[Miercaky]

What is it with people that they don't understand that collectivism, in all its forms (socialism, communism, Nazism, etc.) just doesn't work? Even today, after the famous failure of communism (a form of socialism) worldwide do we see such an organization as Social Democrats USA, still promoting socialism as if it were a working system.

LACK OF INCENTIVE

There are many factors that doom socialism, but the main one is a complete lack of incentive. Under a complete socialist society, we are "taken care of from cradle to grave." Thus, there is no reason for any of us to work because we will make the same, regardless. If there is no incentive to work, most of us won't. That's proven by the fact that welfare recipients number more than 50% of the American population. That leads to the fact that more than half of the population of the United States is "riding in the wagon," producing nothing, while the rest of us do the pushing. They do not produce anything, they just take what we are willing to give them and demand more. One day the "pushers" of the wagon will realize how we're being used and will stop pushing.

That's when a socialist society will collapse, just as the communist society in Russia did, through lack of production because of lack of incentive to produce.

THE PROFIT MOTIVE

The world wonders why the United States has grown so big and powerful with only a 250 year history. But many of them refuse to accept the idea that "the profit motive" and thus capitalism, are responsible. They just can't understand how an individual can make something someone else desires, and sell it for more than it cost to make. The difference is "profit," and profit is the "grease" that makes the "wheels of commerce" continue to turn. Without profit (new wealth), the "wheels of commerce" will come to a halt.

INDIVIDUAL TO BIG CORPORATION

Anybody heard of Amway? Big corporation making a lot of money for itself, right? People forget that Amway started in the garage of one of its founders and GREW to the multi-million dollar corporation it is today because it served a need, and served it well. Did it steal anything from the individual as it grew? NO. Some socialist types think that because ALL Amway de4alers didn't get rich, they somehow stole something from them. They did not. They have been very careful to make it very inexpensive to get into Amway, not requiring big inventory purchases as did other companies. They tailored their system to make it UNNECESSARY to buy large quantities of inventory they did not have sold. In fact, they PROHIBITED the purchase of a certain percentage more inventory than was sold the next month. That's how this large, rich corporation grew from a garage-based enterprise into such a giant. Profiting the INDIVIDUAL as they went along the way.

MACINTOSH

This company also started in the basement or garage of its original owners. It grew simply by providing a superior product everybody (including me) wanted to buy. I was using Pagemaker 1.01 on a 512k MacIntosh in 1985! At the time, it was the ONLY computer system that had a desktop publishing system, which was what I was interested in. For a FULL YEAR thereafter, there was NO desktop publishing system worth the name on the market. Today there are many.

Yes, Microsoft eclipsed them in sales with what is known to be a lesser product, but one that was PUBLICIZED well. But both companies stole NOTHING from ANYBODY in their rise. Some CLAIM Microsoft stole what became MS/DOS, their famous (for many years) operating system. The system that made Bill Gates rich. But he did not. IBM owned what BECAME MS/DOS but they didn't know what they had. Gates bought their system, improved it, and marketed it well, not only making Bill Gates rich, but many others involved in its development and promotion, as well. MacIntosh too, created many millionaires and even more people who are "well-to-do" as they promoted and marketed the second-most popular computer on the market.

COMMUNIST CHINA

Many are marveling over how Communist China is doing so well in the world markets, ignoring the fact that they are prospering because they are operating as CAPITALISTS, regardless of their communist jargon. They produce goods much cheaper than we can because they use a lot of slave labor. Further, the annual pay of the average Chinese is a lot less than Americans earn, even if they aren't "slaves," per se. Thus China can undersell America and most of the other countries of the world on the world market and are thus doing well.

