Quantcast

What is the opposite of Socialism?

Wells 2009/02/07 19:12:45
You!
Add Photos & Videos
All societies are essentially socialist whether their members care to admit it or not. Even the USA imbeds in its Constitution the admission that all citizens have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, the ideal and value of equal opportunity. Below are suggested 'opposites' of Socialism. The list is slanted to present the opposites as undesirable, unjust and inequitable. The "I believe" choice is there, as are the others, not to slam Socialism, but rather to present 'opposites' in a better light.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Jaguarior ₪ Gott ist hässli... 2009/02/21 15:36:31
    Dictatorial Fascism
    Jaguarior ₪ Gott ist hässlich. ₪
    +18
    Born in the early 1950's, I have endured "Inhumane Capitalism" as the increasingly predominant force in the USA throughout my lifetime. And, obviously enough, it has been around much longer than that. Living through the turn of the 20 th century must have been hell indeed, what with the Robber Baron Industrial Tycoons gleefully at the helm.

    Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford helped the common folk out by successfully demonstrating that empowering the workforce a bit bolstered the corporate bottom line, although I doubt his motivations were particularly egalitarian, truth be told. Initially deemed a "class traitor" by his peers, once his methods proved sound, he became the working man's hero (or, so say the school books).

    FDR's New Deal was the big one, though. (Stating the obvious to any American with a heart and half a brain left, I know.) A huge healthy dose of "we're all in this together, folks, so let's pool our efforts and make life better for all" (aka socialism).

    Of course, stingy people who believe in their divine right to lord it over the rest of us hated it and they still do. Through their unflagging efforts, much of the benefit of the New Deal has been rendered illusory. Maybe that's all it was ever meant to be. Still, it helped. A lot.

    Much has been made of Capitalism an...""""

    '

    ""

    """""''"

    ""

    ""






    ''


    Born in the early 1950's, I have endured "Inhumane Capitalism" as the increasingly predominant force in the USA throughout my lifetime. And, obviously enough, it has been around much longer than that. Living through the turn of the 20th century must have been hell indeed, what with the Robber Baron Industrial Tycoons gleefully at the helm.

    Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford helped the common folk out by successfully demonstrating that empowering the workforce a bit bolstered the corporate bottom line, although I doubt his motivations were particularly egalitarian, truth be told. Initially deemed a "class traitor" by his peers, once his methods proved sound, he became the working man's hero (or, so say the school books).

    FDR's New Deal was the big one, though. (Stating the obvious to any American with a heart and half a brain left, I know.) A huge healthy dose of "we're all in this together, folks, so let's pool our efforts and make life better for all" (aka socialism).

    Of course, stingy people who believe in their divine right to lord it over the rest of us hated it and they still do. Through their unflagging efforts, much of the benefit of the New Deal has been rendered illusory. Maybe that's all it was ever meant to be. Still, it helped. A lot.

    Much has been made of Capitalism and military might being why "America is Number One!", "the undisputed dominant super-power of the world!", etc. I say, bullsh_t. An empowered (comparatively), healthy, well educated general workforce is primarily, (but not exclusively, of course) what brought this country to the fore.

    I think that's worth saying twice.

    An empowered, healthy, well educated general workforce is primarily what brought this country to "greatness".

    But, say "bye" to that. We, the common people, aka "the masses", became too empowered, healthy and well educated, according to the powers that be. Dumb, weak, desperate people are so much easier to manage (control). What boss wants willful subordinates? What corporation wants employees who say what goes and when, naming their own wages and benefits, etc? None, of course. So, "Time to take 'em down a peg. Let's turn back the clock to a more glorious day!"

    "Right. Uh, ok. How?"

    "No problem. Leave it to the Bush boys. They got the moves, baby!"

    Welcome to the 21st century, folks.

    Dictatorial Fascism, FTW! woot! (Not.)


    [Are they done looting us? Will Obama be the new FDR? Is our future so bright now that we oughta break out the cheap sunglasses? Hell, no. But, it's a damn nice dream and I'm going with it. :^) ]


    obama fdr future bright oughta break cheap sunglasses damn dream
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • JimBermingham 2010/06/09 12:49:51
    Inhumane Capitalism
    JimBermingham
    Economically speaking, vertical equity (Robin Hood style rich v poor, income tax and welfare spending) and horizontal equity (synonymous with equal opportunity) are recognised; politically - simply representing communistic socialism as opposed to capitalism right?
    correct me if im wrong, as i know very little about politics, but Belarus is recognised as the most socially repressive nation at the time? -whatever name given for the politics that Lukashenko's 'authoritarian' dictatorship government employs would be sufficient to answer this question in terms of the ideological social policy of socialism.
    Fascism? i haven't read into it but there is a statue of Lenin outside their government building in Minsk? points of thought.

