[Pred the Penguin]

Chinese Civil War? We are talking about more than 1/3 of the modern world already.

To be fair, that was played out against the backdrop of the Japanese invasion in its opening parts...and a good argument can be made that the Communists won it because the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese. The opposition had already exhausted its resources and will to fight on a different opponent.

Just a few years prior to the Japanese invasion everyone was still fighting for there own little piece of China. One even succeeded in self-proclaiming himself Emperor.... for an extremely short time.
It's not hard to see that everything just collapsed on itself. That's when communism starts to take its hold.

[The E]

It's not hard to see that everything just collapsed on itself. That's when communism starts to take its hold.

No. That's when charismatic leaders, who can convince large numbers of people that they have a Plan^TM that works take a hold. Communists aren't the only ones who play that particular game.

[peterv]

No. That's when charismatic leaders, who can convince large numbers of people that they have a Plan^TM that works take a hold. Communists aren't the only ones who play that particular game.

That's when charismatic leaders, who can convince large numbers of desperate people that they have a Plan...

And i asure you, i'm not a communist 

[Scotty]

Before we all gawk at how successful China is now, why don't we take a look back into the 1950s and 1960s:

In 1959, Mao Zedong stepped down as chairman because his "Great Leap Forward" had caused literally millions of deaths of starvation.  Then, in 1966, we see the cultural revolution.

I'm actually gonna say that China's revolution wasn't all that successful.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

It's things like this that make you wonder why Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to quit.

[Herra Tohtori]

It might not be a great surprise that a society based on violent change of leadership and social structures fails to last...

French revolution? American revolution? Unless that what we are seeing now is their own failure.
(Also, in general, i agree with you)

Oh you gotta be kidding about the French Revolution... The French revolution (which one??) was a series of revolutions that (according to the most common definition) lasted about ten years and didn't really lead to anything except perhaps laying some basis for a possibility of France as a mostly democratic republic...  Before and after, it was just people cutting the heads off from the previous rulers at intervals of few dozen years at best, and none of the violently established governments really lasted for too long. After the Legislative Assembly, it's failure and a short war, the National Convention took over and executed the monarch, and pretty much started a reign of terror that lasted for about three years.

After that the French Directory (First Republic) was in power for about four years, and then Napoleon established a consulate instead of it and took over as the First Consul, and afterward become the Emperor of France. The Napoleon was finally defeated for realz in 1815 and they established a constitutional monarchy, which didn't last for long because in 1830, there was a civil uprising that established the Second Republic, which was overturned by Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte proclaiming himself emperor of the Second Empire in 1852 Louis-Napoleon got defeated in Franco-Prussian* war of 1870 and the Second Empire was finally replaced by Third Republic, which amazingly enough lasted until 1940 German invasion and managed to establish itself well enough that after WW2, France remained a democracy.

So, yeah. Thanks for making my point for me.

The American Revolution on the other hand was more of an independence war than internal revolution; Americans (if such identity existed at the time, could be called colonials I guess) were fighting against their British overlords, and if history has taught me anything it is that a common threat makes it easy to unite people if you know which strings to pull (whether or not the threat is real or perceived doesn't matter). This meant that when the enemy was defeated, americans stood (for the time being) united, and that made it possible to establish the social structures themselves without too much violence or leaving grudges in the mind of the nation (the Civil War took care of that).

On Finland it happened the other way round - we had our civil/independence war first and then got into a fight with common enemy (Soviets) which very effectively glued the Finnish nation together regardless of any former red/white division.


African ongoing cycles of rebellions and revolutions are another very good example of this. South America as well a few decades ago, althoughthat region has thankfully calmed down somewhat (although there's no way to know when it starts again).


*note that in a way it took an external threat to make the French form a sustainable form of government in a manner that didn't make them hate and despise "the other French" like the previous revolutions had habitually done.

[Liberator]

Capitalist society = raising yourself from whatever circumstances you started with to something better, depending on what your capabilities and drive/desire is.  A person can be born to poverty and become a millionaire if they work for it.  If you want X property, then you do what it takes to get it.

