Rethinking Marx

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Cad,
I think arguing that socialism will fail because of human nature is awfully short-sighted given that our banking system just failed due to human greed. Not saying your stance is without merit, but I think that's a pretty terrible example to use, especially right now.

right on point. humans are greedy because of the environment they are raised in , rewards them with money/wealth. similar to how people are bigots due to their parents raising them that way.

The main flaw with the "free" market system is that it rewards scarcity and at the same time it punishes abundance. What if robots in the future were able to replace human labor like surgeons, and burger flippers? How could you sustain a middle class under a "free" market system where everyone is supposed to fend for themselves?

Somebody has to build, run, repair, and program the robots.

Rewarding abundance is silly, makes no sense, and is illogical. If one can get something easily why would they pay a higher price than something they want equally as much but is harder to find?

Meh - other robots can do it. Even if that was impossible, people like me would do it just for something to do. If you can have anything you want for free why not just do what you love anyway?

Read the 'culture' novels by Iain M. Banks for a pretty detailed description of this kind of society. Also see Star Trek TNG, to a lesser extent...

Heh you think robots will be creative anytime soon?

Yea give it 50 years or so.

I will believe it when I see it. That would require a self aware sentient being with high intelligence. We can barely get these damn things to stay running and put a screw in a door. Their intelligence level is 0 right now.

Contrary to popular belief. I dont believe we will see a skynet in quite some time, if ever.

 

[sandorski]

Mixed Economies work, Socialist and Capitalist do not. Both Socialism and Capitalism fail for the same fundamental reason, Human Nature. Mixed Economies allow the flexibility required to dull the effect of Human Nature.

 

[Budmantom]

" Why I Am a Socialist "

It's about time we started calling it what it is, it's great to see people on this forum embrace this term instead of denying it, it's time for Obama to do the same.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why are corporations evil? They are controlled by man.
So then I ask you, who controls government? Man.

You will not escape human nature. You?ll only create an abuse of power from our ruling class. Such power is the opposite purpose of this nation with its constitution entirely designed to protect us from our government.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
You are a socialist because you didnt get anywhere in life and want handouts.

you are a socialist when you value the well being of others instead of thriving on the misery of others (slave wage labor in china and vietnam)

Ironic you use two socialist countries as your example of slave labor or just sloppy thinking?

the people of russia and eastern europe had a much higher standard of living than their counterparts in the "free market" today. instead of having a few globalists raping the wealth of the natural resources and keeping for themselves, instead you had a government who atleast made sure some of the wealth of the resources went to the well being of people.

China and Vietnam perfect example of Fascism, where you are basically force people to work for multinational corporations at low wages and can't form unions. In socialism, high Income gap would be intolerated from multinational corporation, and UNIONs would be allowed/somewhat supported.


Hugo Chavez of venezuela is a good example of a socialist where he kicked out the blood sucking globalists who were stealing the wealth of natural resources. Under chavez poverty has dropped substantially.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Why are corporations evil? They are controlled by man.
So then I ask you, who controls government? Man.

You will not escape human nature. You?ll only create an abuse of power from our ruling class. Such power is the opposite purpose of this nation with its constitution entirely designed to protect us from our government.

the idea isnt whether government is too big or small, its whether it's actually serving its people by ensuring a high standard of living. So called small government doesnt keep the ruling class in check and eventually is consumed and controlled by the ruling class. Anti-government mentality doesn't get society far.

 

[Genx87]

the people of russia and eastern europe had a much higher standard than their counterparts in the "free market" today. instead of having a few globalists raping the wealth of the natural resources and keeping for themselves, instead you had a government who atleast made sure some of the wealth of the resources went to the well being of people.

Oh yeah? Is this more of your bizzaro world revisionist history again? If it was so great why did the people topple it? You never saw the breadlines in Moscow, yeah, lines around the corner for food. Sounds like a great standard of living to me. Anybody who saw east vs west berlin saw first hand the difference in the two systems.

Your last line is utterly ridiculous. Who lived a life of luxry in the Soviet Union? The politicians and members of the communist party. The rest suffered under their brutal planned economies and oppressive police states.

