|
Socialism
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 6 2009, 01:40 PM (580 Views)
|
|
Rhadamanthus
|
Sep 8 2009, 10:03 PM
Post #26
|
Legitimist
- Posts:
- 12,945
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- January 13, 2004
|
- Abnar
- Sep 8 2009, 09:59 PM
One heated debate is enogh for me at the moment, I'm not touching this topic except to say that the vast majority of Americans have serious misconceptions about the actual definition of socialism. Most Americans rail against socialism while simultaneously defending whatever socialist programs they are already beneficiaries of.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 9 2009, 01:26 AM
Post #27
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
Just took an energy shot. Continuing to work on paper.
EDIT: Right now I'm just BSing for the rough draft. This is a WIP, and the current version will be torn limb from limb and grown a few sizes by the time I'm done with it.
Spoiler: click to toggle Definition: Socialism
Introduction
Socialism seems to be a controversial term in modern-day America, with citizens attaching to it all the stigma of communism. They are many times incorrect in their assumptions about socialism, but there is, however, a very good reason for these misconceptions. The face of socialism/communism, namely the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, is not truly socialist (and is especially not communist), but it is accepted as such, and hence by the unsavory nature of these nations, is shunned. This study aims to look into the misconceptions about socialism, to show why they are wrong, and to show why they exist.
Section 1: What people think socialism is.
As stated before, when most Americans hear the word socialism they immediately associate it with communist nation-states. The word piques fear in the common American heart, for it was only but two decades ago that two superpowers dominated the world ready to send nuclear devastation and destruction to each other at the slightest provocation. That world was a world living in fear, and the US government did the only sensible thing it could do in a world of two superpowers. It educated its citizens of all the unsavory things of the Soviet Union, the face of what it called communism. It instilled its citizens with patriotism unmatched by other nations, save for perhaps the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Soviet Union was doing the same things with its citizenry.
Thus, a mutual hatred developed between capitalists and socialists. The American citizenry was led to believe socialists were heathens that only wished to undermine the American way. They were led to believe socialist leaders were no more than dictators. They thought a socialist society was immoral, unethical, inefficient, and destitute.
Many socialists believe that true socialism has never existed.
Section 2: What socialism is.
An excellent of socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster).” Socialism is an economic system, opposite capitalism. The government does not have to own everything. The government does not have to control everything. Socialism is not a political system. Any political system can be paired with socialism, as any government system can be paired with capitalism. A dictator very well could rule a socialist nation, and a nation that was a direct democracy could be equally socialist.
The best modern example of a socialist state is Sweden.
Socialism is not communism. Communism is “a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed (Merriam-Webster).” Indeed, communism is similar to socialism, and it usually does contain socialism, but it is not socialism. Communism covers both the political and economic aspects of a nation-state.
The best example of communist states are certain Native American tribes.
Section 3: What socialism becomes.
“Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black (Hagbard Celine).” There is sadly so much truth behind these words. Socialist states, as history has proven, tend to quickly become corrupt, with power taken away from the people and centralized in the government. It is from this fatal flaw in the system that most misconceptions about it spring.
Conclusion
In conclusion, most people would rather eat their own shoes than be called socialist.
Say what you will, but keep in mind this is mostly BS right now, and it is quite incomplete. The final product will be much refined. Suggestions on what to say are much appreciated. I'm certain I could write a book on this given time. Honestly, I think I'll extend the pitiful end product into a full blown research paper. Easy enough.
You may see I've taken some of what you guys have said. I am considering sourcing the forum. :lol:
For right now, I need to take a bit of a break.
Edited by Sedulius, Sep 9 2009, 02:40 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
New Harumf
|
Sep 9 2009, 11:16 AM
Post #28
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
- Posts:
- 9,638
- Group:
- Forum Mods
- Member
- #177
- Joined:
- October 8, 2005
|
- Sedulius
- Sep 9 2009, 01:26 AM
Just took an energy shot. Continuing to work on paper. EDIT: Right now I'm just BSing for the rough draft. This is a WIP, and the current version will be torn limb from limb and grown a few sizes by the time I'm done with it. Spoiler: click to toggle Definition: Socialism
Introduction
Socialism seems to be a controversial term in modern-day America, with citizens attaching to it all the stigma of communism. They are many times incorrect in their assumptions about socialism, but there is, however, a very good reason for these misconceptions. The face of socialism/communism, namely the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, is not truly socialist (and is especially not communist), but it is accepted as such, and hence by the unsavory nature of these nations, is shunned. This study aims to look into the misconceptions about socialism, to show why they are wrong, and to show why they exist.
