Succinctly, I'd explain it thus: if humans were still in the 'hunter/gatherer' stage of evolution, socialist methods might be practical. However, having made so much progress in our cultures, it's absolutely absurd to have such a centralized government.

Socialism is essentially a dictatorship; do only that which the gov't approves. In other words, it goes against humanity (i.e. counter-humam, otherwise known as counter-cultural).

I acknowledge a difference between 'socialism' and 'communism' - socialism is merely a despicable type of goverment, whereas communism is an idealology that imposes socialism on a culture (iow - they don't let it proceed naturally, they actually force it).

So, we should let people have free-will, as most countries do (as the US was built on, but is diverging from). Apparently, you're from the UK; I suspect that there are socialists there, too. What do you think of them?

So, then ...

Well, I now understand the reason for your inquiry.

Also, it seems like you're defending socialism. Or am I misreading?

>Thanks for the quick reply, but you seem to have the wrong conception of
>socialism. Accepting that government is neccessary at this stage of
>society, and your principle that "we should let people have free-will",
>obviously you've got to have the most democratic government possible,
>yes? We don't. Real socialism has always wanted as much democracy as
>possible (hence "the will of the people").

Really? What about China and North Korea? I don't hear anyone claiming that they're 'democratic'.

Btw - are you equating 'democratic / democracy' with 'democrat'? I don't, considering the current US situation. A democracy is "government by the people, or elected representatives", and a democrat advocates democracy. However, our democrats are essentially leftists, which is certianly NOT democracy.

>Talking of economics, this is also where the main socialist overhaul is
>planned. It is believed that leaving economic power n the hands of the
>few transfers other forms to them as well. This can be seen in the power
>resident in the hands of large modern day corporations and the fact that
>most politicians move in the same social circles as big businessmen, or
>in fact are big businessmen. The idea is that people have direct power
>over important industry. More of the democracy stuff, see.

"Leaving power in the hands of the few" - yes, that is the problem, and exactly why socialism disgusts so many people. In other words, how can a socialist gov't possibly work with the cultures that exist on this planet?

Here's another perspective. Socialists are against capitalism (they want to overthrow that whole notion). How can we allow socialism and still have a proper world economy?

> As regards your view of communism: "communism is an ideology that
>imposes socialism on a culture", I'm afraid that's wrong as well.
>Communism in the classical sense simply means a follower of Marx, and
>nowhere in Marx or even Lenin's writings is the idea that socialism
>should be the result of imposition or a coup. Always they have supported
>mass action as a neccessity.

hmmmm ... Please elaborate on "mass action as a necessity" (1 'c' in 'necessity').

Whatever Communism was or should be, I'd say that the Communists that oppressed Russia and neighboring countries (the Communist Bloc, "sphere of influence', Iron Curtain, etc.) and invaded other peaceful countries, then overthrew their democratic gov'ts (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, China, and partially in US) essentially ruined it forever.

Well, I agree with the latter part. Just like a month ago, there was something in the news about socialists protesting in Austrailia. At least one person was carrying a placard that proclaimed "OVERTHROW CAPITALISM".

Actually, I'd debate the former part. Isn't Putin a socialist? And isn't N Korea behaving in a fasion similar to how the USSR did?

>"...overthrew their democratic gov'ts (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, China, and
>partially in US) essentially ruined it forever." Actually, the
>'communist' revolutions in these countries had mass support.

OK - there's another point (which adds to the despicable nature of socialism). "Mass support" - I'll bet! It was only because of propoganda that anybody listened to the socialists. They probably declared that "The Czar was a dictator.", "You were not free.", "Socialism will mean a better life." (if they even mentioned that they were socialists), and other statements - much like more recent happenings, at least in the US.

>China's government was not democratic previous to the revolution, and neither I
>am fairly sure were any of the other pre-revolutionary governments.

Yes, I suppose that I'd agree with that. There were emporers and such. However, at least they were more-or-less 'normal' gov'ts.

>Anyway, that's about all i can answer. I'll have to ask you why
>socialism ruins world economy and ""Leaving power in the hands of the
>few" - yes, that is the problem, and
>exactly why socialism disgusts so many people".

part A - ruins world economy because it's the antithesis of capitalism, which most (all) countries have now.

part B - having a socialist gov't puts economic power in the hands of the few politicians, whereas capitalism puts power in the hands of EVERY CITIZEN (whether working class, politician, whatever) - in other words, there is more equality. Yes, I recall your statement about the citizenry controling important industry, but that still leaves the gov't with some economic power. It seems that giving that up would emasculate them, and would be going against their goal.

