Why are you against Socialism?

[ИATAS]

Which is why you make no sense. Who is to organize the democratic elections?

The communities themselves? You don't need a government to do everything for the people, the people have the capability to do those things themselves.

[!! Shawn]

The communities themselves? You don't need a government to do everything for the people, the people have the capability to do those things themselves.

Which is why communism fails. In order to organize the elections a leader will emerge, ending communism.

[Leakbeak]

Which is why communism fails. In order to organize the elections a leader will emerge, ending communism.

As long as the leader serves the community, I don't see why this has to be so. it is hard to put it into practice, as Geroge Orwell explains in animal farm. What you speak of are the 'fat pigs' who make communism into an over idealistic ideology. However the assumption that the ruling elite will always exploit and make the system fail is just that; an assumption! An advanced nation such as Japan, Germany or the USA could surely organise it into a sytem with checks and balances that make sure it DOES work.

Personally, I think that a mixture of both systems is the best thing: Free market economy with egalitarianism thrown in. The best way to do this would be to stop people hoarding wealth and tax them 2.5% of all their hoarded wealth per annum. This would be more than enough to provide for the poor people of the entire world. Hoarded wealth is why people suffer and why there is inequality and social injustice in society.

Well Hugo Chavez is calling Venezuela a Socialist country. If that's Socialism, I don't want any part of it. I'm not really sure why people still care about "Marxist" definitions. The guy let his family starve to death and is currently worm food. He proposed a system that has failed horribly ever single time it's been tried.

In the past, France, germany and the UK have been called socialist countries too and they don't stink of poverty as bad as venezuela so it isn't that simple! Tony Blair's new Labour have gone to the middle, but the old Labour were very very very socialist and nationalised alot of industries in post war Britain. Thatcher came along and privatised some things, but other things such as the NHS never will be and never should be privatised. Now that they have hit recession, Britian is nationalising companies such as Northern rock again. I think a mixed economy is best for all and bring stability. Free market economies are too volatile and controlled economies are too rigid

[Dr.Depravity]

"The Problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money" Margaret Thatcher.

Also Communism was tried during the days of the pilgrim colonies in the U.S. It failed miserably. Not because it was run by corrupt leadership either. Because it killed the initiative to work hard and get things done.

[P4P Opinion]

Socialism as a whole doesn't seem to work, but elements of it certainly do. The best example of which is socialised medicine - especially in otherwise entirely capitalist countries like the UK. The British people are very lucky to have the NHS, although I can accept that under the wrong hands, socialised medicine can be used against citizens - in a similar fashion to how privatised medicine is used against citizens in some nations. I believe in the distributive justice of John Rawls, because I realise how lucky I am to be born into a position of relative wealth. That doesn't mean I believe that someone should be punished for being wealthy, I just believe that they should be legally bound to give something back as the 'trickle down' effect so widely spoke demonstrably doesn't work - especially considering that most extremely wealthy people are born into their wealth and haven't earnt it, despite the myths of 'rags to riches' that a fair proportion claim.

[Dr.Depravity]

Socialism as a whole doesn't seem to work, but elements of it certainly do. The best example of which is socialised medicine - especially in otherwise entirely capitalist countries like the UK. The British people are very lucky to have the NHS, although I can accept that under the wrong hands, socialised medicine can be used against citizens - in a similar fashion to how privatised medicine is used against citizens in some nations. I believe in the distributive justice of John Rawls, because I realise how lucky I am to be born into a position of relative wealth. That doesn't mean I believe that someone should be punished for being wealthy, I just believe that they should be legally bound to give something back as the 'trickle down' effect so widely spoke demonstrably doesn't work - especially considering that most extremely wealthy people are born into their wealth and haven't earnt it, despite the myths of 'rags to riches' that a fair proportion claim.

I've heard this claim countless times. Never any proof to back it up. I personally know more people who have earned their wealth rather than born into it. Maybe its because I live in a country where you are free to pursue wealth?

[P4P Opinion]

I've heard this claim countless times. Never any proof to back it up. I personally know more people who have earned their wealth rather than born into it. Maybe its because I live in a country where you are free to pursue wealth?

The USA? If so, I am referring to your country more than most actually. I am probably not however referring to your friends, unless you are acquainted with the mega-rich. I am not referring to someone on $200,000 a year. I am referrring to someone on $1,000,000 a year and more. It is rare for the mega-rich to emerge from no-where. The only consistent examples are sports stars like Manny Pacquiao, who escape their 'rags' background with athleticism and hard work - knowing that they have no other route to wealth. I'm not going to make a list for you with examples of the mega-rich who were born into wealth, because you would simply list me the more famous examples of genuine 'rags to riches' cases and we'd be back to square one. I was merely making the point that we hear about the 'rags to riches' cases because they are extraordinary.

[Dr.Depravity]

The USA? If so, I am referring to your country more than most actually. I am probably not however referring to your friends, unless you are acquainted with the mega-rich. I am not referring to someone on $200,000 a year. I am referrring to someone on $1,000,000 a year and more. It is rare for the mega-rich to emerge from no-where. The only consistent examples are sports stars like Manny Pacquiao, who escape their 'rags' background with athleticism and hard work - knowing that they have no other route to wealth. I'm not going to make a list for you with examples of the mega-rich who were born into wealth, because you would simply list me the more famous examples of genuine 'rags to riches' cases and we'd be back to square one. I was merely making the point that we hear about the 'rags to riches' cases because they are extraordinary.

In one survey, the Chicago-based Spectrem Group found that only 2% to 4% of the fortune of today’s millionaires was inherited. Russ Alan Prince found that only about 10% of today’s rich ($10 million or more) inherited their money. And a recent article in Smart Money quotes the Harrison Group as saying that “70% of the nation’s big family fortunes are less than 13 years old” and “the people who amassed them are, first and foremost, entrepreneurs — risk takers for whom wealth is a byproduct of pursuing their passion.”

[P4P Opinion]

In one survey, the Chicago-based Spectrem Group found that only 2% to 4% of the fortune of today’s millionaires was inherited. Russ Alan Prince found that only about 10% of today’s rich ($10 million or more) inherited their money. And a recent article in Smart Money quotes the Harrison Group as saying that “70% of the nation’s big family fortunes are less than 13 years old” and “the people who amassed them are, first and foremost, entrepreneurs — risk takers for whom wealth is a byproduct of pursuing their passion.”

Again, you're mistook what I mean, although perhaps it is my fault not for specifying.

What I am saying: The mega-rich are usually born into wealth - by wealth however, I mean relative wealth. The wealth needed for a good education, good healthcare and a good environment in which to mature. I'm talking middle-class here. I'm talking the kind of background I have and you (probably) have. The 'rags to riches' myth is that it is very achievable to grow from poverty into luxery, with the right work ethic and judgement. It simply isn't the case. I believe it should be the social responsibility of the wealthy to help those who don't have the opportunities they did.

[BmoreBrawler]

Again, you're mistook what I mean, although perhaps it is my fault not for specifying.

What I am saying: The mega-rich are usually born into wealth - by wealth however, I mean relative wealth. The wealth needed for a good education, good healthcare and a good environment in which to mature. I'm talking middle-class here. I'm talking the kind of background I have and you (probably) have. The 'rags to riches' myth is that it is very achievable to grow from poverty into luxery, with the right work ethic and judgement. It simply isn't the case. I believe it should be the social responsibility of the wealthy to help those who don't have the opportunities they did.

What you are REALLY saying is that 51% have the right to rob the rich at gunpoint to make sure that they use their money the way the 51% says is appropriate. In this case, its not ok to give your kids inheritance.