China and Vietnam perfect example of Fascism, where you basically force people to work for multinational corporations at low wages. In socialism, high Income gap would be intolerated from multinational corporation, and UNIONs would be allowed.

The high income gap is erased because as the quote from my sig says "Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty". When everybody but the elite are poor the gap is gone. But are the people better off because of it?

Hugo Chavez of venezuela is a good example of a socialist where he kicked out the blood sucking globalists who were stealing the wealth of natural resources. Under chavez poverty has dropped substantially.

Yeah down to a whole 38%, 4x the rate in that evil mixed market United States, and rising due to the oil bubble bursting.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
We have a Socialist Senator now, something like this has not happened/been possible thanks to Govt repression since the 30s.

What is this repression of which you speak?

The repression of Labor from the 1920's, beatings, killings, deportations, imprisoning all the way up to the MCarthy era witchunts.

It still continues today with right wing radio blaming everything on "Socialism".

Socialism scares the hell out of the people in power, for they fear the peoples power.

"The people's power"? Wheren't you just saying in this thread that the people (specifically, black and Latino people) only voted for Prop 8 in Cali because they were misled by religious organizations and were (by your implication) unable to come to the proper, clear-minded conclusions you yourself easily reach, bespite these shadowy and overpowering corporate influences?

You self-proclaimed 'socialists' are such frauds - on the one hand, you spout on and on about "the people's power", suggesting they're intelligent enough to govern and decide major issues for themselves, but deep down, you don't really believe it, and attribute any sort of outcome with which you don't agree to some nefarious outside influence, thereby revealing what you really believe - that the people are like ignorant children, unable to think for themselves when faced with the influences of religion, corporations, etc. And of course, elites such as yourselves never fall into these same traps. What a bunch of hooey.

Ouch, smacked down hard.

Hardly, using money to influence politics (corruption) I addressed already. Religion is a monopoly of sorts used as a tool to divide workers, and intolerance is anti-Socialist to the core anyhow.
Prop 8 should go down in flames as it is a injustice, if we do not have justice and equality on a human rights level then how are we to enjoy our freedoms?

So you believe socialism and those who lead it are resistant to corruption and bribery? You are deluded. Corruption is why socialism will always fail, just like every system. All of the scorn you pile on capitalism applies to every form of government and ecomony. They are all run by humans.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: Genx87

the people of russia and eastern europe had a much higher standard than their counterparts in the "free market" today. instead of having a few globalists raping the wealth of the natural resources and keeping for themselves, instead you had a government who atleast made sure some of the wealth of the resources went to the well being of people.

Oh yeah? Is this more of your bizzaro world revisionist history again? If it was so great why did the people topple it? You never saw the breadlines in Moscow, yeah, lines around the corner for food. Sounds like a great standard of living to me. Anybody who saw east vs west berlin saw first hand the difference in the two systems.

Your last line is utterly ridiculous. Who lived a life of luxry in the Soviet Union? The politicians and members of the communist party. The rest suffered under their brutal planned economies and oppressive police states.

China and Vietnam perfect example of Fascism, where you basically force people to work for multinational corporations at low wages. In socialism, high Income gap would be intolerated from multinational corporation, and UNIONs would be allowed.

The high income gap is erased because as the quote from my sig says "Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty". When everybody but the elite are poor the gap is gone. But are the people better off because of it?

Hugo Chavez of venezuela is a good example of a socialist where he kicked out the blood sucking globalists who were stealing the wealth of natural resources. Under chavez poverty has dropped substantially.

Yeah down to a whole 38%, 4x the rate in that evil mixed market United States, and rising due to the oil bubble bursting.

In china the top 1% own 37% of the country's wealth. the soviet government fell because Gorbachev introduced market reforms (glasnost, perestroika) which encourage competition and nationalism eventually leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I didnt say the standard of living was great in SU, but it was hell of a whole lot better than under IMF puppet Boris Yeltsin and that you can't deny.

According a top russian professor USA is very likely to disintegrate into 6 smaller countries if things continue as they are.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Would you rather live in America or a country that has tried socialism?

Do Britain, France, and the Scandenavian countries count as socialist? If so I'd definately rather live in any of those places than America. The USA is nice to visit but you people are insane.

Britain is about to enter a major period of economic hurt.

And whose fault is that USA? Bleh. We'll get through it just like you will.

It has nothing to do with the US. Your productivity is in the tank. The new standard in the UK is to live on the dole.

France is seeing massive social unrest in their Muslim immigrant population.

France always has strong unrest, they like it like that.

So why call use it as an example of working socialism? Sounds like it doesn't work.

If the world does at some point get off of oil Norway's socialist utopia will collapse as it is heavily dependent on oil exports.

Unknown.

Well now you do.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Why are corporations evil? They are controlled by man.
So then I ask you, who controls government? Man.

You will not escape human nature. You?ll only create an abuse of power from our ruling class. Such power is the opposite purpose of this nation with its constitution entirely designed to protect us from our government.

the idea isnt whether government is too big or small, its whether it's actually serving its people by ensuring a high standard of living. So called small government doesnt keep the ruling class in check and eventually is consumed and controlled by the ruling class. Anti-government mentality doesn't get society far.

A government powerful enough to force absolute equality will eventually be used for personal gain. Instead of being corporate executives, those with a desire for power and wealth will end up in government.

 

[Genx87]

In china the top 1% own 37% of the country's wealth. the soviet government fell because Gorbachev introduced market reforms (glasnost, perestroika) which encourage competition and nationalism eventually leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I didnt say the standard of living was great in SU, but it was hell of a whole lot better than under IMF puppet Boris Yeltsin and that you can't deny.

According a top russian professor USA is very likely to disintegrate into 6 smaller countries if things continue as they are.

You know what little credibility you had just went out the door when you bring up that absolutely hilarious analysis by that Russian professor. What did he say about Native Americans rising up again? Maybe he mistook us for the 1850s United States or something.

The Soviet Union fell under its own inefficient and corrupt system. It was an inferior system plain and simple and eventually natural selection crushed it. What Gorbachev did was try to move the country forward knowing full well the only way they could compete with the West was to get on the bandwagon.

What happened under Yeltsin is irrelevant. The system was in chaos due to the collapse. However Russia has seen a true middle class rise from the ashes due to their opening of markets and embracing a more western style economy. The same can be said of China. 30 years ago the Middle class didnt exist. Today it represents millions of people. All done after they shed their hardline socialist clothes.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Why are corporations evil? They are controlled by man.
So then I ask you, who controls government? Man.

You will not escape human nature. You?ll only create an abuse of power from our ruling class. Such power is the opposite purpose of this nation with its constitution entirely designed to protect us from our government.

the idea isnt whether government is too big or small, its whether it's actually serving its people by ensuring a high standard of living. So called small government doesnt keep the ruling class in check and eventually is consumed and controlled by the ruling class. Anti-government mentality doesn't get society far.

A government powerful enough to force absolute equality will eventually used for personal gain. Instead of being corporate executives, those with a desire power and wealth will end up in government.

then the people should try to take over it again and be up to date with independent information (not the corporate media)

A government is like GUN , which can be good or bad, depending on who pocesses it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

That doesn't address what I stated and you replied to.

None of those are pure socialism and each one of those is capitalistic which socialists think is unfair and concentrates weath and power.

Define your idea of "pure Socialism" then, without defining Communism/Leninism.

The problem here is your definition of Socialism is utterly flawed, and this is probably because your knowledge is light on Marx and heavy on Limbaugh.

I think the honus is on you since you seem to want to twist the definition or duhvert from it's definition when challenged/criticized.

Waiting for your definition of "pure" then. I will be more then happy to debate it.
Since you are telling us what Socialism is where to start?
Strictly Marxist? Lenin or Trotsky? What about Bakunin's Socialism and the First International? How about the more modern aspects of Libertarian Socialism or Syndicalistism? Define "Pure".
Here is a good place to start CaD. http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

:roll:

If you have such a problem with people using what socialism is - why don't you tell us EXACTLY what it means to you since you seem to want to defend it. Most of us seem to be using the classic definition so if you don't like it - tell us exactly what you are trying to defend/promote?

