Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Is it true that with out Socialism to counter the effects Capitalism Greed from Capitalism is total bondage?

The very definition and meaning of Capitalism implies that Nothing is free - that every thing costs .

With out a certain amount of socialism there is no fairness . The government will just take our tax money and offer nothing in return .

And every one pays tax - every one from the working persons - pay roll tax > to the homeless person who buys an item from a store .

We ALL pay tax -

Update:

I am 59 the widow of a veteran and started working at age 13 at a restaurant busing tables

If You are going to slander Me then at least be accurate

Update 2:

Food stamps are tree least the government has done for our people

Republicans pillage this country and Romney is the biggest pillager of them all

Update 3:

sorry I meant the least our government has done for our people .

Which is why our country is in such a bad state of affairs

Republicans take

Update 4:

I have noticed that Republicans sure Love to tax the every day working person and small business but offer NOTHING in return for that hard earned tax that we pay .

Update 5:

Go ahead lie and slander me - it will NOT win Republicans the election

Update 6:

Capitalism is evil

Jesus said One can not serve two Masters - One can not serve God and Mammon ( Money ) too.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Socialisim -- esp in the US is equated to communisim which is a very convient mind control tactic of propaganda by the people who own the state

    The state --- a state -- is made up of estates The estates which combine to make up a state are -- labour or rather who owns it -- currency or who controls it -- armed forces -- land -- and media

    Who owns the currency -- one of the estates -- Its owned by a bank which loans the government of the land money at interest passed to the peoples -- The people do not own the currency nor does the government

    Who owns the land -- anyone who pays property tax rents the land they occupy So the people do not own the money or the land -- whoever collects and assigns the tax to rent land owns the land

    Media -- and the arms trade are so intertwined that once more you can not say the people own the media --nor do they own the armed forces

    ------------------ The Bush era banker bail out gave taxpayers money ( which is not taxpayer money at all ) to the banks to buy land with in order to save the insurance industry

    The above represents socialized losses and private profit -- the absolute mirror image of socialisim while being its complete image backwards

    In 1950 conservative MP ( later PM ) Diefenbaker told us about Asiatic chaos which was a system of unrestrained capitalism which ended as it must in 2 classes of person -- owned and owner

    This has occurred in Canada the US and all other western nations -- for evidence of this I submit any national debt clock borrowed on a generational level on behalf of the people by a government from a private bank who assigns interest and controls the principle amount available by ownership of the supply

    If you ever ask what capitol investment the pioneers had to offer when they got here -- your on track to discovering we are slaves and have been for a very long time

    You can't impose socialism without a lot of education and deprogramming of the populace and if the Russians have anything to teach us its the ENTIRE population must be educated as to how it works or the revolutionaries just kill the intellectuals and impose a salami slice technique of totalitarian creep which is also evident in the west

  • 4 years ago

    Socialism requires a centralized govt controlling all facets of the economic climate, including where and while you work and for how much. Democracy is rooted within the ideals of private freedom, and the thought that contributors can select what is best for themselves. Market-based capitalism, even with all its problems, is rooted within the identical ideals. Socialism however is situated on the speculation that the government, not contributors, comprehend what is great for the contributors and society as a entire. It is viable that socialism and democracy would coexist, however not going because they are situated on opposing ideals, and it most often wouldn't be very long before one overpowered the other.

  • 8 years ago

    You are partly correct. Adam Smith himself charges that unregulated Capitalism, will not only be bad for the consumer, that it will indeed destroy itself.

    However, he warns that government regulation is NOT the answer, (what you might be considering in your "Socialism" argument) .

    His "Invisible Hand" of regulation is the General public or consumer , IE" the Market", making sound choices as a group to directly influence Capital, IE: Business. His reasons stem from the notions that coercive measures, like government regulation comes with so many of it's own unintended negative consequences, that the system will ruin itself even faster, He also strongly states that Capitalism cannot exist except in a "moral society".

    So without a certain amount of regulation there will be nothing near fairness, Not Socialism. I am quibbling with words and phrases here, but they have strong connotations.

    As far a "Socialism" goes (and I am not afraid of that word), no society can exist completely as a free market, where anything goes , except maybe Somalia, or as a complete Socialist, Communist or collectivist one. It just depends which side the society leans toward and looks to first that determines who they are.

    Source(s): I agree in principle, but took small exception with your phrasing.
  • 8 years ago

    Not true at all. Tell us what is free. Socialism simply reduces the value of the best worker to the value of the laziest. Under capitalism, those who work the most, earn the most, and get it.

    I assume you are calling things like police and fire departments, roads and bridges "socialist". WRONG. They are "social services" paid for with tax dollars paid by working Americans. The fact that people who some people who benefit from them pay NOTHING for them proves how generous we are as a society.

    If a person uses someone else's money, whether from a handout to a homeless person or from a communist welfare state program, they are NOT paying a tax. The person who actually did something to EARN the money pays tax just as they are paying for the item.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    1) Costs/benefits exist even under socialism

    2) Greed is a human trait of survival independent of government/economics, what differentiates greed from need? Do we need TV, houses, and SS or do we want these items? Your use of greed is held to kindergarten definitions. The dividing line between the two is a social construct as the phenomena is derived from biology/genetics.

    3) Fairness is subjective and ideological. Are we measuring by result, opportunity, contribution, value? People are not equal and favoring one measure of "fairness" can take away from other measurements.

  • 8 years ago

    So 46 million people living on Food Stamps isn't enough people? How about the Oblamer govt make more people depend on living as poor people? Thats liberal dumbess for yeah . You guys are so brainwashed!

    Tell me one country that "socialism" works? You guys live on LAH LAH LAND! Get off the meds and back into the real world before your cult destroys the world.

  • 8 years ago

    You are paid a wage for the amount of time you devote to doing work. There is nothing I see "unfair" about that! What IS 'unfair' is how I have to keep ACCURATE track of my spending to 'get by' and I PAY TAXES while 47% DO NOT! That I see as "unfair"... especially when that 35% on state support VOTE... and for WHOM? The one who promises to continue that support despite what it costs we who are not on the dole.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    That sounds more like authoritarianism than capitalism. The problem with unregulated capitalism is that most people have low wages and low standards of living like during the industrial revolution. All of the wealth generated by a purely capitalist society goes to the very rich. When regulation is added to a purely capitalist society, there is more room for a middle class.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    You obviously have never worked a productive day in your life in the private sector.

    Slug.

    ADDENDUM - You obviously stopped working at 13 too. Slug.

  • 8 years ago

    Capitalism without mercy, is tantamount to evil.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.