and is socialism really that bad?

can you not have a socialist system where everything goes back to the goverment in 70 years, but everything in between is capitalist? or every 3th generation, all inhereted wealth and some interest, investments goes back to the goverment...that way you have enough incentive, yet not the undeserving that are born into wealth and the inequality that ensues?


you guys that are saying that is not socialism, you are wrong, even the land would go back to the goverment..

yes, there are inherent factors in our goverment that our socialist, but I say, that maybe things that become too essential to society to be left to the markets, should become part of the goverment...

this has laready happened with road contractor, defense contractors, railways, traffic control, etc, etc.

But what about software? microsoft? I say bill gates, and all his money goes back to the goverment when it gets to his grandchildren, and the software company is bought out by the goverment---why?

so we can all get the software for free? and you could have the workers payed by the goverment (software specialists)...

furthermore, you could have communist enclaves (for people in jails and the poor)---they work on goverment projects for free...but they must fill in a quota, or they go back to the capitalist slums...that is incentive..if they do good job-good hous

Update 2:


mira, huevon,

the thing of 70 years goes back to the goverment is ridiculous, is ridiculous.

This is why biatch:

if the bussiness is as successful as you say, through those two generations, all the money made from the bussiness went to other things, investments, stocks, interest rates....this money is grown, from the original inheritance....the land where the buildings of the bussiness are based, would go back to the goverment, therefore the buildings would be goverment owned and the chain....

but all the money made from that will still stay in the hands of the grandchildren, except for the direct profits, say the goverment gives them 20% of direct profits over the 70 year.s...that + all the stuff they made indirectly with the original profits (it takes money to make money)....will give them MORE THAN ENOUGH money to get by...comprende?

BUTthe chain,and everything else, will go to the general developemen...that is if the chain is THATpertinent to society

Update 3:

In other words, Americans have it set in their mind that everything socialist is bad, yet we have socialist properties in our goverment right now (as mentioned, social welfare, etc), and it works very well...

all I am saying, is that once an industry reaches its peak of evolution, that is, there are set defined loosers and winners, the goverment picks the winner and enhances it for general public benefit.

Say for one generation after the 70 year we all get free windows xp for one generation....just imagine the extra productivity per worker...and then the goverment sells it back to the industry when there are new new companies trying to compete....and then the whole process starts again....

and the ones that win are picked again by the goverment and so on...

You could have socialist communities IN OUR capitalist system...those that do not thrive in capitalism (the loosers)....see my gist now? just be open minded and creative.

Update 4:

why do this...because that way,....when the loosers are defined, they do not take over the market, and act selfishly when they have such a large impact on society (such as microsoft),

socialist components like that INTO our general capitalist society would be very beneficial...socialism is still a very under-developed idea, and today, could be said could work much better (due to the internet and new technology)---who knows whether evolution in this round will favor SOCIALISM over capitalism? or a socialist capitalist economy (china)...

internet based socialism and tagging with ID's all citizens would register exact work and supplies, which would make the need for centralization dissappear (which gives way to dictatorship and innefficiency, the downfall of soviet union communist)....once centralization goes away, you can have a democratic socialism that works--especially with networking technology..

.so just keep an open mind, the round is not yet over. evolution is in process

Update 5:

*loosers----sorry, winners.

10 Answers

  • Will
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    What you are describing is not Socialism - you are describing our system with an ideal kind of inheritance tax. I personally think an inheritance tax (one that works) is a good idea - but even when we had one, it mostly affected middle class people. The inheritance tax will always have loopholes that let the super-rich avoid them.

    As for Socialism in general - not a good idea. As has already been pointed out, under Socialism, the state effectively owns its citizens - it only would only work well if you could force everyone to work as hard for someone else as they would for themselves. regulated Capitalism - though it has many flaws - is the only system that has proved itself capable of marshaling the talents and ambitions of individuals to the greater good of all.

  • 1 decade ago

    In Denmark (and Scandinavia) they have a very socialist way of doing things. They are also a Capitalist nation(s) but it comes with a price. The base tax rate is 56%, for that the citizens of Denmark are all entitled to education, medical care(dental, optical, and alternative treatments like acupuncture and chiropractics) retirement benefits (at 67 whether you quit working or not), unemployment benefits (at 100% of your pay scale for up to 2 years). There are people that the Danes would consider poor but by North American standards they are not. No one lives on the streets (unless it is a choice they have made). Economically Denmark is in the black having an annual surplus and zero national debt. (Compare that to the $3 trillion debit the United States has built up).

    As to why everything should revert to the state after 70 years (or ever), I think that is ludicrous. Let us say for example that your father has built a business (a very successful business) and you follow in his footsteps and take over management of the business when he retires. You build upon that business and make it your own. Your son or daughter wants to follow in your footsteps and takes on the family business (by now a national chain) but a few years into their tenure the business reverts to the government. What are they to do? Their lively-hood is stripped from them!

    There has to be a balance between Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism (just because Stalin was a b*st*rd doesn't mean that it is a bad thing). The real problem is that everyone wants these things but no one wants to pay for them. With responsible government spending and the right balance of taxes there should be no need for anyone (in the world) to go without. Those who want the luxuries will have to work a little harder for them but that is why they’re called LUXURIES.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Socialism looks good on paper as an ideal. It is not unlike Plato ideal plain of existence. However, it does not function well in the real world. At the same time, in spite of what people think, unbridled libertarianism, and capitalism are equally idyllic, and have the same inherent flaw. It puts control of the economy into the hands of too few, and disenfranchises the many. A balanced approach, call if fair market, is probably the best approach.

    From what I see in Wikipedia, I can see that it is a concept that is still underdeveloped.

  • 1 decade ago

    America is Socialist, so is Canada, there is no such thing as a pure democracy. We have Medicare, that's Socialist policy. Social Security is basically a bank with virtually no liquidity. Education has a state-run sector, also socialist, sure their is competition in the education sector, but you pay for Medicare and education and Social Security. So basically if you don't like Socialism you're in the wrong country (for all those people who told the asker to 'get out')

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • socialism wasnt a bad idea Karl Marks plans just got in the wrong hands, i'm not sure if its possible to have a completly socialist envirnment but it was a got idea but in the wrong hands. what Lenin and stalin did was no where nere what Marks thought it would be

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Dream on, nut-ball.

  • 1 decade ago

    socialism owns man.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    interesting idea... but the rich won't agree... and they have a lot of power here...

  • 1 decade ago

    nope.........che had good intentions in the beginning!

  • If you were not born in the US please go home. If you were born in the US please leave.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.