6 ms·

Socialism makes every other person a potential enemy and a potential victim. Resources are scarce. People come to hate one another. Capitalism makes every othe

by javert 13y ago

Socialism makes every other person a potential enemy and a potential victim. Resources are scarce. People come to hate one another. Capitalism makes every other person at worst a neutral non-threat and at best a potential trading partner. Resources are plentiful. People feel benevolent towards one another. This is not an apology for America; America is only semi-capitalist. You can see Americans getting meaner over time as the country shifts more in the socialist direction. There is less everday that makes America distinct from Europe.

wavefunction 13y ago
You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist? How do you square that with what you've written?
- pilsetnieks 13y ago
  On a tangential note, it's not quite right to call the European system socialist. "Social democracy" might be more correct, otherwise people confuse it with communist socialism which is an entirely different regime with much more negative connotations. There are very few things in common between the systems in, say, Sweden and Soviet Russia.
  - this_user 13y ago
    As a European I find it interesting how Americans have started to completely misusing the term 'socialism' especially over the last couple of years. Even those who don't fit the die-hard right-wing profile seem to have started calling any kind of social welfare 'socialsm' without realising what actual socialism looks like.
    - seszett 13y ago
      To me, what's surprising is the contrary: that people call communism "socialism". While here in France, our Socialist Party (in power right now) has always been far from communism. It feels strange to me to call social welfare anything other than socialism. Maybe it's just a case of French socialisme and English socialism being false friends.
      - this_user 13y ago
        That's a good point and there seem to exist different understandings of the term in different countries. I do wonder where this comes from. In Germany Sozialismus is always understood in the marxist sense and it is furthermore inseperable from the political system of the German Democratic Republic. I am not privy to the finer points of the French Socialist's political agenda, but from my understanding they roughly resemble our Social Democrats.
      - oblio 13y ago
        It's because most communist parties in the Eastern Block were initially (or even always) called socialist parties. And many Eastern Block countries were named "socialist republics". Heck, U S S R.
        epsylon 13y ago
        Well, North Korea (and many other dictatorships) are technically "democratic republics"... Doesn't mean that they are.
        oblio 13y ago
        True, and so were all the socialist regimes I mentioned. But after tens of years of propaganda by the communists, the name tends to stick. After the fall of communism, it sticks in a bad way: socialism = communism. I think that the best people to ask are those that lived under "socialist" regimes (I'm one of them). If I ask almost anybody I know that lived under a socialist regime, they'll probably say the same. Maybe theoretically socialism is a different thing, but practically it really isn't for a lot of people.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      We're not misusing it. We support socialism. Social democracy is just the first step. Today increased budget for food stamps, tomorrow the world, that sort of thing.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- kzrdude 13y ago
  > You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? Only if you use the american dictionary.
- javert 13y ago
  > You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? Yep. I would even include America in that, just to a slightly lesser extent. > That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist? Well, who are you comparing to? There aren't really any or many relatively free countries (and there never have been more than 1 or 2 at a time in all of history). It's not true if you compare it to 19th century America in terms of happiness, nor modern-day Singapore in terms of quality of life. (In fact, a pet has a better quality of life than a typical American, since they have better access to healthcare.) > How do you square that with what you've written? I hope I've answered your question.
Gonzih 13y ago
Do you realize that socialism was born because of struggling workers in capitalism based societies?
pyre 13y ago
> Socialism makes every other person a potential enemy and a potential victim. Resources are scarce. People come to hate one another. You're taking a look at countries that have implemented 'socialism' and ended up with what amounts to dictatorships. Do you really think that Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx included someone like Stalin, or the corrupt officials that inhabited governments in the Eastern Bloc? For all of the rhetoric that the far-right sling around in the US about the evils of Socialism, even they have Socialist policies. The government regulates, picks winners, keeps companies afloat that are 'too big to fail,' Social Security and other welfare programs, etc. Don't confuse situations where neighbors reports other neighbors who then 'disappear' as having anything to do with Communism or Socialism (or than that they have historically resided together).
- wmgries 13y ago
  Regulation and Keynesian policies are not socialism.
- jedmeyers 13y ago
  Karl Marx should have envisioned that someone like Stalin might exist in the future and will take over the power, otherwise his perfect Communism system is only applicable to perfect people.
  - Demiurge 13y ago
    Perhaps it is also not applicable to geopolitical co-existance with imperialist countries like Nazi Germany and the USA?
  - javert 13y ago
    Communism is bad in practice, but it's also bad in theory. It's not like if people were more moral, or more rational, or if we had the government run by a smart computer, communism would be possible. Setting that aside, there's also no reason to prefer communism over a free market, or pretty much anything. tl;dr don't grant it moral credit.
- pandaman 13y ago

by javert 13y ago

wavefunction 13y ago

You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist? How do you square that with what you've written?

