Why are you not a socialist?

I mean true socialism
A stateless, cashless, classless society, not a strong welfare system.

According to socialists anyone who isn't a capitalist i.e. anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire or above shouldn't endorse capitalism.

I lay somewhere between capitalist and socialist. The reason I am somewhere in between is because, despite calling myself a conservative, I recognise that the kind of theories that one learns about economics and government in university courses are based on ideal conditions and not reality.
For example, relying on the market to improve living conditions for the community at large doesn't factor in manipulation of prices or corruption.
Thinking that 'the market' can solve every problem is short-sighted and not realistic.
On the flip side, one doesn't prevent a big, bad, nazi government from ruling the world by instead introducing a big, bad communist government ruling the world. Both are equally bad.

Reply 21

Napp

22

Original post by WADR

So you consider the idea of eliminating poverty to be "obscene"?
You are happy that some people have billions they will never spend while the elderly die from the inability to heat their home.
Nice.

This is a troll post but i'll humour you for the sake of it, maybe youll learn something.

Never said anything even remotely approximating that. 'eliminating poverty' does not ip[so facto mean, by definition, pilfering from everyone else to address it. Shockingly, pauperizing one person to uplift another is not an overly good way of going about it.

What does 'happy' have to do with it? :lol:

So you think that those children should be punished for the "sins" of the parent? Nice.

Quite.

Simply not raising taxes on the middle classes to fund their parents poor choices does not necessarily equal 'punishing them'. If you want to live paycheque to paycheque whilst tens of thousands of your income goes to fund someone elses lavish lifestyle then youre perfectly welcome to donate it directly. Others take exception to seeing those with no job living a better life than them whilst they work every day of the week.

Tell me though, what do you believe is the primary responsibility of the bread winner in a family, to give their kids a good life or somebody elses whilst they, quite possibly, struggle to pay their bills?

Either way, shockingly, not approving of lavishing spending on the idle does not also mean not giving them anything. In said hypothetical, there is no 'need' for a large house, no 'need' to be 'earning' anything more than minimum wage (what was that nice case in the news a while back, a comparable family in a 10bedroom manor getting tens of tohusands a year from the tax payer?) Someone elses good life should not come at the expense of your own when its quite clear, only one gorup in the above example merits 'la dolce vita'.

Ironically, it is often the "hard working taxpayer" who is in need of a more equitable redistribution of wealth.
The fact that you are so vehemently opposed to properly taxing corporations and the very wealthy in order to raise millions of working people out of poverty says a great deal.

Now why would you make up such an easily disprovable lie? Nowhere have i ever made comment about letting corporations off of paying taxes, nor letting the rich off for that matter. My complaint is solely with screwing the middle classes for the bone idle and lazy.

You on the other and have expressly said you approve of expropriating wealth from the average worker to uplift the undeserving to a grossly obscene degree. Social welfare exists to keep people alive, fed and warm. It does not exist to pay for any and all of their sundry expenses to enjoy themselves. Such an obscene waste on one family, for example, does absolutely nothing but then harm others who must go without.

Reply 22

WADR

14

Original post by Napp

Never said anything even remotely approximating that.

You stated that the socio-economic principle of "from each according to their ability from each according to their means" is "fairly obscene".
So yes, what you said more than "remotely approximated" it.

'eliminating poverty' does not ip[so facto mean, by definition, pilfering from everyone else to address it. Shockingly, pauperizing one person to uplift another is not an overly good way of going about it.

More eye-watering irony.
How is increasing the tax responsibility of the very wealthy and profitable businesses "pauperizing" [sic] them? It's classic baseless conservative outrage.
It is common knowledge that it is the actual distribution of wealth in society that is "obscene".

What does 'happy' have to do with it? :lol:

It is a term that means "being satisfied/comfortable with". It establishes your position.

Quite.

