H
Hume
Guest
There’s an ocean of merit for this and I’m surprised folks that profess to believe in a basic level of dignity afforded to each and every person don’t jump behind it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rau
Guest
As the catechism says: “Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”
None of the “…isms” in an overly pure form is likely to be tolerable.
None of the “…isms” in an overly pure form is likely to be tolerable.
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
Private property is a God-given right. Stealing and coveting another’s property oppose the 10th Commandment.
There is not even ONE example of a socialist country working.
Socialism was a disaster in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, China, Nicaragua…
There is not even ONE example of a socialist country working.
Socialism was a disaster in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, China, Nicaragua…
R
Rau
Guest
What is the measure of “working” you are using?There is not even ONE example of a socialist country working.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Yeah, voting for it doesn’t change the fact that it is socialism. Now, I am not completely against some welfare programs, or even government appointed jobs (though I am in favour of cutting spending on those things). But there’s this weird belief that somehow the government being your daddy is going to make everything better. THAT is irrational. I do have my own critiques of capitalism, but, as Trent Horn pointed out, Capitalism can be reformed, socialism can’t.
R
Rau
Guest
Typically, capitalism is reformed by limiting it via regulation and diluting it by introducing “elements” of socialism - such as unemployment benefits or a government provided medical service.I do have my own critiques of capitalism, but, as Trent Horn pointed out, Capitalism can be reformed, socialism can’t.
P
Padres1969
Guest
What a nonsense article. If Democratic Socialism really failed in Europe then every country over there is a somehow completely functional “failed” state.
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
First, I would be sceptical about anything you read in the Washington Examiner. It is biased and factually unreliable.
The article’s assessment of socialism in the UK from 1945 until 1979 is very one-sided and over-simplified. The fact is that the Labour government’s rebuilding of the country in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War is almost universally regarded as having been highly successful, and Clement Attlee is consistently rated as Britain’s best peacetime prime minister and as our second best prime minister overall after Winston Churchill. The 1950s and 1960s are widely remembered as a golden age of prosperity and opportunity. Nor was Margaret Thatcher universally beloved. While her policies may well have contributed to Britain’s economic recovery, many people also suffered greatly under her premiership.
The article’s assessment of socialism in the UK from 1945 until 1979 is very one-sided and over-simplified. The fact is that the Labour government’s rebuilding of the country in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War is almost universally regarded as having been highly successful, and Clement Attlee is consistently rated as Britain’s best peacetime prime minister and as our second best prime minister overall after Winston Churchill. The 1950s and 1960s are widely remembered as a golden age of prosperity and opportunity. Nor was Margaret Thatcher universally beloved. While her policies may well have contributed to Britain’s economic recovery, many people also suffered greatly under her premiership.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
By and large, almost every state in Europe IS a “failed state.”
Huge segments of Europe experience the following:
Huge segments of Europe experience the following:
- Cradle to grave taxation…
- …leading to very little actual production of good-quality physical products (with some limited exceptions).
- Complete moral bankruptcy marked by empty churches; abortion on demand; gay marriage, and a view that Christianity is at best quaint and at worst evil (I’ll never forget the Dutch throwing rocks at JPII when he visited).
- Need to rely on the US for defense…
- …all the while screaming about how bad the US and its presence in Europe is/are.
- Complete inability to even defend their borders from Islamic invaders…
- …leading to “no go zones” where the police and non-immigrants refuse to enter.
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
By essentially ANY measure they’re all failed.
A
ATraveller
Guest
What Europe uses isn’t even “democratic socialism”. It’s social democracy. And it generally works well.If Democratic Socialism really failed in Europe then every country over there is a somehow completely functional “failed” state.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
The British National Health system occupies a place in the British psyche similar to the Queen: untouchable, inviolable, beyond criticism. I have some sympathy with this when it comes to the Queen but none with regard to the NHS.there objection to national healthcare
It is a classic example of why socialism doesn’t work. A vast, unaccountable swollen bureaucracy, employing more people than any other employer in Europe and eating up a significant portion of the National revenue. Only a fraction of its employees are actually medics; the majoity are bureaucrats. The hospitals are disease-ridden and overcrowded. The resources for actual treatment are so stretched that exhausted doctors can often spare only minutes per patient, enough perhaps to refer them to someone else. Hospital waiting lists are immense. A perfect case study on why the state should not be trusted with taxpayers’ money.
Last edited:
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
Socialism derives from a sense of “economic injustice,” which socialism promises to correct.
The need for correction by the socialists derives from their belief that: 1.) there is no God, or God is dead, or God is on vacation, or God doesn’t know how to apportion His blessings properly (in this sense, socialism is the sin of coveting, politicized. 2.) If there is no God, humans (especially enlightened, elitist, human beings schooled in socialism and Marxism) must take the bull by the horns, themselves, and redistribute societal wealth for the good of all.