pilsetnieks 13y ago
On a tangential note, it's not quite right to call the European system socialist. "Social democracy" might be more correct, otherwise people confuse it with communist socialism which is an entirely different regime with much more negative connotations. There are very few things in common between the systems in, say, Sweden and Soviet Russia.
- this_user 13y ago
  As a European I find it interesting how Americans have started to completely misusing the term 'socialism' especially over the last couple of years. Even those who don't fit the die-hard right-wing profile seem to have started calling any kind of social welfare 'socialsm' without realising what actual socialism looks like.
  - seszett 13y ago
    To me, what's surprising is the contrary: that people call communism "socialism". While here in France, our Socialist Party (in power right now) has always been far from communism. It feels strange to me to call social welfare anything other than socialism. Maybe it's just a case of French socialisme and English socialism being false friends.
    - this_user 13y ago
      That's a good point and there seem to exist different understandings of the term in different countries. I do wonder where this comes from. In Germany Sozialismus is always understood in the marxist sense and it is furthermore inseperable from the political system of the German Democratic Republic. I am not privy to the finer points of the French Socialist's political agenda, but from my understanding they roughly resemble our Social Democrats.
    - oblio 13y ago
      It's because most communist parties in the Eastern Block were initially (or even always) called socialist parties. And many Eastern Block countries were named "socialist republics". Heck, U S S R.
      - epsylon 13y ago
        Well, North Korea (and many other dictatorships) are technically "democratic republics"... Doesn't mean that they are.
        oblio 13y ago
        True, and so were all the socialist regimes I mentioned. But after tens of years of propaganda by the communists, the name tends to stick. After the fall of communism, it sticks in a bad way: socialism = communism. I think that the best people to ask are those that lived under "socialist" regimes (I'm one of them). If I ask almost anybody I know that lived under a socialist regime, they'll probably say the same. Maybe theoretically socialism is a different thing, but practically it really isn't for a lot of people.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    We're not misusing it. We support socialism. Social democracy is just the first step. Today increased budget for food stamps, tomorrow the world, that sort of thing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
kzrdude 13y ago
> You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? Only if you use the american dictionary.
javert 13y ago
> You do realize that most of Western Europe is socialist? Yep. I would even include America in that, just to a slightly lesser extent. > That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist? Well, who are you comparing to? There aren't really any or many relatively free countries (and there never have been more than 1 or 2 at a time in all of history). It's not true if you compare it to 19th century America in terms of happiness, nor modern-day Singapore in terms of quality of life. (In fact, a pet has a better quality of life than a typical American, since they have better access to healthcare.) > How do you square that with what you've written? I hope I've answered your question.

Gonzih 13y ago

Do you realize that socialism was born because of struggling workers in capitalism based societies?

pyre 13y ago

> Socialism makes every other person a potential enemy and a potential victim. Resources are scarce. People come to hate one another. You're taking a look at countries that have implemented 'socialism' and ended up with what amounts to dictatorships. Do you really think that Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx included someone like Stalin, or the corrupt officials that inhabited governments in the Eastern Bloc? For all of the rhetoric that the far-right sling around in the US about the evils of Socialism, even they have Socialist policies. The government regulates, picks winners, keeps companies afloat that are 'too big to fail,' Social Security and other welfare programs, etc. Don't confuse situations where neighbors reports other neighbors who then 'disappear' as having anything to do with Communism or Socialism (or than that they have historically resided together).

wmgries 13y ago
Regulation and Keynesian policies are not socialism.
jedmeyers 13y ago
Karl Marx should have envisioned that someone like Stalin might exist in the future and will take over the power, otherwise his perfect Communism system is only applicable to perfect people.
- Demiurge 13y ago
  Perhaps it is also not applicable to geopolitical co-existance with imperialist countries like Nazi Germany and the USA?
- javert 13y ago
  Communism is bad in practice, but it's also bad in theory. It's not like if people were more moral, or more rational, or if we had the government run by a smart computer, communism would be possible. Setting that aside, there's also no reason to prefer communism over a free market, or pretty much anything. tl;dr don't grant it moral credit.
pandaman 13y ago