Here's another point. Germany became socialist somewhere in the 1930s (with appointment of A. Hitler?), and I don't hear anyone declaring that that era was good. Any comments?

Do you have a website? This kind of sharing of info gets tedious after a while. {I never got an answer to this.}

Well, my point was that they probably didn't explain everything (much as the last several decades in the US).

>The average Russian's living standard has fallen 40% since the Soviet
>system collapsed.

hmmm ... I don't suppose that's because they're trying to dig out from that mountain of opression?

Btw - your statement there smacks of propoganda. I've seen the documentaries that explain how the citizens lived under Communism; those that embraced Communism were given luxuries, and those that didn't (the common masses) were given SHIT. They had no decent living conditions, no car, little food - a pitiful life. Those f****** 'socialists' (or whatever they were) kept it all for themselves.

Don't try to tell me that life was better before the fall of the USSR.

>And as for the last points, one of the main Marxist theories is that the
>socialist revolution has to be international (the fact that Stalin did
>not abide by this was one of the reasons the USSR turned out the way it
>did). With an intenational socialist revolution, a worldwide federation
>of socialist countries could actually work together to defeat poverty
>and dictatorship across the world.

And thus create their own poverty and dictatorship.

I guess that you've stated the main problem with socialism - "has to be international". As far as I know, every civilized / industrialized country on this planet is capitalist (if you know of any that are real and truely socialist, do tell). Perhaps some are partially socialist?

>No, capitalism puts economic power in the hands of a very few (the
>capitalist class).

Which is everyone that lives according to basic notions of 'currency' - that is, anyone that buys stuff and services with dollars, pounds, rubles, francs, etc. Furthermore, if you wish to debate this point, perhaps you should consider that any person can own stock in any public company (even if not a citizen of the country where that company is based).

It seems as if you define this class of people differently than I do (and, apparently, the rest of the world). I just don't understand how you can criticize capitalism, and say stuff like "puts power in hands of very few".

>The point is that a socialist government is extremely
>democratic and therefore any powers it holds are legitimate; the
>economic and political power is held directly by everyone.

Yes - every socialist. And if you're not a socialist, you're SOL - just like the USSR.

This isn't going well - at least on this end. I got the impression from your first email (the 1-liner: "what my argument against Marxist socialism is?") that you are a socialist. Your second email made me think that you're trying to convert people.

Face it - we have different views on economic matters, and I don't see them getting reconciled. This is getting to be a waste of my time.

I guess that I know how he feels. To most people in the US (and UK, I'm sure), capitalism doesn't need to be defended - it's just a given that it's the only way to live. I felt like I was going in circles with the arguments that you brought up: I'd say that socialism is bad because such-and-such, and you'd say but consider so-and-so. I can understand that people just get tired of that.

>They seem to have even less now. Also consider that the documentaries
>you've seen are likely to be capitalist propaganda.

Of course it is! Is that bad??? You sound like you don't like the exposure and discussion of reality (how the USSR was) - is that because it defeats your message?

>"And thus create their own poverty and dictatorship."
>How can you back this up after everything I've told you about socialism?

Because that's what's happening in the US. The Democrats (i.e. socialists) have raised income taxes so much (over like 4 or 5 decades) that every dollar that a working person makes until at least March (maybe into April) is taken (stolen, essentially).

As if that's not disgusting enough, they (the socialists) have created social programs for lazy asses (people that don't care to work, or make anything of themselves). The big one is 'Welfare'; there are others, such as "Section 8". And, as if THAT isn't disgusting enough, these people get more money for each child that they have.

Think about that - these people have nothing better to do in life than exist, and make babies. Then they barely fed them enough to keep them alive, they aren't clothed properly, the dwelling is a freakin' dump (they don't buy houses - they just rent and let the place go to hell). Then the kids don't get raised properly (e.g. disciplined, a purpose & goal in life), and they grow up to be criminals.

Perhaps you're thinking that this is just a very small percentage of our society - guess again. It's such a problem in every city and town that the local gov'ts (e.g. schools, police) can't keep up with it. We've been going for so like like this that those children have grown up to have children, and they, in turn, have had children. It's in the news just about every day, and documentaries are made every year or so.

So, essentially the socialists have commandeered this culture to create a sub-culture of worthless humans.

Btw - yes, there's more. It is known that the socialists have been trying since the early 20th century to overthrow this country. Of course the income tax wouldn't be enough for such a large and wealthy country - so they have several other tactics (e.g. drug addiction, converting education system into a 'leftist generator', abolishing all trace of religion).