CUBA

Many liberals are "Crowing" over how well Cuba (which is communist) is doing so well and has lasted so long. Firstly, it has only lasted so long over the dead bodies of those who died trying to escape that "island prison." Try and find a car in Cuba that is younger than the 1950s -- unless it is a government-owned car. The infrastructure in Cuba is crumbling and the people are starving as Castro puts millions, maybe even billions of dollars into his personal accounts. He is now known as one of the richest men in the world (Which he'd rather the world didn't know), all of which was stolen from his "people." That's what happens under socialism. The "people" suffer while the people in the government, especially the higher-ups, become rich on the backs of the "peasants." Yet part of their "song-and-dance" is how corporations in the U. S. steal from the poor and enrich themselves. That doesn't add up: how can you steal from someone who has nothing? Corporations become big by "doing the bidding" of the people better than their competitors. The government in America operates pretty much in the same way as all governments today do: they convince the people that "prosperity" depends upon how much money the GOVERNMENT is "raking in" and they tax everything they can, two or three, or more times.

We need to quit "buying" the fiction that collectivism CAN work if it is ever done properly. It can't ever be "done properly" because its very basic premise is flawed. We need to understand that.

[Stoner]

Ray Thomas.

[Stoner]

Social Democrats:

http://www.socialdemocrats.org/

SD, USA is the successor to the Socialist Party, USA, the party of Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas and Bayard Rustin and is a member of the Socialist International

[Mulderator]

Today, "Social Democrat" and "Democrat" are synonymous. The party has moved completel away from capitalism and towards socialism. In fact, it is common for the party and its members to demonize capitalism (and you'll see them do it on this board).

[linskyjack]

LOL--happiness quotients show that the happiest of peoples are the ones who live in countries that someone like Mulder would call socialist, but in fact are capitalist with massive social welfare nets (and thus high tax rates!) The leader of the pack is Iceland, with Sweden and a couple of others at the top.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_hap_net

[bassetman]

](Arlo) Guthrie’s perception of humanity and political ideas were grounded in an agrarian legacy of protest in Oklahoma, where a strong Socialist Party operated before the First World War, along with a Christian tradition that Jesus was the champion of the poor and meek, who would inherit the earth and drive the money changers out of the temple.

http://hnn.us/articles/13445.html

[Fidelista]

[QUOTE=
CUBA

The "people" suffer while the people in the government, especially the higher-ups, become rich on the backs of the "peasants."
" and the people are starving"
.[/QUOTE]
People suffer when the people in corporations , esp the higer-ups become rich on the backs of peasants---as well.
Cuba has never done well as far as consumer goods, before {exception of rich and criminals} or after revolution. Cuba needs co-operation with U.S. and trade--- without going back to Batista ways, a flunkie nation with NO concerns for its citizens.
And if the "people" are starving---its news to me.
Not only are they not starving, but healthy as well.
I suspect you have read that somewhere. Be careful what you read and believe.
Your idea on capitol is correct , in my opinion, if kept within bounds, no communist system seems produce the desired prosperity. Of course culture and resources play a part.
As far as Fidel being money monger? . Let me say this, Fidel Castro never made revolution to make himself rich. He has never lived a lifestyle I would want---if fact, I think I live better!. Dodging C.I.A. murder attempts---terrorism-- attempted invasions , for all these years can not be a good way to live.
He started as idealist, and became survivor, all the time trying to protect the revolution, and the people from what had gone before. Read your history.
I have always believed that if not the C.I.A / U.S. attemps to overthrow--things would have gone much better in all respects. Cuba has worked "under the gun" from the begining.
Revolution was made for reasons I don't believe you understand, and probably won't.
Its not all about capitol. Its about pride and self-determinantion also. Again a read of Cuban history would help.
I think you miss the worst thing about Cuba, worse than 1950 autos, no real freedom to dissent. Reason? fear of N.American attempt to finance a a movement that would return the people to their former status --slaves.
A real problem for which I have no answer.
I usually do not respond to "Cuban" posts, but I want you to know ---Cubans are not starving. >f

[linskyjack]

I love the way affluent Americans go at countries like Cuba--with their jingoistic nonsense about freedom and liberty, when in fact, the Cuban people, before the rise of Fidel Castro, were primarily in a situation of abject poverty, under the Batista regime. If you can't eat, if you dont have shelter, and if you can't get medical help, you really dont give a rats arse about being able to chose one of 150 cable channels or chosing between McDonalds and Red Lobster for dinner. The fact remains that Cubans now have many of the necessities and maybe they are ready to take the next step. Unfortunately, the right wing Cuban community in this country has made it nearly impossible because our politicans don't have the courage to say know to their intransagence. You will end Castro by trading with Cuba--its that simple.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

