24 years later, some people still cling to this idiocy

I've enjoyed this debate as well Kaptain, although I must point out that socialism would not necessarily force an individual to abandon their God. But hey, the open discussion of thoughts and ideas SHOULD lead to greater understanding. By some individual standards, I'm an old dog so it's a little harder for me to learn new tricks but I'm always open to a good honest exchange of ideas. There is so much in this world that we don't know compared to what we do know. Nonetheless, that doesn't stop me and a few buddies from thinking we have solved the worlds problems over a few beers...at least 'till the next day. Cheers Kaptain, until the next quandary or topic in search of a response - whether it requires one or not.

Interesting Hartman I didn't know that. I wonder if Rev. Bellamy would have been a devout socialist if he had actually lived in a country where it was being practiced. The good reverend may have found himself being forced to abandon the God and his christian beliefs he was serving, and accept the new god, the state. That, in my opinion, is where socialism always goes off the rails. Giving, charity, kindness, love, are the best of human qualities and are best when given freely of free will. Forced redistribution by taxation or confiscation only destroys these qualities. You know Hartman, I've enjoyed this debate. You and I are polar opposites in political thought and will probably never agree there. But in a debate I would rather have clarity than agreement. Clarity of position keeps the possibility of future agreement.

BTW Crunchy and Kaptain, I just HAD to include this little tidbit of information: The Pledge of Allegiance - the epitome of American patriotism - was written in 1892 by a socialist clergyman, Francis Bellamy. Imagine that!

I completely agree Crunchy. It's important that individuals have incentives which helps motivate them to progress. I am also a strong advocate of self sufficiency - but my incentives and motivations are different from others. That's why I believe our integration of socialist and capitalist systems works so well even if it's far from perfect. As I said before, I believe it would work even better if we eliminated politics from the mix.

Kaptain, I hold the view that the more voices we bring into the discussion, the better our solutions. IMO, it's disingenuous to advocate freedom and equality for all if we then limit the groups who are able to partake of those liberties because of gender, skin color, ethnicity or religious beliefs. Extremism is another matter.

One more point: another “feature” of socialism that turns out to be a bug is its focus on EXACTLY equal distribution. This is counter-intuitive to our egalitarian mindset, but there's nothing *inherently* wrong with having more “stuff” than another (just talking about the principle here; not the extremes of CEOs making 50x more than laborers who can't afford rent). If I have a garden and I work my tail off weeding it, it’s only fair for me to end up with more produce for the winter than my neighbor Joe who sits on his duff and lets the weeds take over. Now, if January rolls around and he runs out of food I surely have the moral obligation to help him (there's that "sharing" thing). But if, as with socialism, Joe & I have to surrender our whole crop at year’s end so it can be averaged btwn us, pretty quick I won't have an incentive to work hard and our little society will have trouble generating enough "surplus" to keep us all well-fed.

...that last word was "camp!"

Hartman you do raise good questions.

Your capitalist factory joke is a caricature, but contains a grain of truth that IS relevant. Most businesses in our economy divide "ownership" from the labor involved in profit-generation. Employees work for an hourly wage or salary, and ownership is limited to a few at the top, or else to a completely separate group of shareholders. (There are some notable exceptions like employee-owned companies.) While this model has certain advantages, I think we need to also acknowledge that it has drawbacks, namely that it keeps the “haves” having, and doesn’t give the “have-nots” a clear path out. I really think "ownership" is the key. Just think of the success those "buy a goat" programs have in lifting 3rd world people out of poverty. Something as simple as that - owning something that actually produces output - means a world of difference in a person's life. I'm firmly in the "more goats for more folks" ca

OK Hartman I can laugh at that. Back at you.

A capitalist and a marxist are out walking, when they come across a woman scooping up horse manure. What are you going to do with that?, asks the capitalist. I'm going to put it on my strawberries, says the woman. See, the marxist says, It doesn't always have to be cream.

Congratulations hartman. With that joke you've proven you're Barry's equal in understanding of the economy.

I'm happy you like the joke Hartman. See even us "gun nuts" have a sense of humor.