    Back to economics, something that i can more confidently discuss, socialism constitutes a planned economy - opposite to a free market (competative market) which is the economy of a capitalist system of government - in this respect, the opposites are socialism and capitalism.

    i think i'll answer -capitalism (econ) and whichever form of dictatorship existant in belarus (social)
  • Wells JimBerm... 2010/06/09 16:23:59
    Wells
    Wow. Here's a simple way to look at the political spectrum: If the Right can be said to represent "individualism" and the Left represent "collectivism", one could argue that both have valid purposes. We all mature 'individually', but always within the context of some 'collective' structure of society, whether immediate and extended family, neighborhood and community, towns and cities, states and nations.

    Globalism seems too far a stretch to be considered collectivist, but international corporations would disagree. Some goods may of necessity be traded internationally, but nations, and states within nations, and regions within states, should protect their manufacturing base and production systems of supply and demand. The efficiency gains of mass production are cancelled the further distance of distribution.
  • JimBerm... Wells 2010/06/17 08:24:04
    JimBermingham
    So you're saying individualism dosn't exist because everyone has family, communities, social groups et al. - as in all 'suggested opposites' in the list - but how does that have anything to do with government policy or system, thats just a fact of humanity. If it's individualism the way you suggested - it can't exist within the human race, or have i missed the point? Needless to say social collectivism will always exist, but governments can lack social, or, 'collectivist' policy to a certain degree. so then anarchy can be considered to opposite - a complete lack of any policy - including collectivist... yet still no change in social collectivism exaggerated to the extent of family - how can there be?
  • Wells JimBerm... 2010/06/17 18:02:25
    Wells
    +1
    "We all mature 'individually', but always within the context of a 'collective' societal structure." In other words, individualism exists alongside or within collectivism.

    Extreme individualists deny their dependence upon society. Extreme socialists ie communists deny the human trait of individualism.

    Governments are essentially a societal organization designed to protect the collective whole from reckless individualism, criminal acts, industrial degradation of natural resources, etc. Governments also take protective measures against organized or collective groups that pose harm.
  • JimBerm... Wells 2010/06/20 07:21:42
    JimBermingham
    Oh I see so as all governments do this they're all essentially socialist - government provision of social goods must occur in any efficient economy and is socialist as it protects the whole from 'reckless individualism'. Cheers mate that cleared it up for me.
  • Wells JimBerm... 2010/06/20 07:31:49
    Wells
    If the social element is neglected, economic elements also suffer. I'm not against individualism, but to protect society writ large, rules and regulations and a social safety net are necessary. Cheers.
  • Ian Kaplan 2009/09/03 23:52:27
    Dictatorial Fascism
    Ian Kaplan
    Definitely communism.
  • Wells Ian Kaplan 2009/09/04 23:03:20
    Wells
    How do you 'define' communism as the opposite of socialism? Fascism by any other name, is still fascism. Communist nations these days, China, Vietnam, even Cuba allow capitalist practices. Yes, it's a tough call - communism in practice becomes totalitarian.
  • Ian Kaplan Wells 2009/09/08 22:50:32
    Ian Kaplan
    +1
    Because in socialism, everyone would have equal opportunities. Free college, and such. In communism everyone is equal, except the "more" equal.
  • Wells Ian Kaplan 2009/09/11 18:14:19
    Wells
    +1
    Good answer.
  • Ian Kaplan Wells 2009/09/11 21:20:26
    Ian Kaplan
    +1
    George Orwell.
  • goolash 2009/05/11 22:58:18
    I believe...
    goolash
    Humankind is not adequetely suited to govern humankind. No government style, whether a Republic, Democracy, Communist, Socialist, Monarchy, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, or any other style of government or lack thereof I have not mentioned cannot succeed if it relies solely on the decisions of human beings, for we are flawed, selfish, and commit evil even when we think we have the best of intentions.

    Conversely, a society in which all members seek to place God as the ruler of their lives, rather than themselves, will succeed regardless of their style of government. America rose to the fore, not because of our style of governance, but because our government, and culture are based on God's values. Our style of government in and of itself, is powerless to prevent the people from leaving God's values, just as it is powerless to force the people to return to God's values, or to define those values anew.

