Socialism and the world?

Question

In your way of thinking, does the world need some socialism to keep order?
In the past when a gap between the rich and poor becomes too great the poor often rise up ending in a great deal of bloodshed on both sides. Does the world need a certain amount of socialism to prevent this from happening?

Answer 1

Sometimes I think that in the US people have been taught their whole lives that socialism is bad. While complete socialism is bad, I dont see how you can explain to a 5 year old kid that he cant get help with his broken arm because our government is so afraid of socialism that anything that has the word "universalized" in it is automatically bad.

Answer 2

Socialism does not work because it penalizes success. Yes there is a gap between rich and poor but capitalism is better for both groups. The United States is the most capitalistic country and has one of the highest standards of living for both rich and poor.

Many countries in South America are moving to socialism for the reasons you mention. But their economies are suffering for it and when the economy is bad the poor usually feel it the worst.

Answer 3

By western thinking, anything but democracy is wrong and is punishable by invasion and bombing. Socialism has no poverty, this is a good thing in comparison to what's going on in America right now - the increasing wage gap and increasing tax gap cause the richer to become even richer and pay an enormous majority of the taxes. The richest 10% pay 50% of the taxes (or something of the sort, don't remember the numbers), and many people argue that this isn't fair. Socialism, there is no need for taxes because the government is the one that hands out the money in the first place, instead of taking it from the citizens. I think socialism could work very well - you have a few people managing everything, instead of businesses who are motivated by the PROFIT MOTIVE controlling everything. The U.S. isn't a democracy anyway - democracy means the citizens vote for everything, instead of voting for people who will change their minds once in office anyway. The current system is, in my eyes, an appointed dictator. Just look at what the current administration is doing to the right of citizens.

I disagree with the person below me very much, the U.S. isn't a leader in capitalism by far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

People freeze on the streets everyday, healthcare is a disaster, and generally everything is getting f.ucked by the profit motive - college prices are insane, subprime loans are destroying economy, many ingridients in goods are being compromised just to save some money, and so on. Socialism - education is free, everyone gets paid enough for EVERYTHING. No profit motive means that everything is CHEAP AS HELL. There will be no need to sell your kids to pay taxes due to SS of baby boomers, medicare, medicaid and so on.

Answer 4

Of course it does. If it wasnt for socialist fighting for better working conditions there wouldnt be such a thing as minumum wage, 8-hour workdays, and no child labor. Back in the Gilded-age in the US, where the gap between the rich and poor was gigantic, socialism played an important part there. Socialist fought for better working conditions and urged the workers to go on strike to get the better conditions. But it wasn the poor and workers who created the bloodshed, it was the elite group, whom wanted maintain their oppression and exploitation of the workers in order to reap a greater profit, who urged the government to send in armies to end the strikes.

Answer 5

the problem with socialism is that it concentrates a LOT of power in a FEW hands. Thus, potentials for corruption and misuse of power multiply, and abuses are easily covered up, as even media outlets are reliant upon the stong state.

Corporations do this, too, actually, but their control is based on economics, not law, so there is an avenue for using public pressure to rein them in.

Clearly, something has got to happen to rein in the "corporate communism"' that is entrenching itself; but until people get riled up to the point where they're willing to compromise their materialistic quick-fixes, I don't expect much will happen.

Answer 6

The world doesn't need socialism, it needs compassion. I believe that free markets are the most efficient method of distributing resources, and we need even freer markets. I note that many people who claim to be socialist are opposed to globalisation - but won't freeing up the rich markets to third world countries help enrich them?

We need completely free markets, and we need a worldwide spiritual revolution to ensure that everybody is treated equitably (not necessarily equally, but justly). You can't "legislate compassion", and socialism is an attempt to "enforce equality" which I believe is doomed to fail.

Answer 7

socialism is bad, u red ( aka COMMUNIST!) yeha capitalism is the way 2 go.