Amazon.com Widgets

Is socialism a destructive form of government? Why/why not?

Asked by: Adam2
  • These morons need to look at countries like Venezuela and Brazil. Socialism always works in the beginning but fails not too long later.

    If they are going to quote Mediterranean governments as examples of successful governments that have socialism, well actually those governments ARE NOT socialist. The leader of Denmark even stated "Stop calling us a socialist nation. We are not." The Mediterranean countries have competing markets just like the United States. In countries with single payer healthcare, people can wait MONTHS for a chance to see the doctor. And, especially before the passage of the Unaffordable Care Act, people from ALL OVER THE WORLD come to the USA for their healthcare. NOBODY leaves their country to go to a socialist country for healthcare. Another example, when Venezuela was a capitalist country, it was one of the most prosperous countries in the entire world, after it became socialist, it became the absolute worst. When the Czech Republic was the socialist country Czechoslovakia, it was also one of the weakest nations, when it became capitalist, it SLOWLY became one of the most prosperous. That's it, it happens slowly. It takes a long time to prosper for a country after it becomes socialist. If they people here praising socialism are calling it great because of the notion of "income inequality", well the income inequality gap is VERY MUCH HIGHER in socialist countries. The VAST MAJORITY in those countries are in EXTREME POVERTY, while those in the government (or those closely connected to the government) are living in abundances of wealth. The other people here who voted don't know what it really needs to make a real dollar. They spend too much time listening to the mainstream media who constantly edits out content of rebuttals (and yes, I have seen the edited out footage), and who also cuts out live rebuttals when they can't argue against them and claim "they lost the feed". This happens all the time. Another tactic the leftist uses when they have no argument are the phrases, "you're a racist," and "you're a sexist", as well as many other arguments as some of the many tools they want to shut down speech that actually uses some logic and reason with what they call "hate speech", which is absolute garbage. They also listen to these liberal professors who promote this socialist garbage, but they don't realize that these professors spend pretty much all their time in the universities outside the real world with kids 18-early 20s who also haven't. There's a reason why many people when they start making a little income know that socialism is a farce. I'm actually very poor, but I believe in realism, not idealism. Socialism causes the problems that it claims it will solve. Those who are older and still embrace it are unwilling to let go of their youth and move on. It's time for the left to forget all this identity politics, it's not reality. "If you're not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain." - Winston Churchill

  • Socialism revolves around social ownership.

    This means that public ownership (i.E. State ownership) is only one out of three types of ownership in socialism. The other two types of social ownership are collective ownership and common ownership. So even though public ownership may be destructive, collective and common ownership (i.E. 2/3s of socialism) could still be efficient forms of social ownership. Socialism could still be an efficient system overall.

    Posted by: NPd
  • Socialism is actually a better choice of government now than our corrupt birocratic capitalism.

    Socialism is seen in a bad light by the majority of the people because of the governments that used it to promote it's ideas in the past and present. But the so called socialist republics that have existed (eg. USSR) and still exist just used the socialist regime to instate a tyranny. In USSR's case, it lasted a little longer than the life on Stalin. It was a tyranny masked as socialism.

    Now, back to the concerns of today, the capitalism that we all promote as the "good guy" has created a huge gap between the poor and the rich, with the dwindling middle class to support everything. It's idiotic that in a country of let's say 100 people, 1 is rich and is helped by the government to stay that way, 60-70 people are poor and can barely pay their taxes, let alone live a good life, and 29-39 people must practically support the rest of them.
    Socialism came with a good answer but it was applied extremely bad. It came to level the society, to help the poor and press the rich into contributing also. The middle class stand to gain a lot from a regime like that. Socialism was supposed make everything available for everyone, so that healthcare and education could be universal as opposed to what the actual government does, and that is to create private healthcare and education systems that benefit only to a certain class of people.

    In conclusion, I believe that Socialism is not a destructive form of government, and even more, if applied correctly it should be more fair than our actual governments.

  • It all depends...

    Socialism by definition is is the collective ownership by all the people, including production and distribution. This means he resources, the factories, the distribution, the infrastructure, the stores, etc. Most modern countries have some form of socialism, whether governmental or economic. People collectively contribute money or other goods for the benefit of the entire community, called social democracy. Socialism itself is not destructive, but the people involved in socialism can make it destructive.


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