Republicans are lazy, yes
Yes, and it lands you in a gulag if you get motivated to change things or even speak out against the system.
That's specific to communism under Stalin. What about the million other kinds of socialism?
Not just Stalin. From what I hear, dissidents have been jailed in places as diverse as Cuba, China, and Myanmar (Burma). That's not to mention North Korea. No telling what they do to dissidents in that particular so-called "People's Republic."
A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be ba
Think if orchestrated well this system could work well and benefit all.
There are things ignored in discussing these things, like "privatize the profits and socialize the losses" which is what our USA economy is about. Our taxes pay for things that benefit large corporations and their stockholders. It is called "corporate welfare".... not sure how "socialism" works into that scenario? The corporations don't have to clean up the messes that they make. I know that sounds disjointed....maybe a more or less related example: military expenditures...taxes pay, big profits made, many killed.
If it means valuing humanity , it gives people a motivation money will never give.
It doesn't cause it, but the two feed on each other.
Socialism: confused with communism, which doesn't work, this however can work very well with a mix of capitalism and democracy, it is a more equal economic system where the poor can become rich, whenever this comes up in a conversation someone eventually says it didn't work in russia
I think socialism is a..
Didn't work in russia
No, thats communism, this is differ...
Didn't work in cuba
Your not listening to me, Im talking about something completely different!
SHUTUP YOU ******* HIPPIE!!
hmmm it definitely helps the lazy to be lazy.
socialism in it's basic form 'power to the people' gives a lazy person a choice and they will choose to be lazy.
But doesn't capitalism do the same thing? Lots of people are born into money.
No, it saps initiative; years ago there was a joke in the USSR: "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". It sums up the limitations of socialism nicely.
When the people discover that they can claim themselves largess from the public treasury, socialism always fails.
Just go ask the people of China, North Korea and the former Soviet Union.
much of china's issues are from corruption. And North Korea's issues are largely from being a totalitarian government that is not open to trade or positive change. Both have censorship issues that make it so their people are not informed and are unable to help mold their governments into more efficient ones. Censorship is a huge problem that we in the US are now also starting to have to face. Much of our media is propaganda to ensure a two party system that's main goal is to help those that pay to keep it going. Remember, China has been a powerful world player for a very long time, and they have a large population to try to handle. If the US wants to survive another 100 years, we need to learn something from other governments to blend together something that works for everybody, and not just the elite or the welfare cheats, but everybody.
The axiom here is that people will work harder when they have incentive to work hard. The best incentive is good pay. If people receive money without having done work, they will cease working.
A few problems with that:
1. The hardest working jobs are usually not the highest paying. Farmers, factory workers, cooks, labourers - all of these jobs demand a LOT of work, and none pay well. Meanwhile, I know many people who make six figures that barely put in 40 hours a week.
2. People work because they enjoy work. This is why society is partially run by volunteers. Why people run for office when political jobs don't pay that well. Why people help a friend move. People are happiest when they have meaningful things to do - and people who hate any kind of work are usually struggling with depression. It is healthy and normal to enjoy work for work's sake.
3. There's just no evidence. If someone wants to provide some, I'm willing to listen. Name me a country whose introduction of social programs has resulted in a drop in the number of people in the workforce.
4. The entire concept of 'earn' is problematic. What is earn? You work and then someone gives you what they think your labour is worth. Well what if you're underpaid? What if everyone in a certain job doesn't make enough to live while somebody up top gets rich? Who is earning what now? You aren't earning enough, and the person at the top earns too much.
I'm worth $16 an hour lol a bit more on weekends.
#1 Pay is not based on the amount of labor involved but on the amount of production achieved. #2 People work because it is preferable to starving. #3 Under socialism people are forced into the workforce but productivity always falls, when there is no reward for excelling productivity always gravitates to the lowest common level. #4. what you earn is the value of what you produce, something that the self employed understand very well.
Productivity fails and gravitates to the lowest common level? Can you back that up? Also, what do you consider socialism? Is Sweden a mixed economy socialist? Or only complete command economies like the USSR or Cuba?
Any system that takes the fruits of responsible citizens labor, those that have worked , contributed and been productive all their lives and redistributes it to those that choose to opt out and lay about is a socialist system that eventually destroys any incentive to work and earn your own way . As more and more people opt out in favor of living off the public dole it requires a ever larger contribution from responsible working citizens until it becomes unsustainable and destroys all incentive to work. Socialism snowballs a ever larger number of recipients of it's largess from a ever smaller pool of contributes until the system collapses.