Socialist society = everyone living, by choice or by force, at the some ambiguous "sustainable" level.  No one's rich, there's no social drive to work.  There is no reason for citizen A to work for anything because the government provides everything.  As more people are born into the system, the "sustainable" level slowly degrades until everyone is living in poverty.  It's happened in every socialist state ever seen on the face of the earth.  From the early American colonies to the "almighty" USSR and China.  It doesn't work, it can never work, simply because it doesn't account for basic human nature in it's design.  Human's are greedy, self-centered people till they're needs are met.  Once that occurs they're usually more than happy to share what they have more of, but they dislike being told what and how much to share.

[blackhole]

Once that occurs they're usually more than happy to share what they have more of

Wrong.

Humans are even more greedy then that. You think those bank executives were just giving away their money? They protested having a $500000 cap on their salaries because they apparently couldn't live off of it.

Pure Capitalism fails because Trickle Down Economics fails. Whenever anyone says "Trickle Down Economics" I look at how 90% of our wealth is in the top 10% of the population and go suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. As most anyone with half a brain in this thread has pointed out, neither system works, and so the best economy is one that combines both ideas in varying ratios of each other. American's are just brainwashed into rallying for pure capitalism without any of them having a goddamn clue about what the f-ck they're actually TALKING about, except that its patriotic and socially acceptable.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I mean it when I say that a frightening number of Americans are goddamned sheep.

Most politicians want to get elected, not save the world. This is why democrats vehemently deny any accusations of socialistic policies while the republicans scream apocalyptic prophesies from those evil socialist democrats (some of the racist nutjobs point at a minority president as being a sign of the end of our civilization), even after many of those republicans supported the same goddamn kinds of bills when they had the majority!

Rich people like to hold on to their money - and more importantly, make even more. I quote The Matrix: "What do all men with power want? More power." There are exceptions - Google execs, Warren Buffet, etc. But as the economic news as of late has proven, the vast majority of them are just rich bastards who won't ever have enough money. EVER.

That is why we need regulated capitalism.

[karajorma]

All this discussion has proved so far is that most people don't have a clue what socialism is.

Funnily enough those with the least clue are the ones shouting loudest against it.

[Kosh]

The USA isn't acting particularly capitalist right now, which is probably skewing the impression.

Privitizing profits, socializing losses.

To be fair, that was played out against the backdrop of the Japanese invasion in its opening parts...and a good argument can be made that the Communists won it because the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese. The opposition had already exhausted its resources and will to fight on a different opponent.

I'm sure the massive corruption (where do you think those billions of dollars in american aid went to?), hyper inflation, and general incompetance had something to do with it too.

[Liberator]

Trickle down economics works as thus:

Businessman A creates a successful business, selling used gumballs or something, he's so successful that he makes a million dollars his first year.  Now Businessman A is a greedy bastard, all them CEO's is a bunch of greedy bastards, donchaknow, and he wants to make more money.  He researches the issue and determines that the best course of action would be to open another store.  So, Mr. Businessman A sinks half his income from the first year into building a new store, hiring a staff, and buying more used gumballs for inventory.  So at the end of the second year, he's down 500k.  But here's where it get's interesting.  That 500k he spent didn't disappear, it went into the coffers and wallets of the construction crew who built the building, and as payroll for the staff and to the people he bought the gumballs from.  It trickled down through his business contacts and made other people wealthier in the process.

By your logic, the only way he'd be a good guy is if he spent everything he made.  It doesn't make sense.  If he had to spend everything he made to make you(the government) happy, what incentive does he have to either invest in a 2nd location or even open the first one?

My basic reason for disliking socialism is that I dislike the concept of someone telling me in no uncertain terms that I MUST give X group part of my income.  What is the incentive?  Better yet, how does the government know if they are worthy of my money?  I'll make it personal, what if I came to you in your workplace and took 1/2 or 3/4 of your income on payday and arbitrarily decided that Joe Blow and His Mechanical Wonder Squad needed it because they were not working and needed food.  If I did this every week, every month, every year, where is the incentive for JB and HMWS to get jobs and earn they're own money?  If you get a check from a magical font of everlasting cash, why go to work where you might make less?  Unlike the pie in the sky idealists who promote a broken ideal, 99% of people won't show up for a job because it improves them psychically or some other mental bull****, they show up for a paycheck to pay they're rent or buy they're groceries.

