Hugo Chavez is dead

[Omerta]

Sean Penn was Hugo Chavez's buddy because both are socialist pigs.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with socialism? Done properly, it would be the best system because, economically at least, it would make everyone equal. The problem is that no one wants to do it properly because we're a greedy species. Watch "Capitalism: A Love Story" sometime and let your eyes be opened.

I bet Michael Moore donates the proceeds of his capitalist-made income to socialist causes until he's at whatever the generally accepted proletariat income is each year.

It's kinda like Ayn Rand taking Social Security. It blows your argument out of the water when you turn to hypocrites to make your point. You're better off regurgitating someone with actual ideas like Marx or Engels or (at the bare minimum Keynes) to make your point.

[Ack]

Sean Penn was Hugo Chavez's buddy because both are socialist pigs.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with socialism? Done properly, it would be the best system because, economically at least, it would make everyone equal. The problem is that no one wants to do it properly because we're a greedy species. Watch "Capitalism: A Love Story" sometime and let your eyes be opened.

Uh...you probably shouldn't be basing your theories on Michael Moore "documentaries." It's not that he isn't a skilled filmmaker, he obviously is, but his works are less documentaries and more selectively edited propaganda pieces for his particular views. It's like claiming (the admittedly extreme examples) The Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will are completely accurate, honest, and unbiased.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I agree with the previous comments. Some government intervention in the marketplace is necessary to ensure that markets function smoothly and efficiently, but socialism - in both theory and practice - is completely broken.

Also, John Maynard Keynes was brilliant. I still regard him as the greatest economist of all time, and his theories and prescriptions have been repeatedly affirmed by economic history.

[Luke]

Uh...you probably shouldn't be basing your theories on Michael Moore "documentaries."

This.

Well, this minus the "Uh...".

Moore takes hundreds of hours of footage and squashes it into 90 minutes of people agreeing with him. His works should all be seen as entertainment and nothing else.

Plus Moore is quite a dick who tries to get a reaction from even those who agree with him. Moore's only interest is making money and films, and I'm glad he has been on the back burner for quite some time.

[MulishaSoldier929]

I think to thrive as a successful society you need a 'good' mix of both socialism and capitalism. We need services like an army and national healthcare for the protection of the masses while still keeping that working drive that capitalism instills. Too much of either is never a good thing for a country as a whole.

[aaron]

Uh...you probably shouldn't be basing your theories on Michael Moore "documentaries."

This.

Well, this minus the "Uh...".

and the "probably."

[Menegrothx]

Greedy and lazy. Inevitably some would be doing the work of others while getting the same compensation. Then more and more workers figure this out and stop working. Productivity plummets and then everyone starts getting less and less and economic production spirals downward.

More goes into it than that of course, but that's the gist of its downfall.

I don't support socialism/communism but there are 2 common misconceptions about socialism that I find annoying.

No one (no one with brains atleast) is advocating equal pay just because they want to reduce wealth disparity. There was/is incentives for workers to work harder in socialist countries (probably not enough, but they existed nonetheless). Commies think that it's the capitalist system that allows lazy people to prosper; the wealthiest 1% of society (the triforce of government elite, biggest corporations and corporate subsidies&bank bailouts) get grossly overcompensated for their efforts, while the average working class/middle class person can only increase his/her wealth relatively marginally by working hanger and doing longer hours. Many people seem to think that socialists want that 2 guys who work at the same job get the same wage regardless of how well they perform, while what they really want is that people get compensated according to their efforts. In other words a CEO should not get 60 times the salary of his/her employee who works in a physically demanding job 40-60 hours a week. Even under communism a doctor and a scientist still would get a better salary than a burger flipper and a store clerk.
In just about every communist country that ever existed, the leader/dictator and his lackeys got grossly overcompensated for the job they did, so communism in practice hasn't been able to remove that problem.

