• The boss needs you, you don't need him.

    Capitalism is a system where workers are ruled by Tyrants known as bosses.These dictators keep most of the money the business makes, even though the employees do the real work. Reforms are offered to keep the workers from rebelling, but the bosses control the state through contributing their resources to political campaigns and often these reforms are empty. There are many work places around the world that are run democratically, without the dictatorial bosses. The workers will not truly thrive until they've taken biggest corporations under democratic, worker's control.

  • If you choose...

    Yes, if you drive gas powered cars and voluntarily pay taxes. These are examples of social programs that your voluntary taxes support: public schools, roads, bridges, airports, trains, planes, oil, medicare, retirement plan=social security.

    Remember, the IRS tax system is entirely voluntary though you're threatened with audits if you dont pay after a few years, choosing to drive gas powered autos supports the transportation fund, choosing to fly supports the DHS, paying property taxes and/or supposedly playing the lottery helps public schools.

    We all do our fair share by choosing to support value add tax programs.

  • I do, but this is a weird question.

    Is it likely someone's going to say 'I support it unwillingly'?
    Support is rather a belief system where someone has a desire or an emotional (or even rational) connection to something to hope that it succeeds (or at least does well).
    This belief system cannot be controlled apart from one's own mind. If they support something, it is because they want to support it (that is, they do so willingly). If someone does not want to support something, they can choose not to. There's not much controversy there.
    Of course, someone can vote for something at gun point. A person may put their 'X' beside Socialism on the ballot paper, but they don't support it. They've voted for it, but they haven't supported it because it's a mental activity that can't really be controlled by an external force (unless that external force influences them to change their mind, but that still depends on them changing their own mind. No one can change their mind for them. Only they have the power to change their own mind, but they can be open to influences.)
    So, in short, anyone can support anything willingly. No one can support something unwillingly. People can vote 'unwillingly', but they can choose not to support the thing they're forced to vote for. Support is a set of beliefs - it is a mental thing. No one can interfere with your belief system directly (indirectly, via influences, but not directly.) Your mind is your own.

  • Socialism is about everyone having a stake in the economic life of our country

    It is about the people being able to take control through our representatives to makes sure that our interests and needs are met, rather than just the needs of a few people who have private money or power.

    It doesn't mean that absolutely everything has to be run by the government. Nor does it mean dictatorship. In fact dictatorship-run versions of socialism are false socialism. You can't have social ownership of the means of production through a non-democratic government. Dictatorship effectively means that a small privileged clique has control and not the people. Democratic socialism is the only true version of socialism.

    Many political scientists disagree that the United States is even a democracy anymore. Instead thanks to corporations bribing our politicians with contributions we are an oligarchy.


    But we do NOT have to remain an oligarchy. Even if our government is not a democracy or even a republic we have the mechanisms in place to make it one. We the people have to be willing to use them. The movement to elect Bernie Sanders for president is just the beginning. More Americans must insist that we elect politicians for office who aren't bought and paid for by corporate tax dollars. And in doing this we can still have a nice public debate about when and how much the government should be involved and when and how much it should leave things alone, but without wealthy donors dominating the outcome.

  • Revolution to socialism

    For far too long have the people of america and sweatshop workers being suppressed under the fat thumb of the capitalist. When the stock market crashes again, and it will, Revolution to socialism will be afoot. I will break free the oppressed from their shackles and strike down free market supporters and capitalist scum in the street.

  • Socialism is not the idea of sharing, its is the idea of forced distribution of wealth.

    The foundation of socialism is to create an equal outcome, not equal opportunity. The robin hood if you will, mentality of taking from the individuals who become successful due to their own hard work and talents and giving it to those who are not so successful. This is not a choice this is a forced mandate in a socialistic society. Why would you want to become successful and innovative if you will only end up with a similar outcome if you choose to skip college and work at a fast food joint? We as humans enjoy reaping what we sow, and we also enjoy having the power to donate and give to others. Taking that away is socialism and leads to mediocrity.

  • I stand to lose out under socialism

    For reference, I believe in egalitarian and universal laws. That means that the laws are applied to everyone and applied equally. Under socialism, some people have the law applied on them more, which is not egalitarian at all.
    Another thing is that the harder you work, the more you lose, because under socialism, you get the same amount no matter what, and any extra effort goes unrewarded. Contrast that with capitalism, where you stand to receive a bonus if you go above and beyond what is needed.
    In short, I'm under 35 and not a liberal. Therefore, I have no heart.

  • I believe in opportunity.