Simply not raising taxes on the middle classes to fund their parents poor choices does not necessarily equal 'punishing them'. If you want to live paycheque to paycheque whilst tens of thousands of your income goes to fund someone elses lavish lifestyle then youre perfectly welcome to donate it directly. Others take exception to seeing those with no job living a better life than them whilst they work every day of the week.
Tell me though, what do you believe is the primary responsibility of the bread winner in a family, to give their kids a good life or somebody elses whilst they, quite possibly, struggle to pay their bills?

No idea what you are on about here. This even goes beyond the usual right wing benefits outrage hyperbole.
Do you really think that adjusting the tax system to raise the poorest out of real poverty would mean them living a "lavish lifestyle" while middle class working families fall into real poverty?
It just beggars belief that you can even present such an argument in public with a straight face. You may get agreement and approval in the bar of your golf club/Masonic lodge, etc, but in the real world you just sound ridiculous.

Either way, shockingly, not approving of lavishing spending on the idle

Yes, we understand. You think that every working single parent struggling to make ends meet, every pensioner chosing between food and heating, every vulnerable teen leaving the care system is an idle waster.

Now why would you make up such an easily disprovable lie? Nowhere have i ever made comment about letting corporations off of paying taxes, nor letting the rich off for that matter. My complaint is solely with screwing the middle classes for the bone idle and lazy.

More classic Napp irony. :rolleyes:

I specifically said "properly taxing corporations and the very wealthy". I never mentioned increasing taxes for ordinary working families.

You on the other and have expressly said you approve of expropriating wealth from the average worker to uplift the undeserving to a grossly obscene degree.

"

Now why would you make up such an easily disprovable lie? "

Social welfare exists to keep people alive, fed and warm. It does not exist to pay for any and all of their sundry expenses to enjoy themselves. Such an obscene waste on one family, for example, does absolutely nothing but then harm others who must go without.

So what does this mean in real terms? Do you think that a single mother with two young children working as a cleaner on zero hours contracts should be able have a family holiday, for example?

(edited 10 months ago)

Reply 23

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

22

Original post by Acuityo

I mean true socialism
A stateless, cashless, classless society, not a strong welfare system.

According to socialists anyone who isn't a capitalist i.e. anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire or above shouldn't endorse capitalism.

Because it can't work for everyone on earth. Natural produce can't be used for payment at any time and a welfare system is needed to keep poverty within limits. Capitalism in purity leads to an unfair distribution of fortune without a doubt and exploitation of goods and resources all over the world, but socialism in purity does not make it better. The balance matters.

Reply 24

Quady

20

Original post by Kallisto

Capitalism in purity leads to a fair distribution of fortune without a doubt

Fixed that for ya

Reply 25

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

22

Original post by Quady

Fixed that for ya

Are you serious? Everywhere around the world? really everywhere? fair distribution of fortune everywhere that all people in the world are able to live a normal life?

Reply 26

Quady

20

Original post by Kallisto

Are you serious? Everywhere around the world? really everywhere? fair distribution of fortune everywhere that all people in the world are able to live a normal life?

Nowhere in the world is like that. There is nowhere in the world that has implemented 'capitalism in purity', to my knowledge anyway - can you think of any?

Reply 27

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Because it’s daft.

I'm NOT not a socialist :smile:

That said I don't know where you're getting your definition of socialism. It's been interpreted different ways at different times but when you describe a "stateless society" that sounds much more like anarchism.

Reply 29

IncomingAnalyst

2

Original post by Quady

Nowhere in the world is like that. There is nowhere in the world that has implemented 'capitalism in purity', to my knowledge anyway - can you think of any?

Because it cant be implemented in purity

Reply 30

Quady

20

Original post by IncomingAnalyst

Because it cant be implemented in purity

Why would someone give assertions based on a pure implementation then?

Original post by Acuityo

I mean true socialism
A stateless, cashless, classless society, not a strong welfare system.

According to socialists anyone who isn't a capitalist i.e. anyone who isn't a multi-millionaire or above shouldn't endorse capitalism.

Not realistic to be purely socialist (to the point where there should be zero capitalism) or purely capitalist (to the point where there should be zero socialism) in my opinion. Some people advocate for this which fair play that's your position but I can't back it, I think that you need both.

I used to be hardcore socialist though I think.