    China is a communist nation, a style of government largely reviled by western civilization, but their christian population now outnumbers the communist party, and their nation has risen to the status it has today, not because they are communist, or socialist, but because there is an explosion within their population of people who care more about their neighbors than themselves...

    ''

    '
    Humankind is not adequetely suited to govern humankind. No government style, whether a Republic, Democracy, Communist, Socialist, Monarchy, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Anarchy, or any other style of government or lack thereof I have not mentioned cannot succeed if it relies solely on the decisions of human beings, for we are flawed, selfish, and commit evil even when we think we have the best of intentions.

    Conversely, a society in which all members seek to place God as the ruler of their lives, rather than themselves, will succeed regardless of their style of government. America rose to the fore, not because of our style of governance, but because our government, and culture are based on God's values. Our style of government in and of itself, is powerless to prevent the people from leaving God's values, just as it is powerless to force the people to return to God's values, or to define those values anew.

    China is a communist nation, a style of government largely reviled by western civilization, but their christian population now outnumbers the communist party, and their nation has risen to the status it has today, not because they are communist, or socialist, but because there is an explosion within their population of people who care more about their neighbors than themselves, because that is what Jesus Christ taught. China was unable to pull itself out of developing nation status before this spiritual revolution began.

    Russia is no better off as a 'democratic' country than it was communist, because the people are no less morally bankrupt than they were before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the same goes for Europe, which is slowly falling to the muslims because they are too selfish to bother raising and teaching their kids. The muslim population in Europe has a birthrate 4 times that of the european population.

    It has been said that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. My Lord, Jesus Christ -is- that benevolent dictator. No single, or group of, human(s), regardless of their good intent, is flawless enough to govern other humans, without relying on the council of our Lord, and those in power can not be expected to follow the Lord's council if the people they come from do not.
    (more)
  • Wells goolash 2009/05/12 17:58:06
    Wells
    In this post of mine, I asked religious people to refrain from preaching. In my opinion, evangelical christianity is a cult, more Old Testament law than Gospel, and you, Goolash, are less christian than pharisee. Jesus was a bleeding heart, liberal socialist.
  • goolash Wells 2009/05/13 06:27:36
    goolash
    The difference is, Jesus preached that people should give to each other willingly, not give all their money to their government and let their government distribute it as they see fit. Now, the New Testament itself says 'give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give unto God what is God's.' A socialist nation in which the people, and the government do their best to follow God's guidelines, will succeed: the people will willingly support each other as needed, and seek to always carry their share of the work, and the government officials will always seek to apply the resources granted from the people to further their people, and God, not for personal gain. This is unrealistic though, since we are all human, which is why every nation or empire, regardless of form of government, eventually fails, through the the hubris and complacency of it's culture as a whole, both the citizens, and the rulers. The U.S. is headed down this same road: our status as a republic does not make us immune, it simply makes the process of decay a bit slower than most socialist states, such as the EU as a whole. The flip side is that it will take us longer to recover, if we ever do, as we seem stuck in this pendulum swing between extremes, when rather than pulling left or right, we ought all to be shortening ...'



    '
    The difference is, Jesus preached that people should give to each other willingly, not give all their money to their government and let their government distribute it as they see fit. Now, the New Testament itself says 'give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give unto God what is God's.' A socialist nation in which the people, and the government do their best to follow God's guidelines, will succeed: the people will willingly support each other as needed, and seek to always carry their share of the work, and the government officials will always seek to apply the resources granted from the people to further their people, and God, not for personal gain. This is unrealistic though, since we are all human, which is why every nation or empire, regardless of form of government, eventually fails, through the the hubris and complacency of it's culture as a whole, both the citizens, and the rulers. The U.S. is headed down this same road: our status as a republic does not make us immune, it simply makes the process of decay a bit slower than most socialist states, such as the EU as a whole. The flip side is that it will take us longer to recover, if we ever do, as we seem stuck in this pendulum swing between extremes, when rather than pulling left or right, we ought all to be shortening the string, so the pendulum can't swing as far.

    To answer your original question though, I believe the opposite of Socialism, is Conservative Liberalism, wherein, the government has reduced control over the people, but the people themselves adhere to conservative values (i.e. the vast majority know what is OK, therefore need fewer laws regulating them). In contrast, Socialism has a large amount of control over the people, though it is not totalitarian in nature, with liberal values held by the people (i.e. if it is not illegal, it is OK, regardless of what the individual may think).

