Why Socialism is Necessary for Civilization - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15026819
Throughout history, nations that have attempted strict communist philosophies have not worked because inevitably someone will take all the power for themselves and then use it to regulate the lives of everyone else.

However, it seems to me that this scenario is not exclusive to communism. This exact same scenario will inevitably come to exist in a pure free-market system where there's no government regulations at all. It would be total anarchy, much like a post-apocalyptic scenario where one corrupt ruler would step into power. And the very reason this has not been able to happen in the USA is because the USA is NOT a pure free-market economy. USA is and has always had elements of socialism, and it is those elements that have prevented dictatorships from forming.

In fact, since the dawn of civilization, mankind has lived under some form of socialism. Libertarians and anarchists who want to abolish all government interference have a delusional idea that they are free and independent and that they are wholly responsible for their economical achievements, whilst living under a safety net which has provided them with the opportunities they have to go out and make a living for themselves. You might think you are wholly independent but in fact you almost certainly would fare poorly without some form of government to protect you.

No man is an island. We have always been social animals, and the idea that we can survive totally on our own is an idea that can only arise once we are already living under a system that has provided us with some stability and protection.

Most other developed countries are laughing at us. We seem to have a bizarre obsession with "freedom", as if only we uniquely have freedom. We have a paranoid fear that if we socialize healthcare it will take away our freedom. That is a myth. We also have this false idea that the reason why our healthcare costs more than it does in other countries is because it’s higher quality. This is also a myth. In Canada for example, a person can get the same quality healthcare they get in the USA for a fraction of the cost. Those in the USA who control the price of healthcare care only about themselves and their ability to make a profit. They can raise the cost of care to insanely high levels because they know that it being a necessity for many people they can still make a profit. This type of exploitation of people’s desperate needs to get treatment is deeply immoral.

What is currently being presented in the form of socialized democracy is nothing new. A socialized democracy is essentially what the USA is and has ALWAYS been. Our military is an exercise in socialized democracy. Without it we cannot survive. And yet, a common mindset many Americans have is that socialized democracy is evil. I think anyone who believes that is oblivious.
#15026821
Agent Steel wrote:Throughout history, nations that have attempted strict communist philosophies have not worked because inevitably someone will take all the power for themselves and then use it to regulate the lives of everyone else.

However, it seems to me that this scenario is not exclusive to communism. This exact same scenario will inevitably come to exist in a pure free-market system where there's no government regulations at all. It would be total anarchy, much like a post-apocalyptic scenario where one corrupt ruler would step into power. And the very reason this has not been able to happen in the USA is because the USA is NOT a pure free-market economy. USA is and has always had elements of socialism, and it is those elements that have prevented dictatorships from forming.

In fact, since the dawn of civilization, mankind has lived under some form of socialism. Libertarians and anarchists who want to abolish all government interference have a delusional idea that they are free and independent and that they are wholly responsible for their economical achievements, whilst living under a safety net which has provided them with the opportunities they have to go out and make a living for themselves. You might think you are wholly independent but in fact you almost certainly would fare poorly without some form of government to protect you.

No man is an island. We have always been social animals, and the idea that we can survive totally on our own is an idea that can only arise once we are already living under a system that has provided us with some stability and protection.

Most other developed countries are laughing at us. We seem to have a bizarre obsession with "freedom", as if only we uniquely have freedom. We have a paranoid fear that if we socialize healthcare it will take away our freedom. That is a myth. We also have this false idea that the reason why our healthcare costs more than it does in other countries is because it’s higher quality. This is also a myth. In Canada for example, a person can get the same quality healthcare they get in the USA for a fraction of the cost. Those in the USA who control the price of healthcare care only about themselves and their ability to make a profit. They can raise the cost of care to insanely high levels because they know that it being a necessity for many people they can still make a profit. This type of exploitation of people’s desperate needs to get treatment is deeply immoral.

What is currently being presented in the form of socialized democracy is nothing new. A socialized democracy is essentially what the USA is and has ALWAYS been. Our military is an exercise in socialized democracy. Without it we cannot survive. And yet, a common mindset many Americans have is that socialized democracy is evil. I think anyone who believes that is oblivious.


