Yes/no Socialism?

[Princess3dward]

We were doing "rants" today in drama, and I know like, nothing about politics...

but someone was pro-socialist..

and now, I don't like the idea of socialism very much.

Who here is for or against socialism and why?

[Dr T]

I actually admire some of the concepts (in an idealistic sense) but it doesn't work.

Dr. T

[Princess3dward]

I actually admire some of the concepts (in an idealistic sense) but it doesn't work.

Dr. T

That is EXACTICALLY how I feel!

[prisonchaplain]

I recall the words to an early 1980s song by the pop group OINGO BOINGO. They went something like this:

There ain't nothing wrong with capitalism

There ain't nothing wrong with free enterprise

What's wrong with you...you middle class socialist brat!

You ain't worked a day in your life!

The message of the song was that only spoiled, upper-middle class American young people, with no practical knowledge of work, sweat, or common sense, would embrace such a bankrupt economic system.

Me? I see the appeal, but it gives power to politicians and officials, rather than workers and dreamers. So, I'm basically opposed to it.

[Princess3dward]

I feel like I am making new friends!

[JoshuaFKon]

Hi Desiré, :)

I just couldn't resist posting on this thread, (I love politics and economics :) )

I am strongly againist Any form of socialism. Because:

(1) Socialism requires a strong central government. And since "power corupts, and absolute power corupts absolutly" any form of socialism will evolve into a dictatorship.

(2) Even if socialsim could be directed by "angels" who would never let the power go to their heads, in just plain dosn't work. It is not nearly as effective as the Free Market.

To sum up my point I will quote Winston Churchill who said:

<div align="center"> "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery"</div>

Josh B)

P.S. If you really want to know -in depth- why I don't like socialism you should read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell :)

[Princess3dward]

I was telling my pro-socialist friend that.. and how no one will want to give everything to the government (mostly power wise), and naturally, it was like I was speaking a different language to him.

No one understands me I tell ya!

p.s. Welcome back! :D

[JoshuaFKon]

p.s. Welcome back! :D

Thanks :)

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

Anytime!

Don't be afraid to post, just be careful that you don't offend anyone, (and I only say that because some "feathers were ruffeled" last time).

[BenRaines]

I have heard said that the only way Socialism would work is in a perfect society. Like one that is envisioned during the 1,000 year reign of the Millenium.

Ben Raines.

[Traveler]

We were doing "rants" today in drama, and I know like, nothing about politics...

but someone was pro-socialist..

and now, I don't like the idea of socialism very much.

Who here is for or against socialism and why?

There have been several modern and ancient experiments in socialism. Communism is one of the more popular ones but many people forget the Hitler was a socialist. Some claim that Hitler was the extreme Right but that is not true he was in every definition a socialist. Because Hitler was also and nationalist (a believer in a superior race and society - white, blond hair blue eye and German) many admitted socialist have tried to pass him off as "Right Wing" but Hitler was not a capitalist and sought for social orders within government and social controls of the masses.

I do not support social programs. Even Social Security in our country. The reason is that it is such a failure. From an audit of Social Security during the Reagan years revealed that less than half of the monies collected as Social Security has ever been spent in the Social Security program. One of the biggest uses was for “black” opps for the CIA. Of the monies maintained in Social Security 60% is spent on bureaucracy and 40% ever reaches any citizen in the form of help. How stupid is that.

A good way to know when a government program is social and has failed, is when it needs more money (percent of money collected or a greater percent of citizen’s money) to survive.

The Traveler

[79scholar]

"It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s egalitarian are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a matter of right." (This nation shall Endure p.91 Ezra T. Benson)

It is a system of government where all the masses are skimmed from all surpluses by an elite ruling mega-rich ... like Oligarchy. Extreme right leads to oligarchal feudalism - extreme left leads to state feudalism. Both are a variation of fascism. Socialism is just Communism with a happy face :)

[Dr T]

The new testament church seemed to be trying socialism to some degree. They would sell and put together their belongings and give as was needed. I don't think (from the limited amount that I know) succeed. The Jerusalem church wsa poor and needed others to come help them out. Just a thought. Any historians around that can confirm or correct my error on that?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

The churches that lived communally tended to be persecuted ones. They had to pool resources to survive. Call it "church martial law," if you will. In times of "war," dictatorship is most efficient, and sometimes necessary. Likewise, centralized planning becomes a necessity. And, since everyone is fearful and cooperative, it does work for a season.