    By the way, I see nowhere on the above question where it asks christians not to answer. I see nowhere in my answer where I defined myself as being a member of a religion, especially not Evangelical Christianity. I attend a Church of Christ, but define myself as non-denominational, for the simple fact that religion enforces rules above and beyond the simple ones that God defined for us. In some cases, such as the ancestor and angel worship adopted by the catholic church, such religions are in direct violation of God's rules.
    (more)
  • Wells goolash 2009/05/13 17:03:21 (edited)
    Wells
    Please refrain from further ad nauseum elaboration upon your personal theories in theology. What is about the request for "minimal preaching" don't you understand? Church of Christ is evangelical. You worship Jesus for his death, ie, Old Testament blood sacrifice.
  • goolash Wells 2009/05/26 22:59:13
    goolash
    As a friend put it, telling you the truth is like casting pearls before swine. You are obviously not open-minded enough to even consider the possibility that your world view may not be right. You are too scared you may be proved wrong that you refuse to look at the evidence in front of your face. It is regretable that I must leave you to your ignorance.
  • Wells goolash 2009/05/26 23:15:45
    Wells
    +1
    I like it better this way. If you're going to spew biased, insubstantial, uninformed and misguided opinion, make it brief. I'm not surprised that your rhetoric has collapsed into depravity. How does supposedly knowing the truth allow you to make assumptions about me? It doesn't and therefore, you don't know the truth. You have demonstrated that your faith is barbaric, not christian. Jesus would tell you to sell your posessions.
  • La Bef 2009/05/10 19:03:13 (edited)
    I believe...
    La Bef
    +1
    That free enterprise rewarding hard work does not make inhumane capitalism...dictatorial fascism or senseless anarchy. I am a refugee from a "socialist" country and whoever believes any of the choice you gave us is in for the surprise of his life. fascism senseless anarchy refugee socialist country believes choice surprise life
  • Wells La Bef 2009/05/10 21:23:54
    Wells
    +1
    If you're a refugee, your country wasn't truly socialist. If the USA wasn't socialist, it wouldn't have accepted your emigration. You like it better here than there, that's fine. But, that doesn't mean this nation hasn't got an equally long way to go to achieve an average of living standards for most people here as in your old country. Capitalism is corrupt as most people can see. You are in the minority if you can't see that. You're probably living off the government more now than you did there.
  • La Bef Wells 2009/05/10 21:29:46
    La Bef
    Volumes in an encyclopedia would be filled with what you do not know about socialism. Learn something about it then we can talk. I will ignore the insults because that is the way of the libs...not mine.
  • Wells La Bef 2009/05/11 01:31:24
    Wells
    And making the blunt claim that I know nothing about socialism isn't an insult? I guess not in your mind, because the way of 'the' conservatives (like you) is to project onto others the things they do themselves. Just tell us how the US government (that conservatives love to hate), didn't bend over backwards to ease your transition from immigrant to citizen. Let's not be grateful for that. Let's focus on what's 'wrong' with US government, like say, its immigration policy regarding non-whites.
  • La Bef Wells 2009/05/11 01:47:10
    La Bef
    This is my third attempt to reply because I can't believe what you just wrote about me. So rather than answer your comments I am just going to say...you do not have a clue about what you have here...what I am...and how we handed our country over to "socialism" to have it turned into its real name... and because everything you just wrote is totally based on some wrong idea you appear to have... I am going with my daddy's advice: Don't try to teach a pig how to sing....it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

    With those words we are parting ways.
  • Wells Wells 2009/05/11 04:30:59 (edited)
    Wells
    Aw look. Isn't that sweet. Another self-righteous white immigrant republican who can't take the truth so makes up lies and accuses others of lying. Wow. Only in America, right? OK, this kinda shit goes on everywhere. Screw you, La Boof. You're the pig. Just ask your daddy, "Daddy, am I a pig?" And he'll answer, "Yes, Boofy, but I love you anyway."
  • Axl Snaks 2009/05/10 05:46:42
  • TattooedSailor 2009/05/10 01:03:07
    I believe...
    TattooedSailor
    +3
    We all start out equally in the right of life liberty & happiness... but when a person fails at life, there is nothing that says its the other citizens responsabillity to help them acheive in those areas.. Thats why socialism can't co-exist with The United States.. The opposite of socialism is a free republic!
  • Wells Tattooe... 2009/05/10 03:40:31
    Wells
    That was a fair assessment, Sailor, of one ideological perspective. But, it's not the only one. There are others which are contrary, even opposite, and just as logical, if not moreso.