Look at places around the world where the government provides housing.  They are gang warzones and slums for the most part.  Because the people there have no incentive for it to be otherwise.

[Scotty]

When I see people clamoring for some kind of socialist economy or government, I always want to tell them to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

[Kosh]

Socialist society = everyone living, by choice or by force, at the some ambiguous "sustainable" level.  No one's rich, there's no social drive to work.

That's communism, not socialism.

Businessman A creates a successful business, selling used gumballs or something, he's so successful that he makes a million dollars his first year.  Now Businessman A is a greedy bastard, all them CEO's is a bunch of greedy bastards, donchaknow, and he wants to make more money.  He researches the issue and determines that the best course of action would be to open another store.

If you account for inflation, the middle class income per man has stagtnated since the 70's while CEO's income has skyrocketed. Not that business is bad, but our system has become much too skewed towards the top end.

Better yet, how does the government know if they are worthy of my money?

Provide free healthcare and affordable universities?

[Herra Tohtori]

When I see people clamoring for some kind of socialist economy or government, I always want to tell them to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

When I see people clamoring for any kind of extremities be it in economy or government, I always want to tell them to go boil their heads and remember to let the steam out. But I usually don't... maybe I should.

Seriously, it should be clear to anyone who has any modicum of historical knowledge of the world that extremism does not work. Neither in economy or politics.


IMHO the most important things that socialism offers to people is not some kind of ultimate economical equality but things like universal health care, education to some level (depending on country it could be free middle-level education, or like in Finland, university level education), stuff like that. Education should obviously be offered on equal standing on people from different backgrounds - it's obvious that those well off to begin with will have easier time getting the funds for their tuition and other costs related on studying. Which leads (again!) to a class structure (basically white-collar and blue-collar) and it's not really what I see as an ideal situation.

Social security is important too. Getting fired in time of economic trouble is way too random for people's abilities to truly matter in the majority of cases - even if you're the best one in your shift you can be laid off if the factory closes it's doors... so yeah, I do want to have some sort of safety net in case I can't find work, and I am in fact ready to pay for it in taxes when I'm working.

Then there are the labor unions of course, and things like working conditions (such as no putting workers into unsafe and unhealthy coal mines). In USA this would be unthinkable, yet in a "socialist" country (namely China) it's done routinely. How strange that US miners have better working conditions, even though things like that don't really belong to a capitalist economy model, eh?

Like Karajorma said, it's obvious that most people really, really don't know what the hell socialism is and the only association to it is "red" and "commies". Which are of course evul and bad because they are the enemy... oh wait.

It's not like socialism means that you are automatically hauled to some remote kolkhoz or sovkhoz to work your ass off for the common good and never getting nothing in return for your work. That's just soviet communism with all it's mismanagements.

[peterv]

So, yeah. Thanks for making my point for me.

You're more than welcome, especially for the history lesson, but unfortunatly this is a "thanks for nothing" case.

From Wiki (the most common definition): "The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval and radical change in the history of France, during which the French governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights".

Furthermore, this particular revolution was the first of a series of violent events that established the modern social structures in Europe, that is why it's the most important of all. You can't study it as an individuall event, unless you really want to miss the big picture.
As for the American revolution, the fact that it was a war for independence doesn't make it less violent, neither the American civil war that followed. More or less bloody they were violent events.
Throughtout history, it's very hard to find a society that is not based on violent change of leadership and social structures. Only one comes to my mind and that's modern India, but according to your logic, one could easilly prove that the war for Casmir, for example, doesn't make it peacefull at all.
There's no such thing like peacefull changes of societies and most of all, leaderships in history. 

[Ghostavo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution 

[peterv]

Got me! Now how many examples of the opposite do you want me to report? 

[SpardaSon21]

Peterv, America has peaceful changes in leadership every time a new president is elected.  So don't tell me it is impossible to change a country's leadership through nonviolent means.

[peterv]

I'm not talking about persons or politicall parties, i'm talking about politicall systems, the philosophy behind them. 

[Flipside]

The problem isn't the increasing difference of opinion, it's the increasing similarity of the options.