However, once the fear and threat are gone, the "revolution of demand," in which people will begin to quickly demand more freedom and goods, will make continuing socialism impossible.

[Fiannan]

Socialism is collectivism imposed by the state to force conformity -- sounds like Marx and Saddam's boyfriend from the Southpark movie had the same idea.

[79scholar]

The new testament church seemed to be trying socialism to some degree. They would sell and put together their belongings and give as was needed. I don't think (from the limited amount that I know) succeed. The Jerusalem church wsa poor and needed others to come help them out. Just a thought. Any historians around that can confirm or correct my error on that?

Thanks,

Dr. T

To every good thing, the devil offers a counterfeit. The law of consecration is on a volunteer basis, not by coercion, and this is the fundamental difference. Christ's plan was to give men agency and have them choose for themselves on this earth (Abraham chapter 3), whereas Lucifer's plan was to force all men to be good ... and force man to have all in common.

The city of Enoch lived the law of consecration (which is the higher law, and tithing is the lower law), as well as the Nephites at certain times including 4 Nephi. The New Testament Church also lived this law for a time. The law is based on charity for one's fellow man.

Socialism is the adversary's counterfeit to the law of consecration. It destroys charity, and is based on coercion. Under the guise of "helping the middle class" it oppresses all, solely to benefit the few ruling elite. Oppression, even economic oppression, is all part of Lucifer's plan to bring about Revelations 13 (Armageddon, just prior to the Second Coming of Christ).

"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own...The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional ‘do-gooders,’ who attempt to set themselves up as gods and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (Ezra T. Benson, quotes Henry G. Weaver, An Enemy Hath Done This, p. 140)

[Princess3dward]

Health care is Canada... is.... to the SMALLEST degree socialized (a word?) so "I do not support social programs. Even Social Security in our country."... is not something I would say...

Just that...it is our limit...

Our society can't go any farther without.....collapsing...

[Traveler]

Health care is Canada... is.... to the SMALLEST degree socialized (a word?) so "I do not support social programs. Even Social Security in our country."... is not something I would say...

Just that...it is our limit...

Our society can't go any farther without.....collapsing...

A thought about health care in the USA. I find it most odd that in the United States our Health Care industry does not want to deal with any one that intends to pay their own bill. Think about that and see if you can tell me why?

The Traveler

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

Health care is Canada... is.... to the SMALLEST degree socialized (a word?) so "I do not support social programs. Even Social Security in our country."... is not something I would say...

Just that...it is our limit...

Our society can't go any farther without.....collapsing...

A thought about health care in the USA. I find it most odd that in the United States our Health Care industry does not want to deal with any one that intends to pay their own bill. Think about that and see if you can tell me why?

The Traveler

I am confused...

Is this directed to me?

If no... I will ignore it...

If yes, can you rephrase it in a way I might understand better?

I might be having a slow moment...

[Dr T]

Thanks 79scholar,

I think the church in Jerusalem was ripe for an economic downfall in the preceding decades. I'm not an economist or historian so I can't say that with any certainty. Does anyone know if that is true. I think they even sold their means of production and shared the wealth. In the end it seems (to my small mind) a unwise approach. If they were sharing their resources, that’s great just don’t shoot yourself in the foot and have nothing to continue the growth.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[79scholar]

Thanks 79scholar,

I think the church in Jerusalem was ripe for an economic downfall in the preceding decades. I'm not an economist or historian so I can't say that with any certainty. Does anyone know if that is true. I think they even sold their means of production and shared the wealth. In the end it seems (to my small mind) a unwise approach. If they were sharing their resources, that’s great just don’t shoot yourself in the foot and have nothing to continue the growth.

Thanks,

Dr. T

I agree, selling the means of production is like selling one's farm for food. I doubt they would enforce something like this, as coercion is against the law of consecration. My guess is that they were probably sharing resources in a community setting, as the people were *asked to donate* to the Saints in other less fortunate region(s). Without agency, it's slavery.