Socialism and the fall of Civilization (703 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.62 on 23 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by disAbled (View user info) at 2004-08-20 13:46:21 EDT
Socialism is not a viable governmental system because it requires an established economy in order to function. You cannot start out a system with socialism. Your civlization would die in the preliminary stages either by dissent of the ambitious or conquest by your neighbors. Socialism is a parasite that requires a host economy to survive until it deprives the host of too many assets. What happens after the end of socialism?
Well, I don't think that's too important. After all, an anarchist's greatest hope is that the system he hates will destroy itself by its own function. You see, anarchists tend to lack ambition and motivation to destroy governmental systems. They are also pussies. You never see an anarchist actually kill a cop during a riot to become a martyr. Rocks and pies seem to be better political statements than blood and death. You see, this is why the Muslims use rocks and pies to express their political frustration with whites and jews. It has much more impact than, say, a suicide bombing or flying an airliner kamakazie style into the icon of wester civlization.
The reason that anarchists don't make some sort of assertive action against established government is because they use too many drugs. Hey, what do you know, conservatives made drugs illeagal and yet promote them through underground distribution and government sponsored laboratory development. In this way, Republicans can deprive the dangerous anarchists of motivation, link them to Democrats because of their open support of civic freedoms, decry drug use as the destrucion of society, and apprehend and imprison those who would sponsor dissent. Can anyone say Fascism? Hey, they're just trying to maintain the moral legacy of our country. You know, the kind of morality that permitted slavery, feuds, duels to the death, insider-trading, trust-companies, monopolies, indian wars, trails of tears, imperialism, gold-rushes, pyramid-schemes, right-wing-malitias, unlimited gun related violence, racial profiling, police brutality, supression of dissent, nation-building, and domination of an unwilling world market. The US needs more government enforced morality. Maybe if everyone wasn't having promiscuous sex, they would be busy hanging asians from trees for believing in a fundamental balance of life.
Meanwhile, Democrats 'expose' these actions of the Republican government in hopes of gaining power themselves. They verbally chastise figure head leaders of the American conservative government for the deaths of soldiers. You know, those individuals that contract their life and well being to an ungrateful government who uses them like pawns in a gargantuan and deadly real game of Risk. Oh, God! A man that signed his life away for 25,000 dollars a year suffered a basic and fundamental risk that is inherant in the occupation he wilfully selected. Tragedy, indeed. Anyway, these socialist leaders, once they have gained power, traverse the world attempting to stop social catastrophes in other nations by waging 'limited' warfare with a downsized military. 'Hey, we didn't invade Iraq to free them from a viscous dictator, we just undertook ineffectual political bargaining with a narcissistic sociopath so that our country-club (that's a pun) of the United Nations will pat us on the head and maintain our membership.
Oh, yes, the taxes. Liberals guiltlessly propose 're-distribution of wealth' because it is the ethical thing to do. It will also build a stronger, more compassionate, 'sensitive' nation. Here's the idea. You take money from a man that has worked from the age of 12 to become as successful as possible. You take assets from this person who generates employment, stimulates foreign trade, and donates money to education. This stolen money is then bequeathed to a single unemployed 'african-american' mother of 4 fat undereducated children because the less fortunate deserve to live comfortably too. Never mind the fact that her laziness, promiscuity, and bottomless drug addiction has landed her in the situation to begin with. She couldn't help it, you know, society has made her what she is. The idea is to reward her for being a waste of life so that she will turn it all around and contribute. Pavlov didn't know what he was doing. People inherently want to work their asses off with no tangible increase in reward. After all, there is plenty of wealth to go around. You know, those damn rich people stole everything they have from the proles. The Democrats are just trying to give it back to its rightful owners.
User Reviews
Submitted by disAbled (user info) at 2004-08-20 19:56:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess I have to do the honors myself as Teephphah was the only one to sort-of get it.
Shenannigans.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/42052
Read the fucking post. It's satire, and undirected satire at that. Pure and simple. It doesn't represent any political ideology. Even the title is a hook. Damnit, people!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-08-20 19:08:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"So you see, I'm not talking about a pie in the sky bullshit percentage that you can latch onto as a universal truth, I'm talking about following the spirit of the tax law and not spending untold resources looking for ways to exploit the very system that allowed you to achieve success."
Wow, that was like poetry. It melted in my eyes as I read. I get your point.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-08-20 18:07:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is not utopian to expect corporations to pay their taxes anymore than it is utopian to expect me to pay my taxes. By "fair share" I mean "legal obligation". I have seen this shit from the inside. It is no secret that I used to be a tax consultant for a big 4 accounting firm. What do you think we did? My job was to prepare tax returns for large multi-national corporations. I saw first hand the tax shelters and other schemes that corporations were using to dodge taxes. We had an entire division within the tax department that did nothing but go to different companies to sell these schemes. The firm makes a shit load of money implementing these little things. They even had a rating system to let the companies know how risky the little scheme they were selling was and what the likelihood would be that the company would face IRS sanction. There were teams of lawyers, a whole damn floor of them that did nothing but write briefs and crawl all through the tax code hunting for little loopholes that they could exploit.
I started with that firm right out of school so at first I didn't understand what was happening. The longer I was there, the more I learned, and the more problems I was having with it on ethical grounds. I cannot give you any specific examples. I have confidentiality agreements that I can't violate and for damn sure am not looking to violate on an open internet forum but I have seen things unfold in the newspapers that I knew about at the time. The stories usually include key phrases like "SEC investigation". I spent an entire summer going through something called a "Tax Matrix" to see what companies qualified for one "tax idea" or another. You would be shocked to know how little of their income large corporations actually pay in taxes.
So you see, I'm not talking about a pie in the sky bullshit percentage that you can latch onto as a universal truth, I'm talking about following the spirit of the tax law and not spending untold resources looking for ways to exploit the very system that allowed you to achieve success.
I did misspeak earlier. I said that if corporations and republicans would pay their fair share in taxes, we would all pay less. Honestly, if just corporations would follow the fucking tax code, we could do away with individual taxes entirely.
Submitted by KieferSutherland (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:33:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
These figures are from the CIA world fact book.
THE U.S.A., a non-socialist capitalist country:
Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.91 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)
male: 7.31 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)
Total fertility rate:
2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:
0.6% (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:
900,000 (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - deaths:
15,000 (2001 est.)
Population below poverty line:
12% (2003 est.)
Unemployment rate:
6.2% (2003)
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1979 est.)
Sweden, which would be a "socialist" country:
Infant mortality rate:
total: 2.77 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 2.6 deaths/1,000 live births (2004 est.)
male: 2.93 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 80.3 years
male: 78.12 years
female: 82.62 years (2004 est.)
Total fertility rate:
1.66 children born/woman (2004 est.)
HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate:
0.1% (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - people living with HIV/AIDS:
3,300 (2001 est.)
HIV/AIDS - deaths:
less than 100 (2001 est.)
Population below poverty line:
NA%
Unemployment rate:
4.6% (2003 est.)
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99% (1979 est.)
male: NA%
female: NA%
As you can see there are good things and bad things about both. Socialism though is not inherently bad.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-08-20 16:02:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Loki, that's kinda utopic of you. If corporations had to pay more taxes, guess where they'd go...NOT in america ! Then you wouldn't even have a job in the first place. Unless you're gonna reform the entire planet, don't expect corporations to pay their "fair share" (whatever that is) of taxes.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:44:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Loki, the top 20% of taxpayers pay 80% of the taxes. 80%. how much more do they have to pay to be paying their "fair share"? And as long as we're on the subject, tell me what "Fair share" is. How much? 20%? 40%? 90%? Give me a number.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:30:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
My reply was not hyperbole, if you claim that any government spending is socialism then you are essentially calling for an end to all government programs. Well guess what, you are not going to agree with everything the government spends money on - so what, democracy is about the public good. You want to complain about something specific, great knock yourself out but to paint a wide brush identifying all governmental programs as socialism is to call for an end to public schools, parks, 911 services, roads, environmental protection, labor laws, military spending, etc. If the system works for you and you end up making money out of it then you have an obligation to give something back to the system that allowed your success.
