3
3
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
To be fair, "Socialism" has a pretty blood-soaked past. I realize that in a greater, philosophical context, by and large, the U.S. was based on some of the same notions... equality, justice for all, the removal of aristocracy and class. However, its hard to deny that from revolutionary France to Communist Russia... the results can vary in harrowing ways.
I respond to "Socialism" with a simple question, "When is it enough?"
If we can end poverty, elevate everyone to a better, healthier, more secure life, and do all without dispensing with the most important aspect of human existence...faith... then I'll listen. Until then, I'm concerned that what's desired; either by default or design, is retribution.
If it were ever to "work", it would need to be at the lowest possible levels. A "national" approach would impose rules on many that would destroy rather than create. Regions have different problems, requiring different solutions. This, in my opinion, is why the Founding Fathers so arduously endorsed representative state government.
Perhaps the real solution is to divest ourselves of the notion that "Capitalism" must be "cruel", or that all outcomes must be positive for the process to be "fair".
I respond to "Socialism" with a simple question, "When is it enough?"
If we can end poverty, elevate everyone to a better, healthier, more secure life, and do all without dispensing with the most important aspect of human existence...faith... then I'll listen. Until then, I'm concerned that what's desired; either by default or design, is retribution.
If it were ever to "work", it would need to be at the lowest possible levels. A "national" approach would impose rules on many that would destroy rather than create. Regions have different problems, requiring different solutions. This, in my opinion, is why the Founding Fathers so arduously endorsed representative state government.
Perhaps the real solution is to divest ourselves of the notion that "Capitalism" must be "cruel", or that all outcomes must be positive for the process to be "fair".
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Some forms of socialism have had problems, like the communist system, the fascist system, etc. Other forms of socialism, like the Nordic model and to a lesser extent, the US and UK systems, have done fine without being "blood-soaked."
Second, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
Second, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
I'd agree, in part at least. Little "s" socialism might include everything from national health care, to helping little old ladies across the road... as I said, by and large, some of the better notions of humanity. The problem (in my opinion) is that big "S" Socialism trends towards Communism... and that means getting (or forcing) everyone within the system to comply. They are certainly not mutually exclusive... but I think it's only logical to remain guarded when large shifts one way or the other are suggested.
(0)
(0)
It's not a bogeyman if politicians stand on the podium and say they are socialist.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
It's also not a bogeyman if the general public doesn't have a clue what socialism really is.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next