Section 1: What people think socialism is.
As stated before, when most Americans hear the word socialism they immediately associate it with communist nation-states. The word piques fear in the common American heart, for it was only but two decades ago that two superpowers dominated the world ready to send nuclear devastation and destruction to each other at the slightest provocation. That world was a world living in fear, and the US government did the only sensible thing it could do in a world of two superpowers. It educated its citizens of all the unsavory things of the Soviet Union, the face of what it called communism. It instilled its citizens with patriotism unmatched by other nations, save for perhaps the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Soviet Union was doing the same things with its citizenry.
Thus, a mutual hatred developed between capitalists and socialists. The American citizenry was led to believe socialists were heathens that only wished to undermine the American way. They were led to believe socialist leaders were no more than dictators. They thought a socialist society was immoral, unethical, inefficient, and destitute.
Many socialists believe that true socialism has never existed.
Section 2: What socialism is.
An excellent of socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster).” Socialism is an economic system, opposite capitalism. The government does not have to own everything. The government does not have to control everything. Socialism is not a political system. Any political system can be paired with socialism, as any government system can be paired with capitalism. A dictator very well could rule a socialist nation, and a nation that was a direct democracy could be equally socialist.
The best modern example of a socialist state is Sweden.
Socialism is not communism. Communism is “a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed (Merriam-Webster).” Indeed, communism is similar to socialism, and it usually does contain socialism, but it is not socialism. Communism covers both the political and economic aspects of a nation-state.
The best example of communist states are certain Native American tribes.
Section 3: What socialism becomes.
“Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black (Hagbard Celine).” There is sadly so much truth behind these words. Socialist states, as history has proven, tend to quickly become corrupt, with power taken away from the people and centralized in the government. It is from this fatal flaw in the system that most misconceptions about it spring.
Conclusion
In conclusion, most people would rather eat their own shoes than be called socialist.
Say what you will, but keep in mind this is mostly BS right now, and it is quite incomplete. The final product will be much refined. Suggestions on what to say are much appreciated. I'm certain I could write a book on this given time. Honestly, I think I'll extend the pitiful end product into a full blown research paper. Easy enough. You may see I've taken some of what you guys have said. I am considering sourcing the forum. :lol: For right now, I need to take a bit of a break. I would strongly suggest sourcing anything that is not your own words :angry:
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 9 2009, 01:10 PM
Post #29
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
On what basis do you make the claim that Sweden is more "true socialist" than the USSR?
You use the definition of socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster)."
Doesn't the USSR fit the definition of socialism you use in your essay?
Then you say "the Soviet Union ... is not truly socialist"
I don't get.
|
|
|
| |
|
Paradise
|
Sep 9 2009, 05:20 PM
Post #30
|
Resident bureaucrat
- Posts:
- 2,268
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- December 23, 2003
|
- Sedulius
- Sep 9 2009, 01:26 AM
Just took an energy shot. Continuing to work on paper. EDIT: Right now I'm just BSing for the rough draft. This is a WIP, and the current version will be torn limb from limb and grown a few sizes by the time I'm done with it. Spoiler: click to toggle Definition: Socialism
Introduction
Socialism seems to be a controversial term in modern-day America, with citizens attaching to it all the stigma of communism. They are many times incorrect in their assumptions about socialism, but there is, however, a very good reason for these misconceptions. The face of socialism/communism, namely the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, is not truly socialist (and is especially not communist), but it is accepted as such, and hence by the unsavory nature of these nations, is shunned. This study aims to look into the misconceptions about socialism, to show why they are wrong, and to show why they exist.
Section 1: What people think socialism is.
As stated before, when most Americans hear the word socialism they immediately associate it with communist nation-states. The word piques fear in the common American heart, for it was only but two decades ago that two superpowers dominated the world ready to send nuclear devastation and destruction to each other at the slightest provocation. That world was a world living in fear, and the US government did the only sensible thing it could do in a world of two superpowers. It educated its citizens of all the unsavory things of the Soviet Union, the face of what it called communism. It instilled its citizens with patriotism unmatched by other nations, save for perhaps the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Soviet Union was doing the same things with its citizenry.