In communist countries the average citizen's life is nothing but work. There certainly isn't any mooching of the welfare lazyness going on, there is no individualism, every one lives to serve the system. And then there's the work camps for the misfits. If you read about life in North Korea, you'll soon find that it is much more strict, unforgiving and fascist place than any capitalist country on this planet. You live to serve the system and if you can't work, then you have no purporse in life and are on your own.

The naive communist sympathizers of the West might have a very utopian view on communism, but in reality (as proven by history) it is a harsh system where lazy people have no place. Ironically many of the super patriotric, survival of the fittest right-wingers would be more satisfied under communism than capitalism. Western welfare state capitalism is a much more humane and forgiving system and has so far been able to provide the masses what communism promises much better than communism itself.

[o.pwuaioc]

Even under communism a doctor and a scientist still would get a better salary than a burger flipper and a store clerk.

Depends on where. Certainly that was not the case in the Soviet Union, where, e.g. my fiancée's mother made less as a civil engineer than when she was working in a mill.

The basic ideal is there, though.

[Retrodude]

Actually, I was a socialist before I saw "Capitalism". Hypocrite propagandist or not, Moore makes a very good argument for why modern capitalism is a very bad thing (and before that he made a very good argument for why we need universal health care, and before that...).

Socialism may not be perfect (what is?), but it would be better than what we've got now. There are actually several ideas for a socialist system and the one I agree with goes like this: Everybody works, everybody pays into one giant pot, and everybody shares that pot equally, but if you don't work, you don't eat. Obviously there would be exceptions for the elderly and disabled like we have now, and there would need to be new laws with harsh penalties to discourage folks from cheating the system (whether by intentionally disabling yourself to avoid working or by hiding massive amounts of income the way many CEOs are already doing), but I honestly don't see why that couldn't work if given a fair chance.

One area where capitalism has largely failed is by convincing people that they're too good for certain jobs. Part of the reason the unemployment rate took so long to drop back down is because many people were too proud to accept grunt work and so continued to collect unemployent (or drop out of the job market altogether) rather than get a job at Walmart, McDonalds, etc, as if it would be beneath them to work in such a place. Remember, getting a degree is a voluntary process. If you can find work in your chosen field, than good for you, but if you can't, you should be willing to accept any job you can find and not be picky about it (this is coming from someone who worked a job I hated for 13 years because it was steady income and I have bills to pay).

It's true that most of those grunt jobs don't pay a livable wage, but they would if the minimum wage was raised to $9/hr as President Obama has proposed. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening because congress answers to billionare CEOs, not to us (sad but true), and their corporate masters will insist that paying their employees more is bad for business, all the while taking larger and larger bonuses for themselves. That's why I'm a socialist, folks. Like I said, it might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than this crap.

[Menegrothx]

Even under communism a doctor and a scientist still would get a better salary than a burger flipper and a store clerk.

Depends on where. Certainly that was not the case in the Soviet Union, where, e.g. my fiancée's mother made less as a civil engineer than when she was working in a mill.

The basic ideal is there, though.

True. When discussing communism one has to keep in mind two things:
What many communists wish the system to be like doesn't really match the reality of the socialism once a dictator starts ruling the country. Many university liberals are in for a shock when they see the reality of a worker's state. Communism at it's infancy was aimed at disgruntled factory workers, and there was plenty of anti-intellectualism going on in communist states, particularly in Cambodia.

Cultural differences (South America, Africa, East Europe/Russia and Korea are all culturally different)

I'm a socialist, folks. Like I said, it might not be perfect, but it's gotta be better than this crap.

Are you sure you're a socialist and not just a supporter of the welfare state? Countries like Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada and Denmark all have more economic freedom than the United States and don't really suffer from many of the problems USA has. The same thing goes for majority of Europe, public healthcare and education are affordable, giant corporations are more regulated and the gap between the rich and the poor isn't nearly as stark, but all are still economically free countries. The rating difference between Scandinavian countries and USA is just a few points (Denmark 76.1 USA 76.0 Finland 74.0 Sweden 72.9 Iceland 72.1 Norway 70.5)

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking