The trouble with socialism is that it does not actually work - especially in larger countries over a longer period of time. "From each according to his (or her) abilities to each according to his (or her) needs" sounds Utopian. Unfortunately without incentives and motivation (especially financial) the "abilities" start to errode and are replaced with more and more "needs." The benefits to the people by nationalizing any industry also is a myth. It replaces the predatory, manipulative, self aggrandizing owners with an inefficient, stupid, self-aggrandizing bloated government bureaucracy which does a much worse job while spending far more money. I agree that any government should provide basic services, maintain a "level economic playing field" and avoid running commercial enterprizes. That said, I would have to say that a successful example of socialism over a long period of time is Cuba. More Cubans are living better under Castro than under Batista.
Unfortunately, Americans shaft themselves far more than any capitalistic plot. They spend too much, drink too much, plan too little and assume the world revolves around them.
2007-01-10 08:32:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by db79300 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
It wasn't that many years ago when the campaign stradegists for the democratic party were warning their democratic hopefuls not to mention the "S word" in their campaigns because Americans weren't ready, and wouldn't tolerate it. After reading some of the questions on this site regarding the "S word," (Socialism), I have to admit it's both frightening and disheartening to see how fast this ideology is actually advancing. Very few people will argue the fact that America is deteriorating as a society.
I think the best form of government this planet has ever known (bar none) was the government that the founding fathers of the United States of America intended and implemented. Those ideas and principles have long since been dissolved, contaminated, and polluted with the void, empty, vacant, ideology of liberalism.
When Fidel Castro took control of Cuba the very first thing he did was to replace all the school teachers with communist sympathizers. In this Country there was never the instantaneous and dramatic take over, but systematically over the last several decades the results have been every bit as devastating. Schools have become brainwashing laboratories for liberalsim, and this once great nation is being infested with this pie in the sky B/S ideology one student, and one generation at a time. The fact that any red-blooded American would mention the name Hugo Chavez with anything but utter contempt is absurd.
2007-01-10 19:36:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by M D 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The top1% do not own 90% of the wealth. stop making up stuff to prove your point. People will respect your ideas if you use facts, even if they disagree with you. And no one will ever be refused medical care in America, The poor and illegals get it free its the middle class that suffers. Mainly because they chose a $550.00 a month suburban note over buying a good policy. By the way the average life span of a Venezuelan is 51 Americans live 20 more years, so go there if you like it so much and stop complaining about how much somebody else makes, Mr. Jealous.
2007-01-10 07:29:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
First of all, Chavez is NOT anti-American, he's anti-Bush and anti-American foreign policy.
A little known fact in the aftermath of Katrina, Chavez VOWED to give ALL americans of low-income status FREE gas through the Venezuelan gas station, Citgo.
In fact, "Citgo was highlighted by the company's recent provision of 25 million gallons of subsidized home-heating oil to poor people in the northeast USA. More than 100,000 households in four states should eventually benefit from the low-cost heating aid."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-01-11-citgo-cover-usat_x.htm
"Late last year, as winter's first chill sent consumers reaching for their thermostats, a dozen U.S. senators asked 10 major oil companies to donate a portion of their record profits to help the poor. Only Citgo responded, dispatching tankers to housing projects in New York and Massachusetts in what Felix Rodriguez, the company president and chief executive, called a purely "humanitarian" gesture."
same article...
Yes, SOCIALISM IS HORRIBLE and CAPITALISM IS GOOD! lol
2007-01-10 07:31:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You need to study more about socialism. It is no different than communism. For a short time people will like the free gifts they get from their government, but when they come to realize they can never BE or have MORE, than what is given to them, they're hearts die, or they die physically trying to be better than what they are told they are by the government. A Socialist government eats Prime Rib, while the people eat peas, corn, and an occasional pork chop, handed out to them on Christmas. Kinda like a master giving a dog a treat, eh? You want that kind of life? Go to it!
2007-01-10 07:30:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by xenypoo 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
Socialism does not provide individual incentives to produce products. America is great because we have incentives such as land ownership. But keep in mind we live in Socialized capitalism. We put forth social security, welfare, etc.. after the great depression.to save capitalism from failing..
2007-01-10 07:30:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by carl_marxx2000 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
Socialism, and communism, is a really good idea, and I agree with you whole heartedly. The only problem is people are greedy and you cant get around that. If people weren't greedy we'd be fine and Communism and Socialism would work great and be todays Democracy and Capitalism, but unfortunately it doesnt work like that.
2007-01-10 07:24:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by yajman2004 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's only that bad to the far-right wing nut jobs...
Fact:
Milwaukee, WI was a socialist (thriving) city for 20+ years.
2007-01-10 07:24:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Go ask someone in Russia or in East Germany how good socialism was. I think they could probably give you a real good insight into how bad things really were.
2007-01-10 07:51:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I was just reading your question, and agreeing with everything you said, and then suddenly, you said that you voted for Bush, not once, but TWICE.
After that, I lost any further interest.
Sorry.
2007-01-10 07:37:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Panama Jack 4
·
1⤊
0⤋