Why Socialism ? By Albert Einstein

[Swalload]

lol less and less coherent as the post count stacks up. this is the most long winded "no u" ive ever seen.

The real problem is you're not realizing what is happening between us. You're literally just offended and making an irrelevant post everytime I post. You could be using this time to educate yourself instead.

[Priestiality]

This wins the internet today!

Still waiting for you to cite those sources that prove non-whites are responsible for more bombings in America than white conservatives. Spoiler alert: The Austin dude, as predicted, was a white conservative.

[NihilSustinet]

The real problem is you're not realizing what is happening between us. You're literally just offended and making an irrelevant post everytime I post. You could be using this time to educate yourself instead.

Who is offended? you made a stupid argument, and i ripped it to shreds, you tried to get away with multiple failed logical fallacies to save face, got called out, and just started spewing nonsense. Thats all that happened here. You have said nothing of value, nothing offensive, nothing interesting. nothing thought provoking. nothing remotely educated or savvy. You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of: being butthurt and making repeated irrelevant posts. stop projecting and please, for your own sake and the sake of this entire forum and everyone on it, stop talking.

[Deleted]

Nazi literally stands for national socialist.

Oh well if that's all it takes then I guess North Korea is a democracy.

[Beazy]

I give zero fucks about Einsteins thoughts on commies, just like I don't give two shits about Sir Issac Newtons extensive work in Alchemy.

Just because they are both mathematical geniuses, doesn't mean they both didn't believe in bat-shit crazy dumb shit outside of their expertise. . . . its almost as if they were both human.

[Deleted]

No, it depends on what those taxes are for. If they're for the support and welfare of the people, rather than the benefit of the ruling leadership, then the benefit of the means of production is being secured for the people's interests, at least in part.

A feudal king taxing his peasants to fund his wars would, obviously, not qualify.

Is China socialist?

[Endus]

Is China socialist?

Yes. And?

I'm sure you're likely to be making a "well, China sucks, so socialism sucks" type argument, but that's like saying "I had a burger one time that was raw, so all burgers are raw and people who eat burgers like eating raw meat". It's nonsense.

[JohnBrown1917]

Is China socialist?

State capitalism seems the most fitting. China is not exactly big on workers rights.

[Deleted]

Yes. And?

I'm sure you're likely to be making a "well, China sucks, so socialism sucks" type argument, but that's like saying "I had a burger one time that was raw, so all burgers are raw and people who eat burgers like eating raw meat". It's nonsense.

No "and" incoming. Are then most of European countries socialist as well?

[Endus]

No "and" incoming. Are then most of European countries socialist as well?

Pretty much any country that operates on a mixed economy, which includes basically all developed and most developing nations, is at least partially socialist, yes.

They may also be capitalist.

This isn't a contradiction, and people who think it must be are the ones having troubles with definitions.

[Deleted]

Pretty much any country that operates on a mixed economy, which includes basically all developed and most developing nations, is at least partially socialist, yes.

They may also be capitalist.

This isn't a contradiction, and people who think it must be are the ones having troubles with definitions.

Oh, I agree with you that what we have across European countries is indeed a mixed economy. Although many on the far left would consider such ideas to be nothing but revisionism.

[Cruor]

Capitalism works the best of of everything else people have tried. Socialism can never work, because the majority think like I do: "Why should I do this hard job that took more study and skill to do and he has that easy job and gets the same amount?" Also: "Why should I work and support that bum who does nothing?" Also: "Since I will just be paid the same amount anyway, I will do the bare minimum" What do you not get? It has been proven that socialism and communism will not, can not work. Ever.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. And?

I'm sure you're likely to be making a "well, China sucks, so socialism sucks" type argument, but that's like saying "I had a burger one time that was raw, so all burgers are raw and people who eat burgers like eating raw meat". It's nonsense.

No. Its like saying you tried rotten meat once, so all rotten meat is bad and you would be right. Socialism/communism can not work.
I'll tell you what: Lets try it, but YOU and the other leftists/people on welfare on this forum will work, and I will sit around doing nothing, and get the same amount of money/benefits and rights. I will sit home and get 40k posts and play video games all day while you guys work and support me.

[Soeroah]

We have already done that. There is no country that is 100% capitalistic.

The US seems to be making a very strong push.

[Mormolyce]

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights

Seems pretty accurate.

Nazi literally stands for national socialist. And yes other socialists were put in camps. Any detractors were. Just like in communist Russia, any detractors were sent to the gulag or killed.

The Nazis, like other fascist organisations, were a reactionary movement against Communism.

Why Capitalism?

https://www.cato.org/events/why-capitalism

(Oxford University Press, 2012)
Share
Book Forum
April 24, 2012
12:00PM to 1:00PM EDT
Hayek Auditorium
Featuring the author Allan H. Meltzer, University Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University; with comments by John Mueller, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; moderated by David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute.