But the kicker is, that before you can redistribute wealth, you must centralize the wealth. Like a giant vacuum cleaner, socialists suck the wealth out of every home, business, and pocket. This is why socialist states are always impoverished. The socialist state steals whatever it wishes, homes, businesses, bank accounts, earnings.
Kicker #2 is that socialists are sinful (or at the very best, shortsighted) human beings, who misappropriate (steal) or misdirect the wealth they have centralized. They tend to invest in great social enterprises, with the best intentions, but those enterprises are not farsighted enough to be responsive to world market changes (as when the unforeseen oil glut crashed Venezuela’s economy).
The person running any small enterprise (creating true wealth) can detect areas of need, waste, inefficiency, opportunity for reinvestment much faster than any bureaucrat can. That individual is emotionally invested in his small enterprise…whereas the bureaucrat is not. If a nation’s wealth is built on millions of small economies, like cells in the human body, even in bad times some will survive and prosper.
Exodus 20 The Ten Commandments
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (#1)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (#2)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (#3)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (#4)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (#5)
13 Thou shalt not kill. (#6)
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (#7)
15 Thou shalt not steal. (#8)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (#9)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (#10)
Socialist states violate Commandments 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10 rather routinely. They place the State before God; publicly idolize their their leaders; are commonly associated with genocide; steal the population’s wealth; and preach coveting other people’s property and blessings as a virtue.
Certainly a recipe for societal failure and misery!
The need for correction by the socialists derives from their belief that: 1.) there is no God, or God is dead, or God is on vacation, or God doesn’t know how to apportion His blessings properly (in this sense, socialism is the sin of coveting, politicized. 2.) If there is no God, humans (especially enlightened, elitist, human beings schooled in socialism and Marxism) must take the bull by the horns, themselves, and redistribute societal wealth for the good of all.
But the kicker is, that before you can redistribute wealth, you must centralize the wealth. Like a giant vacuum cleaner, socialists suck the wealth out of every home, business, and pocket. This is why socialist states are always impoverished. The socialist state steals whatever it wishes, homes, businesses, bank accounts, earnings.
Kicker #2 is that socialists are sinful (or at the very best, shortsighted) human beings, who misappropriate (steal) or misdirect the wealth they have centralized. They tend to invest in great social enterprises, with the best intentions, but those enterprises are not farsighted enough to be responsive to world market changes (as when the unforeseen oil glut crashed Venezuela’s economy).
The person running any small enterprise (creating true wealth) can detect areas of need, waste, inefficiency, opportunity for reinvestment much faster than any bureaucrat can. That individual is emotionally invested in his small enterprise…whereas the bureaucrat is not. If a nation’s wealth is built on millions of small economies, like cells in the human body, even in bad times some will survive and prosper.
Exodus 20 The Ten Commandments
2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (#1)
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (#2)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (#3)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (#4)
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (#5)
13 Thou shalt not kill. (#6)
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (#7)
15 Thou shalt not steal. (#8)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (#9)
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (#10)
Socialist states violate Commandments 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10 rather routinely. They place the State before God; publicly idolize their their leaders; are commonly associated with genocide; steal the population’s wealth; and preach coveting other people’s property and blessings as a virtue.
Certainly a recipe for societal failure and misery!
P
pnewton
Guest
The Catechism has nothing in common with the article. The Catechism addresses socialism. If people are able to own private property and any business is allowed, it is not socialism. Nothing in this article addresses socialism the way this blogger you posted does. You either see this, or you don’t.
A
arvo
Guest
I completely agree that private sector is best at deciding the investment priorities, governments are routinely failing in their investment decisions.
It is OK for governments to fund the basic science because the basic science in any direction brings lot of fruits in any case. But short and medium horizon investments should be made by the businesses, private individuals. What government is ready to profit from Space and Mars? Noone has courage in government to do that, but businesses have this courage. Who in the government is ready to invest in rejuvenation medicine (rejuvenating individuals, turning back aging, reversing aging, bringing back individuals to the youth and mitigating age-related death)? Noone is really ready, but businesses are picking up this theme, there is great medical research, already some 10 stock ventures are listend in the NYSE/NASDAQ in that domain, many therapies are already in the 2nd and 3rd clinical trials phase. So - this is again the business at its best!
The problem is not in the past, but in the future. As more and more of the wealth is generated by the capital (robots and software) not the labour, the labour share of income is declining:
So - you are defined/depend on on what you own and less depend on what you doe. If wage share is goind beyond 50%, then you can be bright or lazy but purely statistically owners gets wealthier but workers - less wealthy.
It is about future. If machines are creating value, the people are less required and it sooner or later it will create problems. And that is the problem which we will have to solve. Why should we talk about past - when something has failed or not. What is the value of such talk? The declining wage share, the digital economy creates the problem for the future, the future that is more or less different than the past. And if the future is different, then why should we take for granted that history is able to teach something for us to live in the different world.
