[Deicidus]

I'd just like to hear some opinions about whether or not folks believe that it's truly possible to have a real Socialist, not a quasi-Socialist like Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT), be elected in the United States.

If not, do you think that it's because people associate Socialism with Communism, or just because it's not Democrat or Republican, therefore they won't vote for the candidate regardless of his or her policies.

Corporatism will never allow socialism to plant its roots in the U.S. Socialism as well as communism represent the well being of everybody and not just the Elite class. They want to protect their money as well as their Statu-quo. As long as they're in the country buying the elections, you'll never see a socialist goverment.

Oh, and the people should be less ignorant too

[CasX]

Well any nation in the world that has attempted any sort of real socialism further left than 'social democracy' has been invaded by the US or had a CIA supported coup, eg Chile, Grenada, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic...the list could go on all day.

So I don't see it happening in the near future.

[Generalissimo Talonius]

I would just like to see a Japanese style capitialism, which I think is the best Capitialist system in the civilized world. The people there are well off, and there is no real need for full socialism. In sucessful capitalist countries such as Japan ( and to lesser extent the US ), why change the system if the current one is OK ? Capitialism works, it just needs to be implemented properly w/ some gov't regulations. I would certainly never vote for a socialist canidate ( I would never vote for a Bush though either ).

[Deicidus]

The japanese system has a lot of socialism in it. It's the capitalist country with the less income disparity of every capitalist nation.

[Generalissimo Talonius]

Exactly my point. Call it social-Capitialism if you will, but it works, unlike pure socialism/communism.

[Proctor]

Talons, you simply MUST read the links of the thread SF Theory in the Economics forum. It is Fox's idea of a mixed socialist/capitalist society. Its the best idea I ever heard.

[Disenchanted Bennite]

America is now a pre-fascist state, the military runs problematic schools. I think objectivity in US minds is highly unlikely.

I will explain later!

[Yuji]

For the time being, socialism won't be accepted in America. There's still a number of people mixing socialism and communism, but I'm seeing now that that idea would change.

If America would be socialist, it won't apply purist socialist/Marxist/communist doctrines to their economy. They would be a socialist state with a bit of capitalism.

[Boondock Saint]

Actually the liberals here in the US would love a socialist state ... they are pushing further and further each day attempting to spread the idea ... the problem is ... the avg American is fat and happy ... so what u have to do is convince the people they would be better off then they already are ...

[Wilhelm]

The problem is that all those countries that are better off with capitalism have done it at the expense of other countries.

[Boondock Saint]

The problem is that all those countries that are better off with capitalism have done it at the expense of other countries.

Hey, its a free world, survival of the fittest at its best if you ask me ...

The US busted its proverbial ass to build infrastructure and claim its land ... no differently then any other nation ... actually every other nation in the world had a head start of a few hundred to a few thousand years on the US ...

As for europe ... they were better at expansion and conquest ... no reason for them not to achieve what they did ...

After all ... its not like europe went and conquered peaceful lands ruled by happy peaceful tribes or nations ... every human is an animal that has the ability to think and use weapons ... its not europes fault they did it better and its not the US's fault they currently do it better.

If you dont want someone to take your food then stop them. If u cant stop them then who says its your food?

[Comrade Ally]

[quote="Boondock Saint"]Hey, its a free world, survival of the fittest at its best if you ask me ...[quote]

Am I still in the socialism forum? Survival of the fittest is about as far from it as one can get, is it not? There is no such thing as survival of the fittest anyway, it's all survival of the richest and most unscrupulous if people are left completely to their own devices.



Sorry, I haven't figured out how to quote correctly yet.

[Proctor]

Survival of the richest, I like it!

Your quote text was almost right. Just change the second [*quote] to [*/quote]. Without the *s of course.

[CasX]

Boondock Saint, that has got to be one of the worst posts I have ever seen. To top it all off your last line was a shocker, reading:

If you dont want someone to take your food then stop them. If u cant stop them then who says its your food?

In other words, if I've got a gun then I can do whatever I want with you and your possessions if you don't have the military means to stop me?

That's what the UN should be used for in todays society. Protection the militarily weak from those who would use war and conquest to their advantage.

These are/should no longer be accepatable methods in international relations, got it?

(The US busted its proverbial ass to build infrastructure and claim its land) ... no differently then any other nation ... actually every other nation in the world had a head start of a few hundred to a few thousand years on the US ...

What the fuck are you on about? The US was inhabited by it's native people almost since the dawn of man, like most of earth. It was colonised by the European powers during the 'age of imperialism' like virtually all of Africa, America, Asia and the Pacific, ie: the whole world other than Europe.

Have you ever heard of...history?

[Proctor]

Calm down CasX. It wasn't that bad. But...

That's what the UN should be used for in todays society. Protection the militarily weak from those who would use war and conquest to their advantage.

