: : Socialism does not pull the best down- it liberates everyone....: If I could read your writing then I will respond to you. Ah! now I can. WHAT!! Liberate everyone? Is that supposed to be funny? You cannot do shit in a socialist country! You can only do what the government (central) allows you. That is the defintion of socialism. Either you go back to school and learn some economics or else I am not going to talk to you anymore, because it is pointless talking to a ignorant, narrow-minded, brick-wall of a person. If you don't go back to school, pick a issue of 'Newsweek' or the business section of the daily paper and see for yourself the shitty conditions the people of socialist countries are in! As for your silly response to the privious person's quesition, I have a quesition for you. If socialism takes away the money people have earned and gives it the less deserving, who really are the thieves?
less deserving? would that be the parasites who live off the backs of others? or the people who exploit others to make a quick buck. (okay it was a trick question, they are both the same.)
: Please write back. I will be waiting. Oh, one request on behalf of everyone in this club, learn how to spell or type.
**** Again, your ignorance clouds your view on reality Red. Today, your need a brain make a million, and that is what all the rich have. The world does not need workers who slave all day for nothing, the world has machines and new technology, something the rich have capitalized on. There is no demand for a minor or a shit-shoveler, there are tractors, automatic shovelers, etc. Why should you pay money to someone who works slow, strikes all day, who has to sleep, and complains when you have a machine that will do the same work 100 times faster, in larger amounts, and who only requires gas and repairs? If you choose the worker and not the machine, then you are out of business. Lets be realistic please, the world wants to make life easier, with capitalism you progress and profit, in socialism, you die, either from obsolecence or blah blah waffle waffle (this has been creatively edited) *****
so you still advocate the use of children (minors) to make your money for you? hmm, case of pot calling kettle black methinks - lets stop slagging each others spelling and get down to the real business at hand eh?
: First of all, let me say something to you Red. Your knowledge in capitalism and socialism is just like your spelling, horrible! It is only in a capitalistic society that the technology of a society advances where in a socialist society, the rate of progress is extremly slower, almost primative, because the government gives all the money to economic goods rather than capital goods which eventually leads to the obsolescence and destruction of a socialist society. You cannot have an advance in technology without an advance in creativity, so you idiot, do not say that capitalism nothing changes. People are able to acquire new jobs with new technology as well and everyone profits.
eh?
that was complete bollocks, I`m sorry, but it was. Firstly let me set the record straight by reminding you that there is not, and never has been to date, a socialist country. Most of what we are discussing here is an Ideal based on a completely different viewpoint from the traditional reward based capitalist society. Your argument that there can be no technological advances in a socialist society is completely fatuous; you are assuming that everybody who is creative is doing so because they can make money from it and for no other reason therefore if we remove the financial reward nobody will want to do anything. It may shock you to realise that there are people in the world who work purely because they derive pleasure or satisfaction from doing so - I am not talking about a street cleaner or a dustbin man, I am talking about the very people you are, that is the people with the education and interest to make scientific and technological advances. Also don`t confuse the stagnant, corrupt state of communist Russia with socialism. (your "definition" was probably communism, as socialism does not require a "state".)
None.