The real question is not whether to socialism has failed in the past. The real question is - will socialism fail in the future. Will capitalism will fail in the future. And exactly those answer has consequences.
For your pleasure: robot chemist
(accompanying Nature article A mobile robotic chemist | Nature describes that it is not only physically acting, but also doing intellectual work and with results) and robot builder
.
It is OK for governments to fund the basic science because the basic science in any direction brings lot of fruits in any case. But short and medium horizon investments should be made by the businesses, private individuals. What government is ready to profit from Space and Mars? Noone has courage in government to do that, but businesses have this courage. Who in the government is ready to invest in rejuvenation medicine (rejuvenating individuals, turning back aging, reversing aging, bringing back individuals to the youth and mitigating age-related death)? Noone is really ready, but businesses are picking up this theme, there is great medical research, already some 10 stock ventures are listend in the NYSE/NASDAQ in that domain, many therapies are already in the 2nd and 3rd clinical trials phase. So - this is again the business at its best!
The problem is not in the past, but in the future. As more and more of the wealth is generated by the capital (robots and software) not the labour, the labour share of income is declining:
So - you are defined/depend on on what you own and less depend on what you doe. If wage share is goind beyond 50%, then you can be bright or lazy but purely statistically owners gets wealthier but workers - less wealthy.
It is about future. If machines are creating value, the people are less required and it sooner or later it will create problems. And that is the problem which we will have to solve. Why should we talk about past - when something has failed or not. What is the value of such talk? The declining wage share, the digital economy creates the problem for the future, the future that is more or less different than the past. And if the future is different, then why should we take for granted that history is able to teach something for us to live in the different world.
The real question is not whether to socialism has failed in the past. The real question is - will socialism fail in the future. Will capitalism will fail in the future. And exactly those answer has consequences.
For your pleasure: robot chemist
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Regrettably in some countries the taxpayer has insufficient money to obtain required medical care.A perfect case study on why the state should not be trusted with taxpayers’ money.
S
StudentMI
Guest
That actually has more to do with government red tape and oligopoly than market mechanisms.Regrettably in some countries the taxpayer has insufficient money to obtain required medical care.
G
GodIsPerfection
Guest
It is about future. If machines are creating value, the people are less required and it sooner or later it will create problems. And that is the problem which we will have to solve. Why should we talk about past - when something has failed or not. What is the value of such talk? The declining wage share, the digital economy creates the problem for the future, the future that is more or less different than the past. And if the future is different, then why should we take for granted that history is able to teach something for us to live in the different world.*
*The real question is not whether to socialism has failed in the past. The real question is - will socialism fail in the future. Will capitalism will fail in the future. And exactly those answer has consequences.
**[/quote]
To history belong the facts. The historical facts are overwhelmingly against the success of socialism.
To the future belongs speculation, which you address with questions ?? about whether or not socialism or capitalism will fail in the future?
Speculation about the future is not a good reason to abandon historical data (facts) about life and embrace something novel and unproven. Within such an argument lies a kernel of progressivism….the faith that the world is changing for the better in unseen ways, and that things which have never worked may very well work in some unseen future. On the other hand, that unseen future world may very closely resemble the relatively unchanging, fallen world, that mankind has always known…the Biblical world.
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Just like capitalism needs to be bridled, so too does socialism
Is Social Security here in the US socialism ? Yeah it is a form of socialism, but it’s highly successful. In fact see if any politician runs a campaign on the promise of getting rid of it as soon as elected ?
Are Veteran Benefits a form of socialism ? Of course not
Healthcare, is it socialism to want everyone to have access to it without risking bankruptcy ?
Don’t try to compare these things to Soviet and Mao’s communism, they’re not even close.
Is Social Security here in the US socialism ? Yeah it is a form of socialism, but it’s highly successful. In fact see if any politician runs a campaign on the promise of getting rid of it as soon as elected ?
Are Veteran Benefits a form of socialism ? Of course not
Healthcare, is it socialism to want everyone to have access to it without risking bankruptcy ?
Don’t try to compare these things to Soviet and Mao’s communism, they’re not even close.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’m a Brit who has spent quite a lot of time over the years arguing that the NHS is not fit for purpose, I’ve also watched over the years as Americans have discussed health provision.The British National Health system occupies a place in the British psyche similar to the Queen: untouchable, inviolable, beyond criticism.
One conclusion I’ve come to is that the American and UK health systems effectively poison the possibility of sensible debates on either side - since people rush to talk about them as if they were the only possible alternative to their current situation. In the UK, for example, criticise the NHS and people will talk about the possibility of having to sell their homes and their children into slavery in order to afford a basic health check. Meanwhile Americans talk about the possibility of having to queue for ten years in order to have a basic health check, with their guns having been confiscated at the outset.
All very short-sighted.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.