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: Genx87

In china the top 1% own 37% of the country's wealth. the soviet government fell because Gorbachev introduced market reforms (glasnost, perestroika) which encourage competition and nationalism eventually leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I didnt say the standard of living was great in SU, but it was hell of a whole lot better than under IMF puppet Boris Yeltsin and that you can't deny.

According a top russian professor USA is very likely to disintegrate into 6 smaller countries if things continue as they are.

You know what little credibility you had just went out the door when you bring up that absolutely hilarious analysis by that Russian professor. What did he say about Native Americans rising up again? Maybe he mistook us for the 1850s United States or something.

The Soviet Union fell under its own inefficient and corrupt system. It was an inferior system plain and simple and eventually natural selection crushed it. What Gorbachev did was try to move the country forward knowing full well the only way they could compete with the West was to get on the bandwagon.

What happened under Yeltsin is irrelevant. The system was in chaos due to the collapse. However Russia has seen a true middle class rise from the ashes due to their opening of markets and embracing a more western style economy. The same can be said of China. 30 years ago the Middle class didnt exist. Today it represents millions of people. All done after they shed their hardline socialist clothes.

Bullshit gorbachev enacted market reforms knowing full well it would have led to the collapse to the soviet. remember the soviet coup attempt of 1991. SU didnt give a shit about competition, they had 45000 nukes for crying out loud. Gorbachev also mentioned new world order in one of his speeches.

here is the russian professor video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...k3ntegra.blogspot.com/


Russia is experiencing an emerging middle class, by Vladimir Putin punishing those "oligarchs" like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky, who were keeping the wealth of the natural resources for themselves as a result of PRIVATIZATION. Russians won't be fooled by the theme of the "Free" market anytime soon. why do you think IMF and NATO hate putin and chavez so so muh, because they care about the interests of their people.

here is a graph of the russian economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ll_of_Soveit_Union.PNG

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Genx87

In china the top 1% own 37% of the country's wealth. the soviet government fell because Gorbachev introduced market reforms (glasnost, perestroika) which encourage competition and nationalism eventually leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I didnt say the standard of living was great in SU, but it was hell of a whole lot better than under IMF puppet Boris Yeltsin and that you can't deny.

According a top russian professor USA is very likely to disintegrate into 6 smaller countries if things continue as they are.

You know what little credibility you had just went out the door when you bring up that absolutely hilarious analysis by that Russian professor. What did he say about Native Americans rising up again? Maybe he mistook us for the 1850s United States or something.

The Soviet Union fell under its own inefficient and corrupt system. It was an inferior system plain and simple and eventually natural selection crushed it. What Gorbachev did was try to move the country forward knowing full well the only way they could compete with the West was to get on the bandwagon.

What happened under Yeltsin is irrelevant. The system was in chaos due to the collapse. However Russia has seen a true middle class rise from the ashes due to their opening of markets and embracing a more western style economy. The same can be said of China. 30 years ago the Middle class didnt exist. Today it represents millions of people. All done after they shed their hardline socialist clothes.

Bullshit gorbachev enacted market reforms knowing full well it would have led to the collapse to the soviet. remember the soviet coup attempt of 1992. SU didnt give a shit about competition, they had 45000 nukes for crying out loud

here is the russian professor video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...k3ntegra.blogspot.com/


Russia is experiencing an emerging middle class, by Vladimir Putin punishing those "oligarchs" like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky, who were keeping the wealth of the natural resources for themselves as a result of PRIVATIZATION. Russians won't be fooled by the theme of the "Free" market anytime soon. why do you think IMF and NATO hate putin and chavez so so muh, because they care about the interests of their people.

here is a graph of the russian economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ll_of_Soveit_Union.PNG

Even in their cornered piece of the world the Soviet Union was subject to the world economy. It crushed them under a shitty system. Face the reality that socialism is a failed experiment and always will be.