    Some philosophy follows the Yin-Yang principle of balance. Your perspective is nothing without its opposite. The Yin-Yang doesn't represent black-white, good-evil, right-wrong. Yin-Yang best represents things that are not opposites such as male-female, individualism-collectivism.

    Every society is socialist. You depend upon innumerable others for everything. You are a socialist. Don't kid yourself. There's not enough money in the world to be had by anyone that allows them to dismiss the fact that we are all in this boat together. Deny anyone's existence and you deny your own. You will never be an individualist, ever.
  • Tattooe... Wells 2009/05/10 04:27:19
    TattooedSailor
    +2
    I dont deny peoples existance. I deny them a portion of my paycheck. If I want to give to charity that should be up to me & not the government. I worked for my money, It stays with me.. thats the way it should be. Your confusing socialism with being social. nothing wrong with communities helping eachother out, but say the mayor in that town makes it a law to give the guy sitting on the bridge a dollar every time you walk past him. Do you thing everyone will continue willingly to go that route or choose not to walk past him anymore? unfortunatly with socialism we dont have the choice to take another route. More people would be willing to donate money if they didnt take so much out of our paychecks already. Im not a socialist by any means. I rely on my work to provide me with my earnings. I could live anywhere on my own, a can hunt, fish, build, and farm. The opposite of socialism is still Freedom.
  • Wells Tattooe... 2009/05/10 17:09:16
    Wells
    When you give to a panhandler, your dollar is not likely to be helpful. The city, rather than the individual, is best suited to create social service agencies whereby indigents can pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Sure, there are plenty of 'private' social service organizations offering charitable assistance to the absolutely down-and-out and poor. But, poverty often breeds criminal behavior and associated costs. Those costs are tallied on munipal budgets. In this case, we choose whether to spend tax dollars on prevention or prosecution.

    The opposite of socialism is not freedom. The USA was formed on the basis of inalienable rights. Your position is akin to American loyalists who profitted from trade with Britain and whose main concern was not with meeting the needs of their fellow colonists. In other words, your position isn't patriotic. You live in a country that provides you the means to secure for yourself and family their needs, virtually all manufactured, produced or provided by tens of thousands of faceless others whom you ideologically relate to in no other way but monetarily. Somewhere between socialism and your isolationist psuedo-individualism is a balance that makes this country great.
  • Tattooe... Wells 2009/05/10 18:57:50
    TattooedSailor
    +2
    If a panhandler can stand outside all day holding a pan, he can make pans too.. if the government wants to help the guy out fine.. But if i had unalienable freedom that money would not come out of my hard earned income.

    Socialism breeds criminals too.. But instead of thugs robbing you with guns they are thugs robbing you of your rights with your taxes. theres no difference in that exept if someone robs me with a gun, i am armed & can defend myself. I cant defend myself against socialist robbers who think they are robin hood..

    I believe in community & am not an individualist.. but i dont think as an individual i should be forced by anyone to give some of my money up.. & would rather be at church & they pass the pot around & ask if anyone wants to help out the guy on the bridge.. then yeah i have a choice in this.. i'll throw in some money.. i dont need the government to do that for me.. You cant rely too much on the government for anything!!

    Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.

    The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.
  • cptnkrk Tattooe... 2009/05/11 23:03:57
    cptnkrk
    Succinctly put.

    Since socialism in any of its forms (from Fascism to Communism and all points in between) deny the right of the individual to choose their own path. The opposite of Socialism must be Freedom.

    Freedom taken to an extreme can result in Anarchy as well but it takes very few limits to prevent that.

    The "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" kind of thing covers most of that.
  • Tattooe... cptnkrk 2009/05/12 01:03:53
    TattooedSailor
    +2
    Well thats why we do have laws & rather being a socialist country we are a republic.. along with our personal freedom we also have to have personal responsability for those freedoms.. I have the freedom to drink & the freedom to own a gun.. but if i abused those freedoms I could have any number of repercussions.. we dont need the government to control & manage every aspect of our lives.. I should be able to decide where I want my charities to go to.. Maybe they should take a certain amount of money out of my check for taxes but i should have a list & choose where MY money goes to.. & it wouldnt go to welfare for sure! I would send mine to the disabled & the people who truly cant work, my brothers blind but he still works.. & would have my taxes to research blindness.. things that matter to me, not things that matter to the government.. thats a limited freedom i could deal with!
  • cptnkrk Tattooe... 2009/05/12 04:47:15
    cptnkrk
    Again. You state it well.