Thus, a mutual hatred developed between capitalists and socialists. The American citizenry was led to believe socialists were heathens that only wished to undermine the American way. They were led to believe socialist leaders were no more than dictators. They thought a socialist society was immoral, unethical, inefficient, and destitute.
Many socialists believe that true socialism has never existed.
Section 2: What socialism is.
An excellent of socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster).” Socialism is an economic system, opposite capitalism. The government does not have to own everything. The government does not have to control everything. Socialism is not a political system. Any political system can be paired with socialism, as any government system can be paired with capitalism. A dictator very well could rule a socialist nation, and a nation that was a direct democracy could be equally socialist.
The best modern example of a socialist state is Sweden.
Socialism is not communism. Communism is “a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed (Merriam-Webster).” Indeed, communism is similar to socialism, and it usually does contain socialism, but it is not socialism. Communism covers both the political and economic aspects of a nation-state.
The best example of communist states are certain Native American tribes.
Section 3: What socialism becomes.
“Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black (Hagbard Celine).” There is sadly so much truth behind these words. Socialist states, as history has proven, tend to quickly become corrupt, with power taken away from the people and centralized in the government. It is from this fatal flaw in the system that most misconceptions about it spring.
Conclusion
In conclusion, most people would rather eat their own shoes than be called socialist.
Say what you will, but keep in mind this is mostly BS right now, and it is quite incomplete. The final product will be much refined. Suggestions on what to say are much appreciated. I'm certain I could write a book on this given time. Honestly, I think I'll extend the pitiful end product into a full blown research paper. Easy enough. You may see I've taken some of what you guys have said. I am considering sourcing the forum. :lol: For right now, I need to take a bit of a break. Communism is the ideology developed by Marx and Engels. Socialism is the practical economic system that comes from communism, it can take various forms depending on the original developer: stalinism, leninism, maoism.
Sweden is certainly not socialist, it is social democrat. It is a capitalist system with big public sector.
|
|
|
| |
|
East Anarx
|
Sep 9 2009, 06:05 PM
Post #31
|
Anarchitect
- Posts:
- 4,788
- Group:
- Multi
- Member
- #210
- Joined:
- January 16, 2006
|
"Socialism" and "Capitalism" are simply bad terms. Here's Roderick Long pwning all over these anti-concepts:
- Roderick Long
-
While I've said I don't want to dwell on terminological issues, I can't resist making a point about "capitalism" and "socialism." Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not. Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I've become convinced that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety. Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third. But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.
Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument. " In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term.
Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.
And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism" — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.
And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 9 2009, 06:41 PM
Post #32
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
Socialism isn't that bad of a term. It's only bad when people misuse it.
It's a highly useful and clarifying term when precisely used, such as by Ludwig von Mises in his treatise "Socialism".
|
|
|
| |
|
Rhadamanthus
|
Sep 9 2009, 07:37 PM
Post #33
|
Legitimist
- Posts:
- 12,945
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- January 13, 2004
|
Terms are only as good as the people who define them. As long as you define any contested terms when engaging in argumentation, it doesn't matter what terms you are using.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 9 2009, 07:47 PM
Post #34
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll post the full work when finished.
NH, save for definitions, I pulled all of that out of my ass. I just needed a rough draft to hand in. You have my word the final product will be greatly sourced in MLA format.
|
|
|
| |
|
Aelius
|
Sep 9 2009, 10:25 PM
Post #35
|
Norman Warlord
- Posts:
- 2,137
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #523
- Joined:
- July 17, 2009
|
Bah! Fuck formatting. I demand e.e. cummings!
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 9 2009, 10:32 PM
Post #36
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Lansdallius
- Sep 9 2009, 10:25 PM
Bah! Fuck formatting. I demand e.e. cummings! :huh:
Emoticon only posts are wrong.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 9 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #37
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
- Lansdallius
- Sep 9 2009, 10:25 PM
Bah! Fuck formatting. I demand e.e. cummings! You mean e e cummings
|
|
|
| |
|
Aelius
|
Sep 9 2009, 10:52 PM
Post #38
|
Norman Warlord
- Posts:
- 2,137
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #523
- Joined:
- July 17, 2009
|
ah i see
touche :gnarkgnark:
|
|
|
| |
|
Quaon
|
Sep 9 2009, 11:04 PM
Post #39
|
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
- Posts:
- 8,837
- Group:
- Forum Mods
- Member
- #209
- Joined:
- January 11, 2006
|
e e cummings was a dude who didnt use punctuation and he wrote poetry
|
|
|
| |
|
Aelius
|
Sep 10 2009, 12:08 AM
Post #40
|
Norman Warlord
- Posts:
- 2,137
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #523
- Joined:
- July 17, 2009
|
exactly
|
|
|
| |
|
New Harumf
|
Sep 10 2009, 07:42 AM
Post #41
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
- Posts:
- 9,638
- Group:
- Forum Mods
- Member
- #177
- Joined:
- October 8, 2005
|
e e cummings was a poet. As such he could use any convention he wanted.
