher wants more money, catholic gets angry when someone says that euthanasia isn't bad, feminist claim that using 'Mr.' or 'Mrs.' forms is some kind of discrimination, whatever, and if government want to govern it must do something with these problems. It means more and more rules, more control, higher taxes, and somewhere there in the end of this long, long journey is communism.

If anything, social democracy is in decline and being replaced by regular capitalism.
I don't agree.
European Union for instance is one big bureaucratic, socialistic organisation, it controls more and more aspects of life, economy slowly becomes planned economy.
In USA as I know in order to war with financial crysis banks and some other parts of economy gets nationalized. (As in Europe)
In China there is socialism.

Well, what about poor people that can't afford private education? Wouldn't you be completely denying them or their children access to even basic education? Where are the opportunities for people who happened to be born poor?
I don't deny anything.
I think basic education should be public. As 'basic' education I understand reading and writing. Why? People should be able to read law.
Any other education in my opinion should be private.

I've got one important question:
Why poor people are poor?

I think it's obvious: they are lazy. They don't want to work. If someone works, he gets money. The better he works, the higher salary he gets. And I think it's fair. There is no magic bag with money, if someone doesn't give anything to others, doesn't work, why should he get something from society? I think there is no reason to help these people.
People should fight for their rights themselves, there's nothing free on the world. Poor people are responsible for their status. People must be enterprising, their children education is their future.
One more thing:
If there was no public education people would get more respect for education, and they would try to learn more to get better job. Now a lot of people just walk to school, they doesn't learn and it's pointless.

Try verifying your 19th century economic dogma with facts. You will fail miserably.
Why do you think so? Which facts? Remember, that a lot of problems we fight with are generated by socialism. As Stefan Kisielewski said 'Socialism is a political system of heroic war with problems unknown to other systems.'

Hanidu said:
I don't try to say that socialism is straight way to communism. In socialism government tries to 'help' people, and people get used to go with their problems to agencies. Everyone wants something, teacher wants more money, catholic gets angry when someone says that euthanasia isn't bad, feminist claim that using 'Mr.' or 'Mrs.' forms is some kind of discrimination, whatever, and if government want to govern it must do something with these problems. It means more and more rules, more control, higher taxes, and somewhere there in the end of this long, long journey is communism.
That doesn't make any sense. So you think that communistic countries are totalitarian simply because people just want to meddle with other people's lives and not because of the one-party state system that wants complete control of political power, not allowing any divergence of opinions?

European Union for instance is one big bureaucratic, socialistic organisation, it controls more and more aspects of life, economy slowly becomes planned economy.
In USA as I know in order to war with financial crysis banks and some other parts of economy gets nationalized. (As in Europe)
In China there is socialism.
That's just silly. The EU is a political and economic union of very different countries, it's not a socialistic organisation. BTW, just have a look at the number of social democratic parties adopting "third way" policies that privatise some state-controlled companies.

And do you think that what the US did puts it right there among socialistic countries? Don't make me laugh.

I think basic education should be public. As 'basic' education I understand reading and writing. Why? People should be able to read law.
Any other education in my opinion should be private.
Now you are just contradicting yourself. Any kind of public education ("basic" or not) needs taxation. But you said that "there would be no taxes for public education."

And how could reading and writing ever be enough? There would be no real opportunities for the poor.

I've got one important question:
Why poor people are poor?

I think it's obvious: they are lazy.
This is so shocking I don't know where to begin... Well, I am not. Ciao.