You can actually post good things once in a while. Although I would change the world socialism to something else not sure what though. Since this topic has an American context behind it then i guess it might be fine.
#15026825
Agent Steel wrote:Throughout history, nations that have attempted strict communist philosophies have not worked because inevitably someone will take all the power for themselves and then use it to regulate the lives of everyone else.

However, it seems to me that this scenario is not exclusive to communism. This exact same scenario will inevitably come to exist in a pure free-market system where there's no government regulations at all. It would be total anarchy, much like a post-apocalyptic scenario where one corrupt ruler would step into power. And the very reason this has not been able to happen in the USA is because the USA is NOT a pure free-market economy. USA is and has always had elements of socialism, and it is those elements that have prevented dictatorships from forming.

In fact, since the dawn of civilization, mankind has lived under some form of socialism. Libertarians and anarchists who want to abolish all government interference have a delusional idea that they are free and independent and that they are wholly responsible for their economical achievements, whilst living under a safety net which has provided them with the opportunities they have to go out and make a living for themselves. You might think you are wholly independent but in fact you almost certainly would fare poorly without some form of government to protect you.

No man is an island. We have always been social animals, and the idea that we can survive totally on our own is an idea that can only arise once we are already living under a system that has provided us with some stability and protection.

Most other developed countries are laughing at us. We seem to have a bizarre obsession with "freedom", as if only we uniquely have freedom. We have a paranoid fear that if we socialize healthcare it will take away our freedom. That is a myth. We also have this false idea that the reason why our healthcare costs more than it does in other countries is because it’s higher quality. This is also a myth. In Canada for example, a person can get the same quality healthcare they get in the USA for a fraction of the cost. Those in the USA who control the price of healthcare care only about themselves and their ability to make a profit. They can raise the cost of care to insanely high levels because they know that it being a necessity for many people they can still make a profit. This type of exploitation of people’s desperate needs to get treatment is deeply immoral.

What is currently being presented in the form of socialized democracy is nothing new. A socialized democracy is essentially what the USA is and has ALWAYS been. Our military is an exercise in socialized democracy. Without it we cannot survive. And yet, a common mindset many Americans have is that socialized democracy is evil. I think anyone who believes that is oblivious.



There is no such thing as equality among humans. Some humans are destined to to go to the gutter and others accumulate wealth and go to the top. The rest of the people align themselves in the middle.

The best system is capitalism for the creation of wealth. Some of the wealth can be used to help those that are low in the strata of competence and achievement. If no help is provided we have a revolution and no one wants a revolution.

Those that still favor socialism are fools and do not understand history, the human condition, or economics.
Last edited by Julian658 on 16 Aug 2019 20:24, edited 1 time in total.
#15026831
JohnRawls wrote:Although I would change the world socialism to something else not sure what though.


That word would be nationalism.

The problem with using the word socialism is that socialism is a very specific kind of nationalism which most people would reject as inhuman. Ordinary nationalism is broadly acceptable to most people.
#15026833
SolarCross wrote:That word would be nationalism.

The problem with using the word socialism is that socialism is a very specific kind of nationalism which most people would reject as inhuman. Ordinary nationalism is broadly acceptable to most people.


How is socialism nationalism?

How is nationalism a supplement for socialism. Nationalism isn't even an ideology it's just the support for the status quo.

Why is socialism a brand of nationalism that's considered inhuman? Wtf?

My brain is hurting from how many mental gymnastics you have to do.
#15026834
Julian658 wrote:There is no such thing as equality among humans. Some humans are destined to to go to the gutter and others accumulate wealth and go to the top. The rest align themselves in the middle.

The best system is capitalism for the creation of wealth. Some of the wealth can be used to help those that are low in the strata of competence and achievement. If no help is provided we have a revolution and no one wants a revolution.

Those that still favor socialism are fools and do not understand history, the human condition, or economics.


You don't know what equality is.
#15026835
SolarCross wrote:That word would be nationalism.