LOL--happiness quotients show that the happiest of peoples are the ones who live in countries that someone like Mulder would call socialist, but in fact are capitalist with massive social welfare nets (and thus high tax rates!) The leader of the pack is Iceland, with Sweden and a couple of others at the top.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_hap_net

You Moore-On, that has nothing to do with the massive social welfare and everything to do with the strict immigration policies. Try getting into Sweden or Norway if your an impoverished twit with no skills. They keep out the scourge of the world that we and Canada and Great Britain and other "free" countries take by the millions. Open up Sweden and Norway's borders to take all the people we have here on the government tit and see how long that happiness lasts! That's the problem--you can't have a "free" society if you have massive welfare because then you get people pooring in by the miillions (like we have)--we have just as much welfare as Sweden and Norway. We'd all be happy here too if we kicked out all the undesirables that are here now and didn't let anymore in.

And BTW--check with Sweden and Norway and some of those other countries in about 20 years and see how well they are doing. They happen to have enjoyed a huge population growth that is reversing itself--that's the only way they've been able to keep a massive welfare system going. Like here, in 20 years, instead of 10 workers supporting 1, they'll have 2 or 3 workers supporing 1. Then see how happy they are!

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I love the way affluent Americans go at countries like Cuba--with their jingoistic nonsense about freedom and liberty, when in fact, the Cuban people, before the rise of Fidel Castro, were primarily in a situation of abject poverty, under the Batista regime. If you can't eat, if you dont have shelter, and if you can't get medical help, you really dont give a rats arse about being able to chose one of 150 cable channels or chosing between McDonalds and Red Lobster for dinner. The fact remains that Cubans now have many of the necessities and maybe they are ready to take the next step. Unfortunately, the right wing Cuban community in this country has made it nearly impossible because our politicans don't have the courage to say know to their intransagence. You will end Castro by trading with Cuba--its that simple.

It really good to hear someone with knowlege of Pre-Castro Cuba, without it, understanding the situation is impossible.
I tend t ramble..............
You have hit it perfect Linsky!

>f

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

You Moore-On, that has nothing to do with the massive social welfare and everything to do with the strict immigration policies. Try getting into Sweden or Norway if your an impoverished twit with no skills. They keep out the scourge of the world that we and Canada and Great Britain and other "free" countries take by the millions. Open up Sweden and Norway's borders to take all the people we have here on the government tit and see how long that happiness lasts! That's the problem--you can't have a "free" society if you have massive welfare because then you get people pooring in by the miillions (like we have)--we have just as much welfare as Sweden and Norway. We'd all be happy here too if we kicked out all the undesirables that are here now and didn't let anymore in.

And BTW--check with Sweden and Norway and some of those other countries in about 20 years and see how well they are doing. They happen to have enjoyed a huge population growth that is reversing itself--that's the only way they've been able to keep a massive welfare system going. Like here, in 20 years, instead of 10 workers supporting 1, they'll have 2 or 3 workers supporing 1. Then see how happy they are!

Well, I can see that your basic intelligence didn't benefit from that long vacation. You are still a moron who really knows so very little. Idiot, more then 15% of Swedes were either born abroad or have foreign born parents.

Read this you transcendent moron before offerring your idiotic opinion:

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/SA...?launched=true

Pay attention to the parts about the Myths of Sweden, the ones you and other right wing pea brains buy hook liine and sinker.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Well, I can see that your basic intelligence didn't benefit from that long vacation. You are still a moron who really knows so very little. Idiot, more then 15% of Swedes were either born abroad or have foreign born parents.

Read this you transcendent moron before offerring your idiotic opinion:

http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/SA...?launched=true

Pay attention to the parts about the Myths of Sweden, the ones you and other right wing pea brains buy hook liine and sinker.

