Originally Posted by Woodsprite
(Post 19291)
I don't think you're attacking me. ;) Believe me, I've encountered so many uncouth people in debates... discussing things here with you guys is so much better because we're all superior to such... aggression.
I get what you're saying. Basically, don't judge a book by its cover. But consider this: have you ever heard of a marxist who affected the world in a positive way? That's my point. The ideology just doesn't work. We've learned the lessons of Castro, Mao, and Stalin. Let alone socialism, where we've learned the lessons of Hitler. (I'm not talking about the holocaust, just what happened with the government when he took power.) These two are essentially different in that socialism allows some forms of capital gain through work, and communism takes this away, declaring "fair redistribution". Both, however, involve total government control.
We could technically include Mussolini in this comparison. He was a fascist, true, but trying to contrast socialism with fascism will get nowhere very quickly... It's like comparing Coke with Pepsi, there isn't much difference.
But now we're considering it all over again (especially in the U.S.). It's like no one learned anything. Sure, imagine all the possibilities you want in a world where people will just work with absolutely no incentive to do so, but at the end of the day we can look at reality is say, "I guess it doesn't do much good." And it isn't because humans are "bad", "imperfect", or "selfish", it's because the system is unfair to those who wish to advance themselves. If there's total government control you've got too many restrictions on what you can do. If there's total redistribution of wealth, then there's no point in working because your life automatically becomes meaningless, and you just work for the "greater good".
Benjamin Franklin invented a better oven. He refused to patent his invention because he did what he did out of charity. He just wanted to help. The Ipad is phenominal. There are millions who love it. Apple made a product and caused other people to come and aquire it. They didn't go to people's homes and say, "You will have this product, and you will like it." No. They used the free market system to advertize their product. They didn't need to force anyone to do anything.
Communism forces. Socialism forces. Capitalism doesn't. I'm fully aware that pure capitalism is detrimental in the long run, if people are allowed to do whatever they want no matter what the result. But under a system free enough to allow where people can make as much money as they want without harming anything essentially necessary to the society it contributes to, it will indeed "live long and prosper". So far, for the last 250 years it has worked. In more recent years, however, we've turned to a more corporate bond of economies, where each country's economy is connected. If one country fails fiscally: domino effect. Greece is dead. It won't be long before Europe begins to fail. Once Europe fails, the U.S. will fail. Once the U.S. fails, China will. It will continue until every nation's economy has essentially collapsed, but there will always be at least one to reboot the system.
If the U.S. wakes up and realizes that it can collapse, we (or "they" if you're from another nation) can remove ourselves from this system. The same goes for every other country. It used to be all about "M.A.D." or, Mutually Assured Destruction. Nuke one country, the other will nuke back. Holocaust. No one wants that. Then we turned to tying our economies together, which was a terrible idea since we'd all depend on each other not to do something stupid. Now we have to realize that if we're going to survive, we're going to have to go it alone, and not have any connection to another nation's demise.
|