    It would be interesting to be able to choose where your tax money is spent.
    Progressives could spend their money on gifts for the unproductiive.

    I could give mine to the military, public safety and the street department.

    I would bet most "social programs" would end up being unfunded. But it would be interesting to see.
  • Tattooe... cptnkrk 2009/05/12 04:54:42
    TattooedSailor
    +2
    Exactly.. they know these little pet projects wouldnt be funded because it has no interest from the people.. my money wouldnt go to the milittary because thats whose paying me in the first place.. but definately go to roads where there would be no other way to fund besides the public.. and it would go to groups that protected the contsitution & government watchdogs, the blind commission, border control........ i think the People would truly feel they had a say in the countries direction if they chose where their taxes went!
  • cptnkrk cptnkrk 2009/05/12 04:54:46
    cptnkrk
    I am curious on the downrave.

    Choices are Spam, racist, hateful content, bullying, underage user etc.???

    Which was it? Or did you just disagree?
  • Wells cptnkrk 2009/05/12 06:50:13
    Wells
    I just disagree with you, kirk. I chose 'hateful/racist' because our governments represent and try to meet the needs of everyone, but your philosophy/ideology leaves out a lot of people. If there were a downrave for 'inconsiderate', I would've chosen that option. Anti-government sentiment is simplistic. I figure the problem isn't 'government' as much as Big Business control over government -- the 'follow th money' rule. This is my poll and I'm getting a little tired of this preaching.
  • cptnkrk Wells 2009/05/12 17:10:41
    cptnkrk
    I apologize profusely for being "racist and hateful" in espousing constitutional principles. Posting a poll invites opinions. If you are not open to hearing other opinions perhaps you should rethink the whole idea of opening a discussion or make it only open to sycophants.

    BTW: I am not Anti-government. Just limited government.

    I have been around a while and have studied a great deal of history. The history of government is that it starts off "helping" and if it is not limited it grows and is eventually staffed with people who use it to trample others rather than help them. Socialist governments have the worst history of trampling their citizens rights. Look at the former USSR, Italy, China, Germany, Venezuela etc.

    The US has held pretty strong for as long as it has because its people have been free to choose their own path. We will continue to do well until that freedom is taken away.

    I have been poor. I became rich. Then I made some bad investments and ended up poorer (probably would be classified lower/ middle class at this point) for a while. Now I am on the way back up. What other country allows that kind of swing? The freedom to succeed or the freedom to fail. What a great place!!
  • NickName his Dudeness 2009/05/10 00:32:06
    I believe...
    NickName his Dudeness
    +2
    I guess some combination of the three...lol.

    I wouldn't want pure socialism either, but government has its purpose (and no, it's not just to make war, like so many people seem to think).
  • Jon Bergen 2009/02/28 19:42:34
    Inhumane Capitalism
    Jon Bergen
    +2
    And this thing we're just getting started with - Depression, the Sequel - should serve as a giant wake-up call for just how inhumane it can get.
  • Heptarch 2009/02/23 14:46:02
    Inhumane Capitalism
    Heptarch
    +4
    The idea that an economy (and polity) can be built by giving the greediest men the most money and hoping they help others with it is insane.

    I believe that a just government has a responsibility to provide safeguards against the abuses of Free Market Capitalism so as to create a stable, fair foundation for ALL its citizens to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Wells Heptarch 2009/02/28 20:25:59
    Wells
    +2
    President Carter had an energy program that evolved into an economic stimulus program. The Home Weatherization Tax Credit Program created a quiet revolution through the 1980's, even carrying Reagan's water for economic recovery. Reagan cancelled to program in 1982, but by that time people realized the value of energy conservation and were caught up in the jobs it created. The State of Washington had gone bust in the late 70's over a failed nuclear power expansion project which they realized wasn't needed after progress toward energy conservation took hold.

    Anyway, Carter's tax scheme for the program worked amazingly well the exact opposite way that Republicans now say is the only way that will work. Republicans now say, "Tax breaks first, then invest." Wrong! Carter's program gave a dollar-for-dollar tax credit 'after' an investment in home or business insulation or other energy conservation measure. The result of Carter's program is progress you can see and feel when one decides to not take it for granted. Today's homes are more comfortable, cleaner and healthier as well as more energy efficient.

    You're right. Giving the greediest people the most money and hoping they'll help others is if not insane then proven to mostly fail.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/17 10:08:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals