Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Can someone please explain in simple terms how socialism will or would affect me and my family, jobwise, prepwise, etc. Also how it differs from communism.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
Help me understand the affect of socialism
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Joined
·
32 Posts
You're already involved in socialism. Most govts are to a degree.
If you really hate socialism head for the mountains of Pakistand and go it alone or strike up with a tribe. No pesky govt and no "unearned" benefits.
What is your question, really? Obama reverting the tax rate from 36 back to 39 percent for people earning over 250k (where it was under Reagan) is not "socialism" btw.
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
Socialism will only require HALF of your money (what we have now in America) and...'provide'....certain services to the people, while communism will require ALL the money for same.
Under both 'systems' those at the top of course will need Armani suits, personal jets, diamond pinky rings and champagne and caviar to 'conduct' state affairs around the world in stark locations like....the Bahamas, Monte Carlo and New York City.
Under both 'systems' those at the top of course will need Armani suits, personal jets, diamond pinky rings and champagne and caviar to 'conduct' state affairs around the world in stark locations like....the Bahamas, Monte Carlo and New York City.
Joined
·
32 Posts
no we don't have that in the US. In countries like in the EU democratic socialism earns you health care and education and a dole.
In the US the money just gets spent on pork and wars. The worst of both worlds.
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
I guess am asking I hear all these people saying we are heading towards a socialist society and I dont understand how thats going to affect me. How will my job situation change? how will my living situation change? Will I be able to own guns or does that not have anything to do with it.
I am very serious when I say I dont understand it.
I am very serious when I say I dont understand it.
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
Worst case scenaro---HALF of everything you own (or more) goes to the STATE (government) to SHARE with the have-nots. Your parents die and leave you 100 acres. You lose 50 of them. EVERYTHING is for SOCIETY. No difference in healthcare, wage, retirement. Pretty much every advance YOU EARN goes to someone else for the benefit of society. Think medicare for all.
The only real difference between socialism and communism is that in communism, EVERYTHING is state property. No private ownership of land.
Joined
·
8,248 Posts
Worst case scenaro---HALF of everything you own (or more) goes to the STATE (government) to SHARE with the have-nots. Your parents die and leave you 100 acres. You lose 50 of them. EVERYTHING is for SOCIETY. No difference in healthcare, wage, retirement. Pretty much every advance YOU EARN goes to someone else for the benefit of society. Think medicare for all.
The only real difference between socialism and communism is that in communism, EVERYTHING is state property. No private ownership of land.
Joined
·
2,038 Posts
coinshooter, I´d love to try to give some light in this issue. But I don´t want anyone in my neck and blaming flames in a thread again, as I´ve experienced in the past. If you´re serious about this question please PM me and will do my best for putting my personal conception about it, and what I´ve experienced. I´m a Venezuelan and perhaps you could find it´s interesting what I could tell you.
Look forward to hear from you.-
Greg.
Look forward to hear from you.-
Greg.
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
Really you would lose the 50 acres or you would be taxed higher for them?
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
Would it matter?
If the state can do either, you do not 'own' it to begin with.
Property tax is just a form of this now. You do NOT own your land if you have to pay the government a tithe on it each year upon pain and threat of confiscation.
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
We have that already through eminent domain. From the explanations it does sound like we are already a socialist or at least partially or heading to a socialist society. Thank you for clearing this up for me. So I guess the next step would be communist society before finally going back to a democracy, which we would most likely not see in our lifetimes.
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
We are NOT a democracy. We are a Republic.
Democracy = mobocracy (mob rule) = socialism = communism.
This is the transition from one to the other.
Joined
·
58 Posts
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved. (Wikipedia)
This means that the government take the money from indiduals that it deems wealthy and gives it to those it deems as needy. And taxes are how they do this the united states right now has an average income tax at about 28% so socialist countries are: Italy 46%, Austria 47%, Hungary 48%, France 50%, Germany, 52% and the highest is Belgium at 65% and for these higher taxes we are given heath care, (we already have free schooling) I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m self employed and have to buy my own healthcare and it does not even come close to the amount I already give the goveremtn for taxes. And why would we think that the government will handle the money well, look a social security, that’s work great! The more the government supplies for us the more we have to keep them in power.
