because people want to take care of themselves, not others

Now go get a job

Because the media tells them to, and virtually all media in this country is owned by corporations, which have a direct interest in not seeing socialism implemented.

Because it's pretty retarded. It's based on a flawed, unproven and wholly unscientific view of the world, and world history, and as such makes inaccurate dumb as fuck predictions.

Holy mother of capitalist penis, where'd you get such a poster/image?

Socialism looks good on paper, shit for IRL. It is completely contradictory to human nature and therefore infeasible.

>>5290071
pretty much this.

>>5290153
i don't think you know what socialism really is.


Them stupids claim that socialism isn't compatible with human "nature".
They just spam this because that's what they've been told. In reality, there is no human nature, only cultural behavior.

The human "nature" is for example, a violent one, does this mean we should allow people to kill each other? No.
That's why we've got policemen.

The human "nature" is, for example, a greedy one, does this mean that we should allow people to exploit each other to starvation?

Socialism is about taking care of each other.

If you're against it you're an uncivilized swine.

Any communist country that didn't turned into a dictatorship?

>>5290292
What about personal freedom?

Really your definition on socialism is wrong, there are still discrepancies on the level of individualism and collectivism involves, with several schools of thought going to to extremes and everything in between

>>5290317
If you want to debate communism, go start a thread over there, this is about socialism.

Oh wait, i forgot you were a retard, you think it's the same thing!

>>5289562

>I really would like America to turn socialist in my lifetime.

Well that's because you're a faggot. If you want to live in a socialist country, go to North Korea or Cuba.

>>5290357
Ok, I was thinking this thread was about real "socialism" (or libertarian socialism).
At best you would be advocating democratic socialism, but I think I'm also confusing what you think socialism means.
I hate when fucking terms get used by everyone and start losing any reasonable meaning

>>5290418
Well nothing is labeled correctly in politics anymore. When conservatives scream "socialism" and aren't being retarded, they are criticizing collectivism. "Liberals" and "Progressives" are oftentimes collectivists with a platform that has remained the same since the 1960's.

>>5290418
Libertarian....socialism?

WTF?

How can socialism be, in any way, libertarian. Libertarian beliefs involve free markets and/or personal choice in economic matters, the opposite of socialism.

Admittedly democratic and liberal socialist countries have freer economies than communist nations, but still far more governmental restriction than any true free market system. Hell the US hasn't been a free market system in a long time.

>>5290504
Well, the wrong labels don't always come from one side of the spectrum.
You must admit there are people who label themselves Democrats (as in the American Democratic Party) and think they are some sort of progressive minds while rejecting the views of left wing of the Democratic party as "fools" or "lunatics"

>>5290347
What personal freedom? there is no personal freedom.
We live in society, is this that hard to understand?

If you wanna live like an animal, go live in the jungle or something, free us from your barbarity.

>>5290418
you said Communism.

Communism and socialism aren't the same thing, regardless of your views.

>>5290529
Yeah, I know that for some people it might be difficult to understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The United States (and some parts of Latin America and Canada) have been bombarded by libertarians with a right wing perspective that the original meaning has been lost.

Funny, in places of Europe, labeling "Libertarianism" as a right wing tendency will give you funny looks

concerning socialism (see to the end)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Zls2AReVI

>>5290534

This is what dumbfucks actually believe.

>>5290548
Communism is socialist in the original meaning of "socialist" not in a funny UK Labour Party definition of socialism

>>5290580
Communism is socialist
Socialism isn't communist


Wikipedia should be enough for you, kiddo.

>>5290568
explain to me what "PURSONAL FRAYDOMS" you lose with socialism, dipshit.

>>5290375
>implying dictatorship = socialism

oh u

>>5290688
private property?

Socialism is a system inherently based off of stealing form others and misallocating resources. A government cannot run a market with the efficiency that people can on their own, and as such a decentralization of economic power leads to more freedom and prosperity.

>>5291220

and thats the type of bullshit you can learn on fox news.

>>5291220

and tommorow, on Glen Beck, 2 whole hours devoted to "why black people smell funny"

I am a huge fan of socialism of the national variety.

America is already socialist. We have socialist policies supporting the wealthy, large corporate interests, and the elderly.

Ohhhh - you mean socialism that benefits the poor / middle class? Well, we definitely can't have that. It'd cost a lot of tax dollars that we'd be better off spending on overseas wars. Gotta protect you working folks from the terrorists, donchaknow (snicker).

>>5291238
It's the type of "bullshit" you can learn in any basic economics class. Price controls and controlled production don't work. Prevention of voluntary interaction is the opposite of efficiency. The best chance you have of survival is to let people make decisions on their own. A government is made up of imperfect people with imperfect knowledge; trying to manage an entire economy based on what you think is right or going to help the country is impossible, and this has been shown time and time again by history.

Also, socialism inherently relies on taking what isn't yours and demeans property rights.

>>5291270

>I don't actually know what socialism is

>I got a C in Intro Economics at Texas Christian, I am now an expert in everything

>>5291315

>I argue about dumb shit in a thread of faggotry and when things don't go my way I start making fun of people

>I'm gonna go post in that thread over there about how I'm an obese loser whom no girl will touch

>>5291315
Give me your definition of socialism and I will explain the problems with it.

hurr I have teenage angst look at me hurr

>>5291270
So because a govt is made with imperfect people, you have now fucked the argument for Personal Freedom/Liberty, since you are imperfect. Because of that, we require a strong centralised govt. to make sure that kidiots like you don't fuck things up for the educated elite.


Fucking idiot.

i don't like you, don't care about you, and don't want you touching my shit.


Which basically socialism is all about. Touching my shit. Go away.

>>5291376
Not sure if troll, but I have nothing better to do.

People being imperfect is not grounds for a higher governmental power to contain or control them, since the government too is not only imperfect, but *also* has less information about your specific situation. If prices are allowed to fluctuate naturally and trade flows freely, people can more readily get what they want when they want it, which leads to more satisfaction, growth, and investment. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

Governmental controls, even when having the best of intentions, can only make what is rationally best impossible - any benefit it has for the poor will be superficial, as with minimum wage laws.

>>5291411
rational is a word that only makes sense for numbers.

go ahead, try and define rational without a tautology, savage.

>>5291435
Well, rational in this case just meaning you know what you want and go after it, whether that want be a long-term goal or a short-term one. Not rational in a philosophical sense or anything.

>>5291336

my understanding of socialism is that the government provides basic services in an egalitarian fashion, so that each person is given equal footing to succeed or fail in life based on their own merit.

Everyone contributes equally to supporting this system through taxation, as everyone benefits equally from it.

This way, power and control cannot be monopolized and concentratated by the rich, nor will large amounts of people be expected to "leech off the system" because whats provided by basic social services isn't really all that much.

Therefore, this creates a merit based system, in which people are rewarded proportionately to their ability, however, maintaining a system of social services, so that people will less ability or less means are not continuously fucked over into a circular system of generational poverty.

Yes, lazy people shouldn't be rewarded, however the problem with enforcing that, is the future generation has to suffer for the laziness of the previous ones, and inversely, hard working parents are capable of having lazy kids. So constantly enforcing personal responsibility doesn't really work, and the unequal concentration of wealth in the USA is proof of that.

>>5291444
under that definition of rational, government controls are rational. If you desire government controls.


Rational is a stupid term used by stupid people, unless they are referring to numbers.