Sed is being an essayist, and therefore must follow the MLA, APA, Chicago or some other style to be legit.
ifhe was a green novelist Yes writing in a green Yes environment on a grean of Yes then he could write like James Joyce that under the pillars of heaven did lay Yes and have his honey and soul consumed by one so young as a quean may do ifhe was . . . . .
Let us not forget, style sets the tone of all writing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 22 2009, 11:50 PM
Post #42
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
Energy shot. Continuing paper. By God, I need to stop doing this...
Sometimes it seems this is the only way I get things written though.
Edited by Sedulius, Sep 23 2009, 03:53 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 03:53 AM
Post #43
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
Done with the basic paper. Need to trump up some sources. You guys were a great help in showing me the flaws of the initial argument.
I hate this paper, but I hate anything I write in haste. It makes a good point towards the end. I have to have this in by midnight SEP 23, so I have time to refine it.
Anywho, here it is.
Spoiler: click to toggle Definition: Socialism
Socialism seems to be a term widely misunderstood by the majority, with many attaching to it all the stigma of communism. The misconceptions about socialism are many, and most have good reasons for existing. The Soviet Union kept the world in fear for decades, and the People's Republic of China continues that tradition. These countries are considered the face of socialism and communism, and because of the many atrocities committed by these nations, these systems are shunned. However, the irony is that neither were ever truly communist, and the latter is hardly socialist. This study aims to look into, disprove, and explain the misconceptions about socialism.
When many hear the word socialism they immediately associate it with communist nation-states. The word piques fear in many an American heart, for it was only but two decades ago that two superpowers, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dominated the world ready to send nuclear devastation and destruction to each other at the slightest provocation. That world was a world living in fear, thus both superpowers did the only sensible thing opposing superpowers could do: spread propaganda to further their own views and attack the views of the other. As a result, a mutual hatred developed between Americans and Soviets. The American citizenry was led to believe Soviets, and by default socialists and communists, were heathens led by dictators who only wanted to undermine freedom. On the surface, American propaganda was correct. Many Soviet leaders were nothing more than dictators. The Soviet government forced atheism upon its nation. Countless innocents were imprisoned for doing nothing more but dissenting against the government.
On the other side of the fence, Soviets were led to believe that the American government were nothing more than bourgeois dictators that exploited the masses for profit. They saw American society as one based around materialism, the absolute opposite of their state based on equality in all things. Just as the Americans seemed correct on the surface, so did it seem for the Soviets. However, many socialists look back at the Soviet Union and see it as not truly socialist. This is due to the imbalance of power between the government and the people, the continued use of currency in most transactions, and the nation's continued imperialist nature.
An excellent definition of socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (Merriam-Webster).” Socialism is an economic system, opposite capitalism. The government does not have to own everything. The government does not have to control everything. Socialism is not a political system. Any political system can be paired with socialism, as any government system can be paired with capitalism. A dictator very well could rule a socialist nation, and a nation that was a direct democracy could be equally socialist. The actual economic system of the Soviet Union throughout most of its history is perhaps the best example of the socialist economic system. Socialism is not communism. Communism is “a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed (Merriam-Webster).” Indeed, communism is similar to socialism, and it usually does contain socialism, but it is not socialism. Communism covers much of the political and economic aspects of a nation-state. The Native American tribes had collective ownership over lands and divided goods as needed. Early Christian communities gave all to their church which in turn divided goods as needed. These are but two examples of actual communist communities. Essentially, true communism calls for surrendering ones own goods for the good of the community.
“Socialism - The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black (Shea and Wilson).” Looking past the obvious anarchist tones of this statement, and looking at the history of socialist states, one might understand why this statement was formulated. Socialist states, as history has proven, tend to quickly become corrupt, with power taken away from the people and centralized in the government. It is from this fatal flaw in the system that most misconceptions about it spring. Many quickly ignore that socialism is simply the economic system and not the actual system of government. The socialist states attempt to become communist states, but because of the tendency of human nature to seize power, the political system itself is entirely corrupted. This can happen in any political system regardless of the economic system. However, because socialism is so often associated with communism, the faults of the political system are blamed more heavily on it, the economic system, rather than the leaders controlling the system.