These are/should no longer be accepatable methods in international relations, got it?

On that I couldn't agree more.

[Simon Ostap]

After all ... its not like europe went and conquered peaceful lands ruled by happy peaceful tribes or nations

Actually, I think that's exactly what they did. If you take a time to look at both North and South American cultures before colonization. In the north people were not only free, but healthy, and very happy. Granted, europeans brought many helpful ideas with them, as well as liqour, oppressive religion, racism, and the concept of ownership, I guess that serves as proof that 'taking and hoarding' are not natural human practices... so much for Hobbes.

Also, look at the splendid civilizations that had spouted up in south america. With the exception that these Aztecs and Mayans had a habit of killing eachother in ritualistic suicide, they were rather prosperous places to live before spain came and 'took all their gold away' through murder and rape... Now, agreed the europeans were better at expansion and conquest, but that's not why they managed to grow so powerful, it simply gave them the legs for it. Europe was successful because it blatantly stole and exploited every region it could extend it's reach too.

[woogie]

[Demosthenes]

Millions have already taken to the streets to protest the war,

No they didn't, There weren't MILLIONS at all. They were mostly disenfranchised youth, and most were horribly unorganized with very little focus. In fact there were easily as many "support the troops" rallies as not, they just didn't get the airplay, because the liberal media didn't find that to their liking. And before you say, like so many of you claim that the "US media, like CNN" is biased towards the President, you need to realize it's not all that way. Just because they're not completely anti-american doesn't mean they're not liberal.

[Boondock Saint]

Whoa, I apologize I havent responded sooner ...

Actually, I think that's exactly what they did. If you take a time to look at both North and South American cultures before colonization

If you do you will notice they were just as brutal as any other culture.

What the fuck are you on about? The US was inhabited by it's native people almost since the dawn of man, like most of earth. It was colonised by the European powers during the 'age of imperialism' like virtually all of Africa, America, Asia and the Pacific, ie: the whole world other than Europe.

Um no, the US was never inhabited by anyone until it was created. N. America was inhabited by tribes of people native to the continent. These tribes were conquered by europeans and latter the early United States. The native people of the US are european not the native tribes that lived here. The native tribes that lived on this continent are still in existance today (to some extent). Most of their culture was destroyed during the conquest of their land and the creation of the US. This is the way of life. Europe was colonized as well if we go back far enough in time ... its the way of the world. I did not make the rules ...

In other words, if I've got a gun then I can do whatever I want with you and your possessions if you don't have the military means to stop me?

Yes. Thats exactly it. Does it sound nice? No. Does it fit within our moral codes? No. You want a modern example? Iraq. And no, I am not talking about the US, I am talking about the Iraqi people deciding they were going to loot whatever they could ... why? Because they could.

That's what the UN should be used for in todays society. Protection the militarily weak from those who would use war and conquest to their advantage.

Well as we get larger and our soceitys more advanced it only makes sense that we try to calm our natural urges of conquest and try to foster our natural urges to help our fellow man.

These are/should no longer be accepatable methods in international relations, got it?

Says who? A man? An intellectual? History says otherwise ... such thoughts and ideas are nothing new ... someone thinks they have thought up some new and great way to establish peace and indeed for some time it may work ... but it will fail one day ... as it was designed by man and must be maintaned by man. And man is destined to fail.

Am I still in the socialism forum? Survival of the fittest is about as far from it as one can get, is it not? There is no such thing as survival of the fittest anyway, it's all survival of the richest and most unscrupulous if people are left completely to their own devices.

Yes, your are still in the socialism forum ... I suppose I went off topic a bit?

Wealth and being unscupulous are forms of being fit ... but, in truth even the wealthy need the fit to do their dirty work. So ... I would contest that survival of the fittest is not the rule as I think it still is ... perhaps it is more complicated but ... I think the game is the same as its always been. After all ... change a CEO for a king and federal army for a kings army and really its all the same ...

[Demosthenes]

The US, and world, economy is in a decline which began in the 1970s.

Huh? what planet are you living on? On the planet earth I know and love, the US has grown tremendously since the 1970s. If you dont see this you have an agenda that your trying to reason out, plain and simple.

That's what the UN should be used for in todays society. Protection the militarily weak from those who would use war and conquest to their advantage.

Ok, this amounts to little other than re-distributing the military power. I know a lot of you have all this faith in the UN, but I dont. What happens if someone who truly understands what he could do with a UN army takes the reigns? Guess what, He'll dominate.
This is the same problem with "nationalising industry" All you really do is transfer the wealth from the private sector to government officials, who's dubious claims of morality ring false. The Un is the same way.

Am I still in the socialism forum?

uh... check the title you're in "Socialism in the United States" which means non-socialist Americans have a legitimate argument.