The only economic system that maximizes both growth and individual liberty is capitalism, explains Allan H. Meltzer in his new book. Capitalism succeeds because it is adaptive, not rigid, whereas so much regulation often fails despite good intentions. The author will explain why European welfare states lag behind the United States, the causes of postwar progress and current enormous budget deficits, and why inflation will return. Join us to hear Professor Meltzer’s passionate defense of the free market at a time when U.S. citizens seem to lack a shared vision of the way to maintain domestic or world growth. John Mueller will comment on the role of capitalism in human progress.

But it's kind of apples and oranges, isn't it? Socialism is a system of government, capitalism is a vague term describing more or less lessaiz-faire economic policies.

- - - Updated - - -

I give zero fucks about Einsteins thoughts on commies, just like I don't give two shits about Sir Issac Newtons extensive work in Alchemy.

Just because they are both mathematical geniuses, doesn't mean they both didn't believe in bat-shit crazy dumb shit outside of their expertise. . . . its almost as if they were both human.

Who would you consider an expert in the field of systems of government?

[Deleted]

You do know that The Netherlands is a fully functioning socialist republican monarchy with a capitalist mindset right? Or if you do then I apologize as my sarcasm detector is in the shop as I have the flu.

wat...

The Netherlands is not a republic, and it's not socialist.
The ruling establishment is right wing.

[Deleted]

All these theories didn't work for their most basic requirement got never fulfilled.

I mean so many people are against Neo-liberalism - they should read Adam Smith and realize how different it is from reality. His most important requirement was "no monopolies, ever" and what do we have in this world? Hell we have countries who act like a big super corporation who hold monopolies. Same for communism/socialism. As long as there are institutions outside of the system they will not work. What we have is a mutation, an abomination nobody ever wanted - and it grew through global desasters like world war instead of perishing. No country, no continent and no nation will ever control it. All we can hope for is a major hiccup (global economy crash) and that we are all ready for it to jump on the other trail.

[Linkedblade]

Seems pretty accurate.



The Nazis, like other fascist organisations, were a reactionary movement against Communism.



But it's kind of apples and oranges, isn't it? Socialism is a system of government, capitalism is a vague term describing more or less lessaiz-faire economic policies.

- - - Updated - - -



Who would you consider an expert in the field of systems of government?

It may have been a reaction, but they wound up with the exact same system with the exact same flaws.

- - - Updated - - -

All these theories didn't work for their most basic requirement got never fulfilled.

I mean so many people are against Neo-liberalism - they should read Adam Smith and realize how different it is from reality. His most important requirement was "no monopolies, ever" and what do we have in this world? Hell we have countries who act like a big super corporation who hold monopolies. Same for communism/socialism. As long as there are institutions outside of the system they will not work. What we have is a mutation, an abomination nobody ever wanted - and it grew through global desasters like world war instead of perishing. No country, no continent and no nation will ever control it. All we can hope for is a major hiccup (global economy crash) and that we are all ready for it to jump on the other trail.

Or just as bad: duopolies or triopolies. But that's just the result of pareto principle.

[JohnBrown1917]

It may have been a reaction, but they wound up with the exact same system with the exact same flaws.

- - - Updated - - -



Or just as bad: duopolies or triopolies. But that's just the result of pareto principle.

Communist and fascist economic system are very different, only one got support from the big corporations at the time.

[Risale]

wat...

The Netherlands is not a republic, and it's not socialist.
The ruling establishment is right wing.

The Netherlands was a republic then became a monarchy, however a monarchy with heavy republican tendancies even today.
Yes it is socialist if you compare it to a country like the US and the 3 big parties (CDA/PvdA/VVD) all share the same socialistic background.
Two of the current 4 parties that form the government are the CDA & VVD, the remaining 2 parties are D66 and CU, none of these 4 parties are rightwing (D66 is even left of center), they are more center and right of center, nowhere near far right like the German AfD or the GOP in the US.
If you want rightwing or far right in The Netherlands your only real option is the PVV and they are in the opposition not in the government.

[JohnBrown1917]

The Netherlands was a republic then became a monarchy, however a monarchy with heavy republican tendancies even today.
Yes it is socialist if you compare it to a country like the US and the 3 big parties (CDA/PvdA/VVD) all share the same socialistic background.
Two of the current 4 parties that form the government are the CDA & VVD, the remaining 2 parties are D66 and CU, none of these 4 parties are rightwing (D66 is even left of center), they are more center and right of center, nowhere near far right like the German AfD or the GOP in the US.
If you want rightwing or far right in The Netherlands your only real option is the PVV and they are in the opposition not in the government.

Those 4 parties have nothing socialist in them, just becease they are not far right consrvatives/liberals does not suddenly make them socialist, The D66 is also nowhere near the left of center, they are solid in the center-right, or you think a left wing party would get rid of the dividend tax?