On the other hand, socialism can become a system such as the one in place in Sweden. While Sweden does not have a wholly socialist system, for it is rather a combination of socialism and capitalism, its success proves that not everything about socialism is bad. Sweden is regarded widely as one of the best places to live in the world. In Sweden, healthcare and education, including higher education, are free, and poverty and hunger are not a worry. The socially focused government provides these things. At the same time. It allows a capitalist free market to flow allowing its citizenry to prosper.
Essentially, socialism is certainly not the perfect economic system, but it is certainly not the worst. It is blamed incorrectly for flaws in political systems and atrocities committed by so-called socialist leaders. To truly understand the flaws of socialism, one must throw out politics entirely and look at socialism from and entirely economic point-of-view. On must study the efficiency and workings of the Soviet Union's economy and other socialist nations' economies to truly understand socialism's strengths and weaknesses. One must, to fully understand the subject, also analyze capitalism in the same way. Most importantly, rather than entering into the subject believing one system is superior than the other, one must look at both systems unbiased, comparing and contrasting the two to figure out which is more efficient, or what combination of their policies is most efficient. More or less, the point is do not take socialism or capitalism at the surface value as presented by others. Rather, one must seek out the facts and formulate one's own opinions.
To NH, a works cited page will be made, and things will be quoted. Please do consider, the bulk of this material is taken from nowhere but my own knowledge and thoughts, some inspired by this forum. Problem is, I'm not an established expert, hence I must have sources. I know, I'm a horrible example of a student. I'll be sure to start early on the next papers.
All criticisms are welcome.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Sep 23 2009, 04:04 PM
Post #44
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
"In Sweden, healthcare and education, including higher education, are free"
This isn't true, as income tax rates for all levels of society amount to about 50% in Sweden to pay for healthcare and education. Sales taxes are also very high. The Swedish government also engages in vast amounts of deficit spending and inflation. ((Deficits and inflation- the two proximal factors that killed the Soviet Union))
Nothing is free; everything has a cost.
I have quibbles with the imprecision and inadequate analysis presented throughout the entire essay and I find myself agreeing only with the final two sentences, but I'm mentally drained and unable to get into a discussion about this topic at the moment.
|
|
|
| |
|
East Anarx
|
Sep 23 2009, 05:30 PM
Post #45
|
Anarchitect
- Posts:
- 4,788
- Group:
- Multi
- Member
- #210
- Joined:
- January 16, 2006
|
I was hoping you wouldn't do your research on Hagbard Celine and realize he's a fictional character.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 05:49 PM
Post #46
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Esternarx
- Sep 23 2009, 05:30 PM
I was hoping you wouldn't do your research on Hagbard Celine and realize he's a fictional character. Haha, yeah I'm glad I looked into that one.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 06:32 PM
Post #47
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
- Tristan da Cunha
- Sep 23 2009, 04:04 PM
"In Sweden, healthcare and education, including higher education, are free"
This isn't true, as income tax rates for all levels of society amount to about 50% in Sweden to pay for healthcare and education. Sales taxes are also very high. The Swedish government also engages in vast amounts of deficit spending and inflation. ((Deficits and inflation- the two proximal factors that killed the Soviet Union))
Nothing is free; everything has a cost.
I have quibbles with the imprecision and inadequate analysis presented throughout the entire essay and I find myself agreeing only with the final two sentences, but I'm mentally drained and unable to get into a discussion about this topic at the moment. Yeah, I dislike this paper. It was completely BSed.
But we have a different outlook on free, I would say. The Swedes don't have to pay any money out of pocket for those things. It's taken care of for them. I'd rather have a 50% income tax and those services than be in the situation I'm in right now.
|
|
|
| |
|
Sedulius
|
Sep 23 2009, 07:03 PM
Post #48
|
Field Marshal
- Posts:
- 4,727
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- March 29, 2008
|
Holy Shit. I submitted it to turnitin.com and only 14% was similar to anything else. Shows I wrote unique material. Damn.
EDIT: That's only 4% when taking out quotes and sources.
Edited by Sedulius, Sep 23 2009, 07:05 PM.
|
|
|
| |