To add to the first paragraph ("run out of valid points") - it's not that (there are plenty) - the problem is that it's TOO complex for one brain to manage. And the normal, realistic people just get tired of talking to people that have an anti-human agenda. They have more important things to do - like get on with life.

Put it this way: if socialism is so much better than anything else, why isn't everybody going for it? Why does there need to be a revolution?

If you like socialism so much, move to China. Or maybe N Korea.

That first sentence is actually funny! Calling Democrats 'capitalists' - either you're trying to be a jokester, or you have no clue about US politics.

Frankly, I think it's the latter. Stating "The American socialists are all in the Green Party." to anybody in this country would get you some hard looks by people wondering what planet you're from, and then you'd basically be ignored. Put it this way: the Green party was UNHEARD of until about 2000. Even now, they still are - they have essentially no political or social clout (mostly because of being headed by a nut case - Ralph Nader).

I could see that you're grasping for straws when you (a UK citizen) try to tell a US citizen about the US social & political scene.

Could you tell me one thing about yourself - do you have a religion? And which, if you don't mind (or at least generally, e.g. Christian).

>And about the taxes. That proves the Democrats aren't socialists. If
>they take big taxes from poor people that's not good, I agree. But if
>they take big taxes from overpaid rich people who didn't even earn their
>income properly (eg. profit, inheritance, overpay, etc) to give to the
>poor underpaid people, that's a socialist policy.

You obviously have the wrong idea here. It's not that they're taking just from "overpaid rich people" - more like the WHOLE WORKING CLASS. Don't misunderstand me - they take from rich too.

Yes - in other words, the Democrats are 'socialists' (according to your paragraph). However, they go beyond that - they're greedy, deceitful bastards.

Btw - that's an interesting rationale there. You say that it's OK to steal, as long as the victim didn't earn the money 'properly'; what do you deem 'improper'? (I don't quite understand your examples there; are they 'proper'?) {I never got an answer to this.}

>And welfare. I don't suppose you've ever been unemployed. I don't
>suppose you've even been around many unemployed people. People who are
>unemployed want jobs. Dole money is very low. The reason they aren't
>working is not because they are lazy, it's because their employer has
>decided he can't make enough money out of them.

Here again - you don't know this country, yet you attempt to explain it to me.

Welfare is not for unemployed people - "unemployment compensation" is. Welfare is the system that the Democrats set up to keep the low-lifes alive and making babies. It was created with the idea being (so we were told) that a person (or family) would get it temporarily - until they get their lives back on track.

In reality, people have been on it their whole lives. And not just a few thousand - more like hundreds of thousands.

>"Then they barely fed them enough to keep them alive, they aren't
>clothed properly, the dwelling is a freakin' dump (they don't buy houses
>- they just rent and let the place go to hell)."
>That's because they don't have any fucking money. And that's not because
>they all spend it on drugs or drink, it's because the rich don't give
>them enough once they've decided they don't want them anymore.

OK - I see your perspective: The people that made something of their lives, have a decent work ethic, and live responsibly are supposed to cater to those that don't.

THINK ABOUT THAT. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

>Crime is very high in poor, 'doley', areas, yes? Again this is because
>they have very little money. Anyway, I think the criminals at the top of
>Enron or selling weapons to corrupt regimes are more important. But they
>can't be criminals, they grew up in nice places, yes? 'Disciplined',
>'given a goal in life', taken out for hunting trips by their dear papa.
>Then they grow up and you find out that their goal in life is to make as
>much cash for themselves as possible. By, for example, selling poison
>gas to Saddam Hussein then subsequently declaring him an enemy and
>butchering the civilians until he gives in.

I'm getting to understand you better, now. You say that certain heads of companies are greedy, deceitful bastards, and that they should be deemed 'criminals'. Would you believe that I AGREE? Yes - they're criminals, just like the thug that mugged a neighbor of mine a month ago.

HOWEVER - it also seems like you want to extend that label to everyone that has more than $20 in his (or her) pocket. Well, maybe not deem them criminals, but still exploit them to keep the class of low-lifes going.

hmmm ... maybe that's part of the problem. If you'd acknowledge the existance of a higher power, perhaps you'd realize that socialism is wrong.

I don't like to get blunt, but something has to fix the world's problems.

>And the fact that there have been Democratic
>administrations in which nothing changed toward socialism proves my
>point that they are not socialists. They would probably resent being
>called socialist.

Well, there's another error in your belief: "the fact that there have been Democratic administrations in which nothing changed toward socialism".