Here is another news flash for you, if people and corporations would stop bullshitting around and pay their fair share of taxes then all of us could pay less.
And by "people and corporations" I mean Republicans who have their heads up their asses bitching and whining about governmental programs and oddly enough are the first ones in line for unemployment when the man comes and takes their job too.
** The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway.**
"President" George W. Bush
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 15:09:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Vermin made a good point: Republicans haven't done their share to rein in spending. They waste money as well as anyone. Maybe it's because of the military spending - everyone feels good about that.
Submitted by trees (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:57:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1. all pre-government societies were pretty socialist/communist if you think about it. look at the family, the most atomic of human structures. isn't that pretty socialistic? shit, i'd say it was downright communism! you just *give* your wife and kids as much stuff as they need without any kind of accounts payable system in place. little bands of hunter/gatherers couldn't have been much different.
2. the strongest economies per capita are all socialist. these would be the scandanavian countries and switzerland. after decades of socialist policies in place, it has failed to devestate their economy the way you suggest.
3. the thing is socialism would never work well in America (although we need some fucking universal healthcare pronto) is because there are too many people. socialism works great on small and mid-sized groups.
4. somebody did a study on iraq and found that the insurgency was focused in areas that did not have running water and electricity. basically, the people were fucking pissed and started to get violent. whether or not they were lured into it by foriegners is beside the point. they got violent because they couldn't live like human beings. so they refused to participate in society and are making things shitty for everyone else. the provision of government services helps keep people involved with society.
Submitted by Vermin (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are correct in your denunciation in the Democrats and socialism, but you are implying that Replicans are somehow better. They are not. They steal and waste money just as much as the democrats do, except they spend the money on pointless wars. We have a ridiculous deficit because of our moronic leader that will have to be payed off sometime, and what do we have to show for it? Dick.
Submitted by DannyVermin (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:22:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very, very nice.
Loki, you're a tool.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, neither Marx nor Engels, the heroes of Communism, ever worked a day in their lives. They were the sons of privilege. Self-hating bastards.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:10:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2, I think...no wait, ummm.
What teeph said in his first reply.
Submitted by Original_Aboriginal (user info) at 2004-08-20 14:02:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fairly broad strokes, but I see where you're coming from. I'm Canadian and sit on the bleeding-heart side of the left. Some of the problems you raise are viable but in a country with a population of almost 300 million, you do have to draw a line.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:55:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Loki you know damned well he isn't talking about THAT kind of Government spending.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:55:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Loki, please, keep the hyperbole to a minimum. I didn't see anything about cutting 911 services and letting orphanages burn. Can't you just address what was said?
Submitted by boomslang (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:54:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
those are some good points
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:53:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All we need, a selfish bastard who makes it and then works to destroy the very system that supported his success. Yes, quite insightful. So here is a simple question, if your house catches fire do you want to be able to call a magic number and have large decedents of Irish immigrants show up in a big red truck to put it out and rescue your dog, yes or no? Where do you think shit like that comes from, oh yea now I remember we all chip in for it once a year through an investment program called TAXES.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:53:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wow. You seem to hate everyone equally.
And you do it rather WELL too.
Congrats, and thanks for the Pavlov line and the "(that's a pun)". Class.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:52:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You, me, the Hooters Girls. Heineken's. All on me.
Probably the most undertaught mechanism in economics today is the creation of wealth. Dumbasses (most of them democrats) seem to think that there are X amount of dollars in the world, so if Rich Person A has Y dollars, then there are only X-Y dollars available to Poor Scumbag B. Try explaining that to, oh I don't know, Hidden101, a guy who couldn't draw a supply and demand curve to save his life.
You'll hear this phrase a lot: "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer." That's true. Know why? The rich keep doing the things that make them rich. The poor keep doing things that make them poor. You could redistribute every dollar in American society and in ten years it would all be back in the same hands that it was originally. But no, the poor are poor because the rich step on them, right? BULLCRAP
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:49:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2004-08-20 13:49:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
see also: Communism Manifesto and other works by Engel and Marx