That professor is amusing.

 

[Steeplerot]

In the 60 and 70s the Soviet standard of living was not that bad actually, it was when the reformers took over in the 80s when you started seeing these long lines.
Russia was never meant to be a Communist country, Marx said it would never work there, so did many others.

Marx said the only place back then with a good chance at making the transition would be a advanced capitalist society (namely USA).

The powers that be here did (and still) do everything they can to make sure labor is crushed and all dissent is slandered/discredited in mainstream US culture for fear of it.

Marx was right in many ways, and the more advanced society becomes the more ripe for the revolution Marx fortold can happen.

I doubt it though here in the USA anymore, way to much anti-Socialist propaganda for generations now.

Workers have been lied to for so to long that just the S word makes people think you want to eat babies instead of liberate the common worker from Capitalisms wage slavery.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: Genx87

In china the top 1% own 37% of the country's wealth. the soviet government fell because Gorbachev introduced market reforms (glasnost, perestroika) which encourage competition and nationalism eventually leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I didnt say the standard of living was great in SU, but it was hell of a whole lot better than under IMF puppet Boris Yeltsin and that you can't deny.

According a top russian professor USA is very likely to disintegrate into 6 smaller countries if things continue as they are.

You know what little credibility you had just went out the door when you bring up that absolutely hilarious analysis by that Russian professor. What did he say about Native Americans rising up again? Maybe he mistook us for the 1850s United States or something.

The Soviet Union fell under its own inefficient and corrupt system. It was an inferior system plain and simple and eventually natural selection crushed it. What Gorbachev did was try to move the country forward knowing full well the only way they could compete with the West was to get on the bandwagon.

What happened under Yeltsin is irrelevant. The system was in chaos due to the collapse. However Russia has seen a true middle class rise from the ashes due to their opening of markets and embracing a more western style economy. The same can be said of China. 30 years ago the Middle class didnt exist. Today it represents millions of people. All done after they shed their hardline socialist clothes.

Bullshit gorbachev enacted market reforms knowing full well it would have led to the collapse to the soviet. remember the soviet coup attempt of 1991. SU didnt give a shit about competition, they had 45000 nukes for crying out loud. Gorbachev also mentioned new world order in one of his speeches.

here is the russian professor video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...k3ntegra.blogspot.com/


Russia is experiencing an emerging middle class, by Vladimir Putin punishing those "oligarchs" like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky, who were keeping the wealth of the natural resources for themselves as a result of PRIVATIZATION. Russians won't be fooled by the theme of the "Free" market anytime soon. why do you think IMF and NATO hate putin and chavez so so muh, because they care about the interests of their people.

here is a graph of the russian economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ll_of_Soveit_Union.PNG

lol putin years = oil bubble. look at russia now.

 

[Train]

If you really want an apples to apples comparison, just compare South Korea and North Korea... two countries that started with the same culture, same history, damn near identical in every sense of the word, perfect control for an expiriment.

One goes strongly capitalist, the other strongly socialist... half a century later, guess which one is thriving, and which one is sliding back to the stone age?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Train
If you really want an apples to apples comparison, just compare South Korea and North Korea... two countries that started with the same culture, same history, damn near identical in every sense of the word, perfect control for an expiriment.

One goes strongly capitalist, the other strongly socialist... half a century later, guess which one is thriving, and which one is sliding back to the stone age?

North Korea (the DPRK) is not a Socialist government, it is a Stalinist dictatorship.


From Wiki on Juche (Their form of government)

Many commentators, journalists, and scholars outside North Korea equate Juche with Stalinism and call North Korea a Stalinist country. Some specialists have argued otherwise and have attempted to characterize the North Korean state as corporatist (Bruce Cumings), fascist (Brian Myers), guerrillaist (Wada Haruki), monarchist (Dae Sook-suh), neo-capitalist (Andrei Lankov), and theocratic (Han S. Park, Christopher Hitchens). Those who have made conditional arguments that North Korea is a Stalinist regime include Charles Armstrong, Adrian Buzo, Chong-sik Lee, and Robert Scalapino.