THIS IS PRECIESLY THE PROBLEM. (I hope that this gets my message across.)

We HAVE been trending toward socialism - for several decades (don't you remember me stating this?)

In fact I recently talked to a co-worker that stated that the US is entirely socialist (not just partially, as I see it). His rationale: Social Security (the program instituted by the most socialist president we've had thus far - F. D. Roosevelt - in the 1930s). This program requires that working people give the federal gov't some money while working, which is then returned at retirement. It's just another example of how our gov't steals from the working class to help the low-lifes.

Really? What do you call them, then? Furthermore, why don't you want to believe that they are socialists?

In your words: "But if they take big taxes from overpaid rich people who didn't even earn their income properly (eg. profit, inheritance, overpay, etc) to give to the poor underpaid people, that's a socialist policy."

As I stated, that's part of their adgenda. By your own definition, they're socialists.

Clinton was a socialist.

>Next you seem to say that taxation is theft. It's not.

Well, the way the leftists here do it, it is. If it were used JUST TO KEEP THE GOV'T OPERATING, it would be acceptable. But, as I explained already, there is lots of corruption and nonsense.

>Taxation is a way of making those living the good life support those who aren't so lucky.

Even that would be OK - if that were the whole story. It's not (see above).

>This might just be a whole difference of philosophy - perhaps the whole
>disagreement is due to your belief that people should only look after
>themselves (as Margeret Thatcher said, that there is no such thing as
>society, only individuals) while I and the left wing believe that people
>have an obligation to support each other?

Indeed - a difference in philosopy. In fact, didn't I explain this already? (Maybe in bits, in a few emails.)

Don't take me wrong - I'm not saying that we should necessarily keep our possessions and wealth to ourselves. I'm definitely for helping people in any way possible (be it monetarily, physically, whatever). HOWEVER, we CANNOT allow the government to have the authority to DEMAND it; we give to whom we want, when we want, as we want. Simple.

>As to the latter part of your email, have you ever considered that those
>people you label as 'not having done anything with their lives' have
>actually been denied the chance to? "There's no way outta the ghetto,
>brother".

Sure, I've considered that. But, again, that's not the whole story. Basically, those people created their own ghetto (they put themselves into that situation).

I'll explain the basic problem:
Because of the leftists, we now have discrimination (euphamistically called 'Affirmative Action', which was billed as getting certain races of people in line with our culture). In reality, it's how the Communists are imposing socialism on our country:

1. choose a class of people - in this case 'minorities' (i.e. non-caucasians)
2. delcare that they have been oppressed, and still are because of so-called 'discrimination'
3. implement laws to counter this 'oppression' - laws which are blatantly racist
4. if people complain (from the majority), proclaim them racists

One of my favorite lines:

THE COMMUNISTS KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Well, in this country, liberals and democrats are basically one in the same. That is, there are basically none of either that have any 'right wing' views.

In other words, if you mention 'democrat' in the US, everybody assumes that you mean a liberal (and vice-versa).

>If they only did that one thing with the taxes, that doesn't make them
>socialists anyway, and if they did it enough there wouldn't be the
>poverty and gluttony there still is in your country.

That's another part of the problem - they ARE doing it enough. So much so that they're killing off the working class.

Actually, poverty and gluttony are essentially unrelated to this. The leftists are keeping certain people in poverty (this is where the exploitation comes into play). Giving them more $$$ isn't going to get them out of it - only reinforce their lazy-ass lifestyles. And gluttony (aka greed) will exist no matter how much you give some people (case in point: Bill Gates, that monopolistic sob).

I like when people respond with that "conspriracy theory" notion (implying that the socialists aren't trying to overthrow capitalism & moral cultures.

Think about this: that 'theory' certainly explains all the nonsense and corruption in the world. The patriotic and respectfull citizens of this country know that something is brewing, and can tell when someone acts or says something counter-cultural (and it's invariably a Democrat / liberal that is saying/doing whatever).

Furthermore, we know that Communists are operating in the US - we've caught them! (Spies, operatives, etc.) And we know how the leftists work (from witnessing events in other countries). I didn't know that they overthrew Brazil - I'll look into it.

Btw - did you know that Saddam Hussein is a socialist? (I just saw a documentary that talked about his younger years.)

I'd expect you to tell me that there isn't a conspiracy - you're one of them (to whatever degree).

Like I stated, this just gets so irritating (going back and forth, with no progress). I realize that you have your concept of life and culture (and vice-versa).

Why can't you leftists let people live the way that they want to? Is that too much to ask?

I'm wasting my time corresponding with a God-forsaken socialist.