The problem with using the word socialism is that socialism is a very specific kind of nationalism which most people would reject as inhuman. Ordinary nationalism is broadly acceptable to most people.


No, the word is definitely not nationalism.
#15026841
SolarCross wrote:Why do you say that?


Quite frankly and with all due respect nothing you said about nationalism or socialism makes any sense.

Nationalism isn't an ideology, it's a state of mind. Socialism is completely different. You can be a nationalist and a socialist (no pun intended) but they aren't the same thing.
#15026844
SolarCross wrote:Why do you say that?


Well read the text again and insert nationalism. How does nationalism prevent dictatorships? How did nationalism exist since the dawn of civilization? (It appeared much later) Nationalism in itself does not provide or take away healthcare or benefits or social programs.

Socialism is a much closer word to the point of the article.

Also it is hard to say when the US "Nationalism" really appeared in sense that you understand it now. It was definitely after the Civil War but at what point it is hard to pin down. My best guess would be that it formed somewhere between the two wars or may be even during the Cold War.
#15026845
JohnRawls wrote:Well read the text again and insert nationalism. How does nationalism prevent dictatorships? How did nationalism exist since the dawn of civilization? (It appeared much later) Nationalism in itself does not provide or take away healthcare or benefits or social programs.

Socialism is a much closer word to the point of the article.

Also it is hard to say when the US "Nationalism" really appeared in sense that you understand it now. It was definitely after the Civil War but at what point it is hard to pin down. My best guess would be that it formed somewhere between the two wars or may be even during the Cold War.

I works better than socialism. When has the US ever been socialist? Actually never. It has always had nationalism. Not so much in the early days when it was just a patchwork of colonies but certianly after the independence war. Even before independence there was nationalism but the nation of the nationalism was the nation they came from in Europe or whatever.

Socialism = USSR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba etc
Nationalism = everyone else.

When did you switch sides?
#15026849
Julian658 wrote:There is no such thing as equality among humans. Some humans are destined to to go to the gutter and others accumulate wealth and go to the top. The rest align themselves in the middle.

The best system is capitalism for the creation of wealth. Some of the wealth can be used to help those that are low in the strata of competence and achievement. If no help is provided we have a revolution and no one wants a revolution.

Those that still favor socialism are fools and do not understand history, the human condition, or economics.


Why is capitalism the "best" system for creating wealth? Granted it's a hell of a lot better than communist dictatorships we've seen in the past, but I see no reason to be content with it when it creates so much misery for so many people.

I can definitely imagine better systems in the future.
#15026852
SolarCross wrote:I works better than socialism. When has the US ever been socialist? Actually never. It has always had nationalism. Not so much in the early days when it was just a patchwork of colonies but certianly after the independence war. Even before independence there was nationalism but the nation of the nationalism was the nation they came from in Europe or whatever.

Socialism = USSR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba etc
Nationalism = everyone else.

When did you switch sides?


Nationalism was/is present in USSR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam. What do you think they fought for in most of those places? PRC, DPRK, Cuba and Vietnam specifically were nationalist who fought for their independence. The difference is that they were communists along with being nationalists.
#15026853
JohnRawls wrote:Nationalism was/is present in USSR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam. What do you think they fought for in most of those places? PRC, DPRK, Cuba and Vietnam specifically were nationalist who fought for their independence. The difference is that they were communists along with being nationalists.


Well I did say that socialism was a kind of nationalism. If at any point you are selling the idea that there is a group identity to whom you owe something and whose leaders you should obey then that is some kind of nationalism.

Socialism is that in spades but has a very specific narrative that isn't generally found in ordinary natural nationalism.

So whose side are you on now? You did not say.
#15026856
Palmyrene wrote:It really isn't. It's specifically about international solidarity. That's one of the core principles of socialism.

No it isn't because you want to kill all the capitalists. Technically that is almost everyone including yourself. Where is the solidarity in wanting to butcher humans for being human?
EU-BREXIT

Just a bit more positive news that's sure to disap[…]

Ukrainegate

Here we go again kids. It may be time to invade I[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE7Lg1tXk[…]

So you think GM closing factories in US is someho[…]