This means that the government take the money from indiduals that it deems wealthy and gives it to those it deems as needy. And taxes are how they do this the united states right now has an average income tax at about 28% so socialist countries are: Italy 46%, Austria 47%, Hungary 48%, France 50%, Germany, 52% and the highest is Belgium at 65% and for these higher taxes we are given heath care, (we already have free schooling) I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m self employed and have to buy my own healthcare and it does not even come close to the amount I already give the goveremtn for taxes. And why would we think that the government will handle the money well, look a social security, that’s work great! The more the government supplies for us the more we have to keep them in power.
Joined
·
130 Posts
It seems like our government does socialistic interventions to clean-up messes created by big business..corporations..greed..basically the "dark sides" of capitalism and free enterprise. When things get really screwed up like our economy, health care system, etc.. Our government then steps in and intervenes and tries to fix things and tries to level the playing field.
That leveling process usually only really hurts the middle class. The wealthy people are so rich, and lobby so hard to protect their assets, that they usually dont feel any change- the still have top health care and education, etc..
The poor people aren't really effected- on paper they are now usually entitled to something better, but often times they are too darned dumb or lazy to take advantage of it.
This leaves the middle class to bare the brunt of the costs, and it effects their lifestyles the most. But, what does the middle class due to keep from disrupting the status quo...do they go broke and move to the ghetto. No...they increase their work load, add to their stress, vacation less and pay their bills! While they work the rich sip martinis and the poor slurp malt liquor
On either end of the socio-economic spectrum there is a Leisure Class...funded and built by the Middle class (worker bees) the wealthy get richer on the sweat of the working people, and the poor get fatter and unhealthier off of that same sweat.
So what will socialism bring you? It depends were you are on the socio-economic ladder. It may bring you more free malt liquor and some eastern europe styled free health care, or it may not effect you and your family at all- if your money works for you instead of you working for your money.
But, if your a middle class wage earner, who works for your $$$, then it means more work with less rewards to maintain the same standard of living.
That leveling process usually only really hurts the middle class. The wealthy people are so rich, and lobby so hard to protect their assets, that they usually dont feel any change- the still have top health care and education, etc..
The poor people aren't really effected- on paper they are now usually entitled to something better, but often times they are too darned dumb or lazy to take advantage of it.
This leaves the middle class to bare the brunt of the costs, and it effects their lifestyles the most. But, what does the middle class due to keep from disrupting the status quo...do they go broke and move to the ghetto. No...they increase their work load, add to their stress, vacation less and pay their bills! While they work the rich sip martinis and the poor slurp malt liquor
On either end of the socio-economic spectrum there is a Leisure Class...funded and built by the Middle class (worker bees) the wealthy get richer on the sweat of the working people, and the poor get fatter and unhealthier off of that same sweat.
So what will socialism bring you? It depends were you are on the socio-economic ladder. It may bring you more free malt liquor and some eastern europe styled free health care, or it may not effect you and your family at all- if your money works for you instead of you working for your money.
But, if your a middle class wage earner, who works for your $$$, then it means more work with less rewards to maintain the same standard of living.
Joined
·
130 Posts
Kregner, I agree, I should edit my post. There is a dark side to "interupted" free enterprise.
An "economy" based on free enterprise is much like a naturally occuring "ecosystem". Every thing is tied together, and every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Unregulated free enterprise, in theory should work like a predator and prey relationship with wild animals. There might be a huge upturn and something BOOMs real big, but then that boom will have to bust (think coyote and rabbit poputlations...deer and wolf populations) eventually... any enterpise that gets too big, if it is running unscrupulously will bust and balance will be restored.
Thats a real problem with our meddling government- they are always trying to fix (regualte) both the economy and the ecosystem, instead of allowing things to follow a natural order.
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
I would certainly like to see some background to that. I can see the dark side of free enterprise every time I look at the dirty pool that Microsoft and Intel play.
Joined
·
130 Posts
I agree, in the short term.
But for free enterprise to truly run its course...it has to be long term (in theory) before something strikes balance. In the long-term there would be "self-regulating markets" because of interconnectedness (symbiotic relationships) between players
Joined
·
279 Posts
Not much time to write at the moment, but here is an interesting article I came across. Hope this helps. We can get into Solshenitsyn later...
“Daily Article by Richard J. Maybury | Posted on 11/20/1999
Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.
The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.
The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.
The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
What happened?
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.
Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
* * * * *
Mr. Maybury writes on investments.
This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.”
“Daily Article by Richard J. Maybury | Posted on 11/20/1999
Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.
It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.
The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.
The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.
The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.
In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.
But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
What happened?
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.
Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."
Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.
Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
* * * * *
Mr. Maybury writes on investments.
This article originally appeared in The Free Market, November 1985.”
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Join the discussion