It doesnt' matter where they were born, the point is you don't get into the country without demonstrating an ability to support yourself. Its the same with New Zealand--you need $3,000,000 if you expect to retire there. Both are very desirable places to live and affluent people with cash move there.

You really should educate yourself before you start spouting off. Your credibility here diminishes with every post.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

It really good to hear someone with knowlege of Pre-Castro Cuba, without it, understanding the situation is impossible.
I tend t ramble..............
You have hit it perfect Linsky!

>f

Funny you should say that. My Aunt was Cuban---from the elite, who left Cuba after Castro came to power. When she was younger, she was stridently anti-Castro, but over time things changed. She took it upon herself to deal with the reality of the regime that ran the country when she was there. She had to face up to the fact that so many Cubans were living very tenuous existences. She also had to deal with the fact that the US made Castro a radical, that he came to us for help and we refused him--essentially pushing him into the Soviet sphere of influence. Conservatives like to take about the maturation process--you know, as you get older you see limtiations and you are less likely to think that one can change the world, or make the world in your image. In the case of Cuba (and Iraq) they have completely tossed out this "philosophical" view. In both instances, they ignore the history of the countries in question, and tend to over-simplify the issues in order to mainatin the jingoistic myths of their "religion" In defense of conservatives, I can say, that at least in the case of Cuba, so-called liberal and moderate democrats joined wholeheartdly in the Castro bashing. As I said in the post above, that has more to do with keeping Cuban-American expats voting for them then the reality of what Cuba was, is, and could be. By the way, Fidelsta you have probably seen this movie, but as a Cuban-American (I believe you are?), go see Buena Vista Social Club---a film that is really not political, but does give voice to the soul of Cuba.

[Mulderator]

Linsky's "social uptopia!"

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2210

Perhaps a brief layman's history of Swedish politics is order.

It's true that Sweden was socialist for most of the twentieth century. The socialists took power in the early 1930s and held it until the early 1990s. It's also true that in comparison to the rest of Europe, the Swedish economy flourished until the 1960s. But that's not really because of Sweden's socialist proclivities. Rather, it's more because of that notorious economy-killer called World War II, an endeavor that Milton Friedman noted "Sweden had the good economic sense to avoid."*

Advocates of the "Sweden as the anti-Soviet" line of thought might also want to take note: Early socialist Sweden was hardly a utopia of political freedom and civil liberties. Mengele-ian social engineering projects saw government-enforced sterilization of thousands of "unfit" Swedes in the 1930s and 40s. As late as 1950, the Swedish government was still experimenting with lobotomies on alcoholics and convicts - often without their consent - in researching possible "cures" for such undesirable behavior.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Swedish economy was tanking. Western Europe's post-war capitalist economies caught and passed Sweden relatively quickly. And by the 1980s, Sweden was on the verge of collapse. Businesses fled for more friendly tax jurisdictions in continental Europe and the U.S. Sweden experienced a brain drain as its sharpest minds fled to market-driven economies that rewarded knowledge and know-how with wealth. Entrepreneurs in Sweden were painted as pariahs. ****sounds like TSG's anti-capitalists Linsky, basset, Xico, and Fidelista! Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad told Fortune magazine that Sweden's tax bureaucrats and politicians at the time routinely accused him of "using people" and "just wanting to make a profit."

By 1989, Sweden's unemployment rate had risen to 12%. Social spending had driven the government's budget deficit to 35% of government spending and 13% of GDP. Swedish welfare provisions stipulated that anyone fired or laid off from a job could get up to 80% of his original salary in public assistance. Consequently, absenteeism in the private sector approached 25%. Free, comprehensive national health care made Sweden the "sickest" country in Europe - so long as government picked up the tab, Swedes demanded the highest care for the feeblest illnesses. The system buckled. Because almost everything was provided for, and because of income tax rates approaching 90% in the highest brackets, Swedish households accumulated almost no savings, making them even more dependent on social programs once the economy soured.