Everyone knows Stalinism was a failure, even the bureaucratic mess of the Soviet Union which quickly swore it off after he died.

Kim Il-sung is an idiot and counter-revolutionary outright enemy of the people, just like Stalin.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Train
If you really want an apples to apples comparison, just compare South Korea and North Korea... two countries that started with the same culture, same history, damn near identical in every sense of the word, perfect control for an expiriment.

One goes strongly capitalist, the other strongly socialist... half a century later, guess which one is thriving, and which one is sliding back to the stone age?

North Korea (the DPRK) is not a Socialist government, it is a Stalinist dictatorship.


From Wiki on Juche (Their form of government)

Many commentators, journalists, and scholars outside North Korea equate Juche with Stalinism and call North Korea a Stalinist country. Some specialists have argued otherwise and have attempted to characterize the North Korean state as corporatist (Bruce Cumings), fascist (Brian Myers), guerrillaist (Wada Haruki), monarchist (Dae Sook-suh), neo-capitalist (Andrei Lankov), and theocratic (Han S. Park, Christopher Hitchens). Those who have made conditional arguments that North Korea is a Stalinist regime include Charles Armstrong, Adrian Buzo, Chong-sik Lee, and Robert Scalapino.

Everyone knows Stalinism was a failure, even the bureaucratic mess of the Soviet Union which quickly swore it off after he died.

Kim Il-sung is an idiot and counter-revolutionary outright enemy of the people, just like Stalin.

So you rename every socialist failure something other than socialism? Well shit man, then I guess you are right.

Can't argue with someone who has blinders on.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Train


So you rename every socialist failure something other than socialism? Well shit man, then I guess you are right.

Can't argue with someone who has blinders on.

Just pointing out that it is inaccurate to call a Stalinist dictatorship Socialist or Democratic Socialist. Just because a country uses this name (A certain German dictator did this also) does not make it Socialist.

Comparing the UK, Sweden or even Canada for example to North Korea or Stalnist USSR is silly. I am not the one with the idealogical blinders here.

 

[SickBeast]

First of all, socialism is necessary in a capitalist society as it acts as a safety net for the people who lose their shirts. It would take a very callous group of people to let their brethren starve to death just because they lost their job due to a layoff situation.

As for the comparisons to France, it's quite interesting. The French actually as much per hour as people in the US, but they work less hours per week. They wind up with a longer life expectancy and a higher quality of life.

For all the nay-sayers to socialism: Look to France as an example where it worked. Their system is about as far to the "left" as you can get without going to communism, yet they still have a strong country and an amazing society and culture.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
First of all, socialism is necessary in a capitalist society as it acts as a safety net for the people who lose their shirts. It would take a very callous group of people to let their brethren starve to death just because they lost their job due to a layoff situation.

As for the comparisons to France, it's quite interesting. The French actually as much per hour as people in the US, but they work less hours per week. They wind up with a longer life expectancy and a higher quality of life.

For all the nay-sayers to socialism: Look to France as an example where it worked. Their system is about as far to the "left" as you can get without going to communism, yet they still have a strong country and an amazing society and culture.

France does not "work." France is more broken than the US.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SickBeast
First of all, socialism is necessary in a capitalist society as it acts as a safety net for the people who lose their shirts. It would take a very callous group of people to let their brethren starve to death just because they lost their job due to a layoff situation.

As for the comparisons to France, it's quite interesting. The French actually as much per hour as people in the US, but they work less hours per week. They wind up with a longer life expectancy and a higher quality of life.

For all the nay-sayers to socialism: Look to France as an example where it worked. Their system is about as far to the "left" as you can get without going to communism, yet they still have a strong country and an amazing society and culture.

France does not "work." France is more broken than the US.

Maybe in your opinion. They certainly have a stronger currency, and did not have as severe a market meltdown (or a mortgage crisis).

They're certainly not an example of a country that was "ruined by socialism" as others in here have suggested.