You're right about teaching children to share, I expect it from my sons. But I believe that giving, charity, comes from the heart, the human spirit not from government intervention. The government has been trying to socially engineer our society since Johnson introduced the great society programs in the 60's. We've spent trillions and yet poverty has risen. At the same time I'm just as disgusted with the corporate greed and corruption as I'm sure you are. You mention Jesus, you might be on to something. I try to live my life as a Christian, many times I fail, but I'll keep trying. Common morality is what's bound this country together for most of our history, now it seems to be under attack. If those who want to remove all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian values succeed, it wont matter what form of government we have. Were toast.

Sorry Kaptain, I missed the first three lines of the joke.

A capitalist is walking through his factory with a friend.

Friend asks, "What did you tell that man just now?"

"I told him to work faster", answers the capitalist.

Heres a joke for you Kaptain.

"How much do you pay him?" asks the friend.

"Fifteen dollars a day" answers the capitalist.

"Where do you get the money to pay him?" asks the friend.

"I sell products", answers the capitalist.

"Who makes the products?" asks the friend.

"He does", answers the capitalist.

"How many products does he make in a day?" asks the friend.

"Fifty dollars worth", answers the capitalist.

"Then", concludes the friend, "Instead of you paying him, he pays you thirty-five dollars a day to tell him to work faster".

"Huh", and the capitalist quickly adds, "Well, I own the machines".

"How did you get the machines?" asks the friend.

"I sold products and bought them", answers the capitalist.

"And who made those products?" asks friend.

To which the capitalist can only respond—to his friend, "Shut u

This is what puzzles me Crunchy and Kaptain about the criticisms of both capitalism and socialsim. Our economic system is based on capitalism the tenets of which include private ownership, personal capital accumulation, generating a profit – all of which is intended to satisfy an individual’s desire to achieve personal gratification and fulfillment and if society happens to benefit, so much the better. Does that not differ however, from the values we attempt to instill in our children? We want our children to SHARE their toys, SHARE their food, SHARE their space with the idea that by doing so they will experience gratification which will then motivate them to continue the behavior. Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive”. Therefore, are there not benefits to be realized from integrating both systems?

Kaptain, thanks for the great joke. I've never heard that one before. I'm glad we can at least find SOME common ground. IMO, all or nothing claims (like Stephen's) don't do justice to the complexity found in many issues. I don’t believe our problems can be solved with an all or nothing approach.

Now if we could only get politics out of the way.

Hartman that is the most conservative thing you have ever written. Congratulations.

I'll agree with you that on paper perfect socialism would work; it's just that imperfect socialism doesn't. Marxists like to compare a perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior. If perfection really was an option, the choice of economic/political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect people and infinite abundance,socialism,capitalism,communism, even fascism would work perfectly. A German man who had lived in the DDR told me a joke. Erich Honecker (DDR party secretary) was asked by an old lady if Marx was a scientist or a worker. A worker he replied. I thought so she said, a scientist would have tried his theories on rats first.

Yeah Hartman, I don't think that the systems themselves are "greedy" or "corrupt" either (only people can exhibit those qualities) but my point is that they're not completely benign either: their structure most definitely affects the kinds of situations individuals are placed in and thus makes it more (or less) likely for individuals to act virtuously.

Capitalism (at least in the format we're familiar with) has its clear problems too, which we see in the unemployment lines and in those around us struggling to get by. FWIW, I think G.K. Chesterton hit the nail on the head when he said, "The trouble with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists!"

Kaptain, there are many examples of socialist policies that work exceedingly well and many examples of capitalist policies that work exceedingly poorly right here in the U.S. No one system is a perfect vehicle for providing all the goods and services society requires. A perfect economic system would benefit society as it benefits individuals. I don't know of any society that has achieved that perfect balance but the U.S. comes very close. Now, if we could only get politics out of the way!

Amazingly Crunchy, just this morning on NPR it was reported that arguments designed to encourage action achieve better results IF individual benefits are emphasized as opposed to societal benefits. This was attributed to the "individualistic" nature of Americans. While the environment in which we development informs our behavior, I believe human nature ultimately supersedes other influences. "Petty-minded tyrants" can be found in all economic and political systems. Their powers or influence limited only by the rules put into place. You do raise an interesting point Crunchy. Communes were never very successful for the very reasons you mentioned. There are pros and cons to socialism and capitalism but I still have trouble attributing greed and corruption to systems rather than individuals.

Wrong again Hartman. I've read Engals and Marx, boring works utopian fiction. Socialism is the big lie of the 20th century. It promised prosperity,equality,and security, but delivered poverty misery, and tyranny. The only equality was that all were equal in their misery. Unless of course you were a party member, which is exactly why it always fails. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.-Napoleon the pig George Orwell's Animal Farm. Socialism is like a Ponzi scheme, it may show early signs of success, but any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the illusion of success that gives governmental control it's seductive appeal. Socialism like a Ponzi scheme always fails because it is based on faulty principles. Socialism does not work because it ignores fundamental human behavior. The failure of socialism is that it has one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

Hartman - your point that any system (including capitalism) can be abused is well taken. But are you really asserting (as "fact", no less) that there is NO connection at all between the structure of socialism and the sort of behavior Steve here describes?

The fundamental problem with socialism is that, by depriving people of the right to own property, it thereby deprives them of the ability to "own" their own work, and thus enjoy the natural fruits of their own labors (yes, we are a cooperative species as well, but at some level we still require personal incentives as motivation). This is a complete violation, at the most elementary level, of human nature, and for that reason it's really no surprise that in such a system innovation is stifled, and people often turn into the "petty-minded tyrants" described by Steve.

“The greed and incompetence of socialism is a direct result of socialism.”

That statement is false, Kaptain, and without doubt confirms you don’t understand the concept of socialism. Socialism is a SYSTEM, period, like capitalism. One could easily assert that the core principals of capitalism encourage and reward greed and corruption. Any political or economic system can be used as a tool of oppression by those in power. ONLY through communal support of strict law enforcement are the masses protected from those in power no matter the political or economic system in place. I would never be so supercilious as to question Stephen’s experiences while living in Eastern Europe under Soviet style rule. However, his assertion that “socialism” is to blame for the corruption and ineptitude he experienced is false. It had NOTHING to do with Socialism and EVERYTHING to do with corrupt leadership. This is a fact, not opinion.

And how they would thank us for anything from the west especially America we could chuck over the fence, blue jeans, cassette tapes, t-shirts, and American cigarettes. The greed and incompetence of socialism is a direct result of socialism. You wanna live under socialism, then please by all means LEAVE. I bet I could even get a fund together to get you a one way ticket to the socialist craphole of your choice. When you get there you run right up to the politburo and tell how much better you can run it. Doubt they will listen, but you may get an example of how gun control works socialist style.

Hartman your arrogance knows no bounds. Here a man lives 13 years in your socialist utopia, rightly describes it as the craphole it is, but no you know better. So tell me comrade of your extensive experience living in any of the former Soviet Bloc nations. Me, I've been there I was stationed in Germany before and after the wall came down and the borders were opened. I'm still amazed at the stark differences between the two economic/political systems. Towns in West Germany were vibrant and thriving travel 30 kilometers east and it looked as if WW2 had ended just recently. The waste of your utopia was disgusting, crappy vehicles, shoddy construction, rampant pollution of all types. But the biggest difference was the people, the Germans and Czechs I met who had lived most of their lives in your utopia were like damaged goods their spirits were broken from years of authoritarian rule. I remember the Czech soldiers on the other side of the border fence.

The idiocy Stephen, is clinging to the belief that "socialism" is to blame for greed and ineptitude experienced in the Eastern Bloc. Like many, you seem to be confusing Socialism with Communism.

Socialism is an economic system that operates on the concept of social ownership - everyone contributes for the benefit of all. A socially funded economic system is the ONLY feasible means for delivering a variety of services. Any economic or political system is ONLY as good as those running it - greed and incompetence can prevail under capitalism or a democracy or republic unless regulations are strictly enforced. Human failure is to blame for your experience, not Socialism.