In the early 1990s, the Swedes revolted at the ballot box. ****same thing people did here--get rid of the liberals!!! A neoliberal coalition led by Carl Bildt took power. Bildt quickly went to work. He capped national income taxes at 50%. He set corporate taxes at 28%. ***Oh My God--Not Tax Cuts****can you believe it Linsky? He rolled back regulations on telecommunications and banking. ****Oh No--deregulation!!!***** While hardly the epitome of laissez faire capitalism, those modest changes alone set in motion the path to Sweden's economic rebirth.

In 1994, the Social Democrats regained power - mostly because Bildt's slashing of government services ignited a backlash. But the signs of recovery were already in place, and so the Social Democrats, led by finance minister Goran Persson, followed Bildt's lead. More privatization of government-controlled industries. More tax cuts.!!!! To that they added more cuts in government spending,**** and a real effort to balance the federal budget.

The result? Native Swedish entrepreneurs who fled the oppressive tax and regulation codes to start businesses elsewhere brought their businesses and payrolls back to Sweden. Sweden today is home to some of the world's top telecommunications firms. In sharp contrast to the eugenicist philosophy of Sweden's ruling 1940s socialists, the streets of Stockholm and Goteborg teem with entrepreneurial immigrants from Asia and the Middle East. Fortune reports, "from 1995 to 1999, venture capital and private equity investment in Sweden rose 201% annually, against 40% in the U.S."

Sweden of course is in no danger of becoming a shelter for tax-oppressed U.S. business. Education and health care are still free (and, consequently, still on the verge of collapse). Though corporate tax rates are reasonable, personal income tax rates are still inordinately high.**** Low corporate tax rates!!! ****Say it ain't so bassetman!!! And the lingering haze of conformity that comes with rampant socialism still holds a good number of Swedes in despair. Sweden's suicide rates are among the highest in the world (much higher than latitudinally similar, low-sunlight communities in, for example, Alaska). Alcoholism is rampant, and this in a country where the state owns all the liquor stores. Even Per Stalberg, singer for the socialism-espousing Division of Laura Lee admits that the everything's-taken-care-of life of a Swede leaves something to be desired.

"You have to go to school, and then you have to work in an office, then drink a lot of booze, and then beat the s*** out of your wife," he told Rolling Stone. "There are a lot of personal problems here. I don't know many people who haven't been to a shrink."

So what about that Swedish music invasion allegedly spurred on by rock star welfare? Well, it's probably telling that the program was phased out as part of finance minister Persson's mid-1990s cuts in social programs. If you give, say, five to eight years for a band to mature and catch on, you might make the case that the Swedish invasion is the product of ending rock star welfare, not institutionalizing it. And The Hives - easily Sweden's most successful band so far, and probably its most talented - were never on the public dole to begin with (bandleader Pelle Amlqvist told Rolling Stone, "We thought that was like working for The Man. Plus, we were crap at filling out all the forms.").

Sixty years of Swedish socialism gave us ABBA and Ace of Base. Ten years of quasi-capitalism, and Sweden's holding the flag for the new garage revolution. That's as convincing a case for markets as I need.

So its no different in Sweden than anywhere else Linsky. Socialims was a miserable failure. And the dumbarses that put the guy in office that fixed it voted him out again because he cut their benefits then the liberals came in and continued the same policies that brought success. Exactly what happened with Reagan--he came in and slashed income tax rates and Clinton basically left them there causing the greatest economic boom in the country's history.

But even though time after time after time after miserable failure of socialism, you Moore-Ons keep touting it as social utopia!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I love the way affluent Americans go at countries like Cuba--with their jingoistic nonsense about freedom and liberty, when in fact, the Cuban people, before the rise of Fidel Castro, were primarily in a situation of abject poverty, under the Batista regime. If you can't eat, if you dont have shelter, and if you can't get medical help, you really dont give a rats arse about being able to chose one of 150 cable channels or chosing between McDonalds and Red Lobster for dinner. The fact remains that Cubans now have many of the necessities and maybe they are ready to take the next step.

It would seem the people who really know would disagree. HERE

Seems they don't think it's the socialist utopia portrayed by some......hell even Sweden has it beat.