Socialism &quot;corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself&quot;.

Original post by Aceadria

"I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd"

- Garry Kasparov

I think that things such as entrepreneurship, creativity, competitiveness, are a large part of what makes us human and what makes us so advanced as a species and socialism dims or takes away completely these aspects of society so yes I'd have to agree with that statement. We need to retain our individualism rather than becoming little more than the hive mind that socialism promotes.

Reply 2

math42

Elements of both capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive...as far as I'm aware nobody is suggesting America go full-on 100% socialist.

Reply 3

Original post by Aceadria

"Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. "

- Garry Kasparov

I wouldn't even know why and how inequality is a "huge problem" - it's not a problem in reality. only in the mind. the fact that one person has more than another person doesn't harm the person with less, seeing as they didn't get more in the first place by stealing it from the other person.

Reply 4

TaintedLight

Bernie is not a socialist per the dictionary definition of socialism -- "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies."

Bernie believes in a sort of social democracy that's used effectively in Northern European countries; to guarantee a decent living to everyone with significant supports like healthcare, unemployment benefits, higher education and yadda.

He also wants the government, in its role as a regulator of the economy, break up big banks whose failure could melt the economy as a whole.

From my understanding, his "breaking up of big banks" is to curtail their ability to over leverage at the expense of the middle class' welfare. I don't necessarily agree with this notion but I can appreciate such a stance.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 5

Original post by sleepysnooze

seeing as they didn't get more in the first place by stealing it from the other person.

No, that happened like 3 or 4 WHOLE generations ago. Out of sight, out of mind :fluffy:

Reply 6

Howard

5

Pft!

Kasparov? Chess player. No particular authority on socialism. Join me next week I'll be asking ex world champion darts player Eric Bristow aka "the Crafty Cockney" for his views on American Art during the Reconstruction period.

Reply 7

Original post by SmashConcept

No, that happened like 3 or 4 WHOLE generations ago. Out of sight, out of mind :fluffy:

it's funny how you have to rely on fantasies to form your ideology. if you were talking about maybe the medieval times you may have had a point to make. but the world isn't perfect. you can't say that just because some money or property originated from theft means that capitalism as a institution of economic activity is illegitimate. socialism would be *100%* theft-based (or whatever % rate of taxation and to which group in society)

Reply 8

Original post by sleepysnooze

it's funny how you have to rely on fantasies to form your ideology. if you were talking about maybe the medieval times you may have had a point to make. but the world isn't perfect. you can't say that just because some money or property originated from theft means that capitalism as a institution of economic activity is illegitimate. socialism would be *100%* theft-based (or whatever % rate of taxation and to which group in society)

wow yes you're right nothing happened in the last 200 years in america that could have made people rich at the expense of a certain group literally nothing it's all just a load of stuff in my head and tarantino movies and history books or whatever PURE FICTION I TELL YOU

u r very smart congrtulatons

Reply 9

Original post by SmashConcept

wow yes you're right nothing happened in the last 200 years in america that could have made people rich at the expense of a certain group literally nothing it's all just a load of stuff in my head and tarantino movies and history books or whatever PURE FICTION I TELL YOU

u r very smart congrtulatons

do you really think that the majority of property ownership even 200 years ago was based on theft? how? elaborate.

Reply 10

Original post by SmashConcept

wow yes you're right nothing happened in the last 200 years in america that could have made people rich at the expense of a certain group literally nothing it's all just a load of stuff in my head and tarantino movies and history books or whatever PURE FICTION I TELL YOU

u r very smart congrtulatons

What does this have to do with capitalism vs socialism?

Reply 11

JamesN88

It's ironic that the Russian oligarchs(led by an ex-KGB agent) are now some of the most decadent capitalists in the world and the parts of Germany where the far-right are most active were in the socialist GDR.

Reply 12

Original post by sleepysnooze

do you really think that the majority of property ownership even 200 years ago was based on theft? how? elaborate.

In America?? Is that a serious question???? lmao

Original post by Unkempt_One

What does this have to do with capitalism vs socialism?

I'm replying to someone's posts. Thanks for asking.

Reply 13

Original post by SmashConcept

In America?? Is that a serious question???? lmao

I'm replying to someone's posts. Thanks for asking.

I'm butting in because you just jumped on one minor point in that guy's post to derail the bloody thread.

Reply 14

Original post by SmashConcept

In America?? Is that a serious question???? lmao.

this certainly isn't a serious answer. if you don't want to answer my question, whatever.

Reply 15

Original post by Unkempt_One

I'm butting in because you just jumped on one minor point in that guy's post to derail the bloody thread.

His entire post was claiming that income inequality isn't a problem. Debating his rationale for that is hardly derailing the thread. He then said that wide scale coercion in the last few generations in America was a "fantasy." You should be able to indulge me laughing at him for a few posts.

And besides, what is the point of the thread? To have a broad, good faith discussion about the merits of socialism? To discuss Kasparov's political career? To talk about Sanders's policies? Because nobody else is really doing any of those things.

Reply 16

Original post by SmashConcept

His entire post was claiming that income inequality isn't a problem. Debating his rationale for that is hardly derailing the thread. He then said that wide scale coercion in the last few generations in America was a "fantasy." You should be able to indulge me laughing at him for a few posts.

And besides, what is the point of the thread? To have a broad, good faith discussion about the merits of socialism? To discuss Kasparov's political career? To talk about Sanders's policies? Because nobody else is really doing any of those things.

They were talking about inequality in general and you've brought up the singular example of the African-American population as though it undermines the general principle; that's your 'fantasy'.

Reply 17

Original post by sleepysnooze

this certainly isn't a serious answer. if you don't want to answer my question, whatever.

You know what, I'll just go along with what I can tell is your version of American history. I don't want to live in a fantasy any more, after all.

1600s - White people discovered America. Nobody was living there, except bison which don't count because we're not stupid vegans. That means free land for whitey! Score!!!

1700s - Americans built a strong economy based on voluntary labour and workers' rights. Using this wealth, they bravely declared independence from the mean tax man.

1800s - Civil war!! Over what though? Who remembers? Not me! Probably ethics in gaming journalism or something like that. Anyway at some point after the civil war (for the sake of argument let's say 6 months) every race became exactly equal and nobody had anything to complain about any more.

1900s - Everyone had a vote and at no point was there a concerted effort to deny civil rights to an entire group of people. After the two world wars, the GI bill applied equally to all people of all races. This meant equality of opportunity for all, and anyone who stayed poor throughout this century was obviously lazy.

2000s - Since no generational wealth was ill gotten in any of the previous centuries, equality of opportunity is even more obvious than ever. OK, so maybe SOME bad stuff happened, and maybe SOME income inequality might be due to a TINY BIT of mass subjugation, but that was really long ago. Like, over 150 years! That's aaaaaaages. Can you remember 150 years ago? Me neither. So income inequality is just not a big deal. I mean it never has been, but it especially isn't now. But we need to Make America Great Again and go back to the times when it was a bit of a big deal. But not a big big deal. Never has been.

Reply 18

Original post by Unkempt_One

They were talking about inequality in general and you've brought up the singular example of the African-American population as though it undermines the general principle; that's your 'fantasy'.

I thought Sanders was running for POTUS, not President In General. But as we know, my news sources are not very reliable.

Reply 19