Not entirely, but its socialist elements are some of its finest. Nationalised healthcare is one of the most excellent things about living here, and things like social security and government funded education are things I prize highly. Being dedicated to pure socialism is needlessly restrictive, it does not have value simply because it has a name, but it can be broken down for many useful parts, and it is a worthy end goal. It is certainly better than captialism, which is a detestable concept and ridiculously outmoded. Although like socialism is has functional elements, however they are all ones which should be moved away from as soon as possible.
i live in austira, socialism is serving us quite wonderfully too. its just your mccarthy deffinitons that are wrong
Nor does having an economy make america a capitalist state. Most countries are a mix of many different ideologies. Ideas are rarely entirely practical, and a good pragmatist will happily use bits of ones that work. I get the impression you either aren't reading or aren't thinking before you reply, I did cover this. Don't knock masochism.
Its like wearing dirty clothes so you can act like the cool kids who rob mailboxes and stuff. You guys are hipsters. Your country is no socialist. Get over youeselves.
Many european countries are likely as close to socialist as you are ever likely to find nowadays. I would suggest china but I don't know if they are actually very communist at all. Same with cuba.
no capitalism as it is has a inherrent injustice (hint: it has something to do with interest and compound interest, which in the end has to do with who possess the means of production), if you want to know read marx. im not gonna explain a book with 734 pages (in the edition i own) though. especially not to someone ignorant like you hamster. your "school wise" bullshit is unbearable ... im not saying money is bad, im not saying a market is bad, im not saying all people should be equalized, im not saying all people deserve the same. thats not what im saying ...
not equalized = because people should decide who and what they are themselfs not deserve the same = because someone who adds less deserves less im just saying each human individual should be granted the SAME EXACT chances by they day of their birth. and this is by far, and really by far, not even true in our western civilizations, let alone globally ...
Merry christmas guys. I'll ask santa to give you guys Justin Beiber cds so you can hang with the cool kids and pretend to be socialist hipsters and praise something you don't understand.
uh is that now a typical "true blooded conservative republican" reply? oh and RA, sry i somehow deleted my reply. unless conservative has a significantly different meaning then in german, your interpretation is extremely optimistic imo
Hmm I'd prefer an elimination of individualism entirely. It would probably make solving other problems much easier and personally I would find it quite pleasant. The idea of contributing less deserving less though is sort of counterproductive to your idea though, if everyone should be free to choose what they are, then they should also be free to choose to be something non-contributive, but they cannot do that if you make them suffer by preventing them from having the things they need to be happy because of their lack of contribution. In english it would probably mean something like 'dedicated to preserving established traditions and ideas'. Depressingly this usually means preserving ideas like racism, sexism, exploitation of everyone you can, homophobia, all those good things people did in the past.
i think individualism is inherrent and good. its even in your dna, no two humans on this planet are exactly the same ... i agrue that its impossible for humans to not do anything valueable for an extended period of time anyway. but if someone shows extraordinary social interest for example this should be rewarded. maybe i phrased it not so well and i should have said, those who add more deserve more? ofc what i meant with the same exact chances means that they most basic needs would have to be guaranteed (for free) yes, thats basically the same exact meaning which it has in german - i looked it up in wiktionary anyway - that was just for the polemics
Lots of things are in your DNA. Cystic fibrosis springs to mind. The trouble with giving them 'more' is that you have to give everyone else 'less' in order to make it meaningful. If you give everyone the means to be as happy as they like, how do you give anyone more than that? To have the concept of more, you need to have the concept of limited.
would that be the equivalent to capitalism? oO well we produce more, or at least its said, then we need anyway (on a global scale) - but since this is infact not sustainable for long anymore, i think you are right on this, maybe i should reconsider here and we should only produce the minimal needs and a little surpluss to compensate for bad harvest or thelike. but then you could distribute this surplus for example, you can store crops for a bit, but not limitless anyway (thats just an example btw)
If capitalism causes protein malformation leading to water potential imbalances in epithelial cells, which causes the normal mucus coating the walls of the oesophagus and digestive tract to thicken and multiply indefinitely, which results in an inability to breathe or digest food then yes, cystic fibrosis is equivalent to capitalism. My point is that saying something is natural is a poor argument for saying that it's right, many things are natural, and some of the greatest accomplisments in human history have been in defiance of nature.
point taken - i still disagree on that. but your argument is good, ill borrow it for future discussions :D
Chris, you sometimes strike me as being a total fucking moron. This is one instance of that. Racism? Homophobia? What are you referring to there, "dont ask don't tell?" I'll have you know Clinton is where the Don't Ask thing comes from. And the military isn't anti-gays, it's anti-bringing-that-into-the-issue. You wanna be gay? Great. You wanna wear makeup? No, you can fuck off. Racism? Where? Really? What do you think, half of the US wears white capes and practices lychings? Exploitation? What the fuck do you think the health care Obama pushed through is? Hmm? What do you think raising taxes on EVERYONE and at the same time pushing all sin taxes through the roof, not capping spending, not reforming, allowing the TSA to pat anyone down, bodyscanners that will likely cause skin cancer...you know, you may be fine with a camera on every street corner in the UK, we in the US are NOT ok with that. Conservatives push for SMALL government. Liberals push for bit government. Best definition there you will get. Conservatives want little regulation; they want lower taxes, and if we'd adhere to the monroe doctorine and the Rosevelt corrallary, we'd also keep our military on the americas only. Moreover, conservatives wish to adhere to the constitution - to the basis on which our nation was founded. Liberals interpret the constitution as a document they can bend to their will. You have no clue about politics in the US, so you'd do yourself well to either not speak on the subject, or learn about it before you do speak.