    I want to live in a country where if I have a better idea than someone else I can capitalize on that idea and earn more money. If everyone is going to be kept at roughly the same level and the wealthy are to be punished with increased taxes and financial burdens to help artificially equalize people, what incentive do I have to work hard? And if I do, am I really getting any benefit? I won't be paid substantially more, and because of that my quality of life will not increase. I have worked hard all my life and am not beginning to see huge benefits from years and years of sleeping only a few hours a week because I'm too busy working on project after project in the hope that I can give myself the life I have dreamed of. In a socialist system, this wouldn't benefit me in the slightest as any success I manage to gain will be countered by government policy to keep everyone equal. In America, I am doing very well for myself and despite being under 20 I am already well within the top 5% of American incomes. This is only possible in a Capitalist country and it makes me damn proud to be a Capitalist. I am immensely appreciative for the way our system works, and if anything it is too socialist in America as it is.

    All in all, what I want is opportunity. I want to be able to do something incredible and be compensated fairly for it, without the government robbing me blind to give what I've earned to someone who doesn't work anywhere as hard and frankly doesn't deserve to benefit freely from my blood, sweat and tears. I want to be able to come from anywhere in any situation and rise above it to become whatever I can dream. Only in a Capitalist system can you truly pursue your dreams without having a government just waiting to pounce on anyone who attempts to realize theirs.

  • Socialism is evil

    I do not support a system where I support others. I don't owe anyone anything, and I don't believe in working for the common good. One should earn what they want for themselves, and no one else.
    I understand helping a sick family that cannot support itself is a noble cause, and in a perfect system perhaps this could be prevented.
    But I do not believe it is mine or anyone else obligation to help them, and if I do it is a kindness undeserved.

    Posted by: Kald
  • Some social programs are good but we shouldn't let it go too far

    Socialism involves giving the government more power. In my experience if you want something done wrong and in the stupidest way possible, you let the government do it. Not only will socialism increase government power it will also increase the b-word, Bureaucracy. We already are a socialist country. We have been since the new deal with FDR.

  • Taxes the way they are

    An interesting article about all the different taxes we have to pay. We are taxed far far more than under Prime Minister North's government (British PM at time of revolution). Heard that we pay equivalent overall tax rate of Denmark when the 97 taxes are calculated, but lack all the social niceties such as free university, free healthcare (not forced buy of insurance), free daycare, etc. A harmonized income tax (harmonized at city, state, and federal) or harmonized rent & mortgage tax (as before, percentage of rent/mortgage), and no other tax at any level of government, would be beneficial and transparent. I would support single-payer, whether that be the government pays, the corporation pays, or even a trade guild pays, for the basics: basic food, basic housing, utilities, education, and healthcare. If government is the payer, then the harmonized tax can be higher, if corporate or guild-payer, then the harmonized tax can be lower (constitutional amendment?). Fees would cover the latter two for funding. Disclaimer: this is not socialism, but a form of social democracy. Socialism, without any tags, would have no private ownership of means of production. While this may sound good, it actually would hold us back technologically as investors have no reason for investing.

  • I'd rather not be a slave to the man.

    Income tax is the law, not voluntary. I am fine with providing the government with adequate funds to do it's job of providing infrastructure and security so the citizens may go about the business of pursuing happiness. A market based system allows for competition, which lowers cost and filters out the bad seeds. Nationalizing things allows for stagnation, high cost & waiting lists. Socialism is too lacking in freedom for me.

  • Good question, but overall - no.

    In principle, I think socialism loses to capitalism by producing less wealth overall. Marx wasn't really being cognizant of human nature with his "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," deal. In practice, what happens is that many people get lax on the production and work side, since they're supposed to get what they need, anyway. And many of those who would be top producers also don't work as hard as they might, otherwise, as they do not get compensated for their efforts.

    A good example of this was the collective farms in Russia. Families were allowed small plots of their own, to raise crops, and the productivity there was quite a few times greater than on the collective farmland. People just aren't as motivated to work for "the public good" as they are for their own good.

    That said, there are many social programs in the U.S. that I'm glad of. A much bigger regret for me is that our politicians cannot keep their spending in check - what good is a system if it's not sustainable? Ours, with the huge overhang of debt and rapid further build-up of debt, certainly is not sustainable.

    In the real-world U.S., I think that the desire for socialism works on a sliding scale, that the more one is for it, then the higher rate of taxation they are for, and the increased redistribution of wealth. I am not saying that capitalism is perfect, but socialism takes too much incentive away from people, and in the end we end up with a reduced pool of resources or wealth to spread around

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.