<p>A capitalist country is controlled by markets, demands and supply. It may not always be fair but it’s the best kind of system, like Churchill indicated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s statements like these that just beg for condescension. I really can’t help it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>recourse, not resource</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t a figure of speech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s helpful to put things in terms that give some indication that you understand it. Otherwise I really can’t avoid being condescending.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It never was a perfect communist state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No need to get your panties in a twist because there isn’t a response within 20 minutes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an incredibly narrow definition of socialism</p>
<p>It’s not even a definition of socialism, not by any stretch of the imagination. Even those people who traipse about with superimposed pictures of Obama over Stalin have a better understanding of what socialism is.</p>
<p>Seriously? This is pure common sense.</p>
<p>@ ThisCouldBeHeavn</p>
<p>Your method of arguing honestly doesn’t make any sense. You do not have any real argument nor do you reaffirm any of your points.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, maybe I didn’t make my self clear enough, by unpleasant I meant working environments that would pose a risk to health or cause injury. I thought with my referral to sewage workers and garbage men would have made that clear. I already stated this. Although sweatshops aren’t very nice working environments, in general they pose little risk to health. This is an insignificant part of the argument. the argument pertains to the wages of workers who work in hazardous situations not about whether or not sweatshops are pleasant working environments.</p>
<p>Also, while you make pin sized holes in my argument you seem to come up with nothing yourself. No solutions for the issues I have supposedly failed to resolve or definitions for the terms I have failed to define. If you want a detailed definition of socialism please go on Wikipedia or something.</p>
<p>Clearly you don’t have much to say since you’ve resorted to correcting my spelling mistakes. If I need someone to proofread my work i’ll be sure to PM you, clearly it is all your good for.</p>
<p>And by the way, if you are such an expert in the history of communism, why don’t you write me an essay on socialism and PM it to me. That is how long it would take effectively define and and explore the concept of socialism.</p>
<p>You seem to have conveniently forgotten the pathetically ignorant statements you made before like; “There is no governing body.”, and “With their massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, the USSR certainly did have plenty of recourses to choose from.”.</p>
<p>Oh and FYI in the context I used it, it is spelled resource not recourse. So please stop correcting me when you are wrong yourself. </p>
<p>Maybe if you chose to reply, you should consider the following points. Refrain from simply insulting me and actually rebut my argument, don’t correct me when you are wrong yourself, and try to look at my argument with a more open and subjective mindset.</p>
<p>Honestly mate just come back down to earth, there’s no need for the arrogance or hostility. I’m also quite sure I understand and know a lot about the concept of socialism and the history of the Soviet Union.</p>
<p>BTW guys I wasn’t trying to define socialism I was just trying to look at the international trade side of it. We have ThiscouldBeHevn, you makes cocky remarks without actually addressing the argument, and we have Withnail who makes up for his lack of general knowledge by using big words and an arrogant tone. Hats of to both of you.</p>
<p>Insist that requirement of socialism is isolationist foreign policy. Deny defining socialism. Call others ignorant.</p>
<h1>winning</h1>
<p>Socialism…imagination…superimposed…big words? Pedants of the world, unite!</p>
<p>In all seriousness though, the capitalist system we have in this country is seriously messed up, but not because Lady Gaga and Kobe Bryant are millionaires. I’d say the staggering (it means really, really big) income gap and fact that the government is more or less beholden to corporations rate higher on the list of things that need to be changed (socialism!). That and the fact one’s health and well being are big business, which is probably one of the biggest grotesqueries of American capitalism.</p>
<p>First of all I did not call him ignorant, I called his statement ignorant.</p>
<p>Also, I never explicitly stated that I was going to defining socialism.</p>
<p>One part of being a socialist country IS “isolationist foreign policy”. BTW it’s called protectionism mate but well done for trying to sound smart.</p>
<p>By big words I wasn’t reffering to imagination or socialism, I was talking about your “scholarly” tone. I was talking mainly about traipse and superimposed :P. Thanks for putting it perfectly btw, I would describe you both as pedants. You pay close attention to minor details and fail to look at the big picture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was really an unnecessary statement.</p>
<p>I mean come on who the hell says “grotesqueries”.</p>
<p>Yes as I already covered that isse Withnail solutions include regressive taxation policies, minimum wage laws, and government spending. Three of many policies a government can implement to bridge the income gap without resorting to “socialism”.</p>
<p>"Also, I never explicitly stated that I was going to defining socialism…</p>
<p>One part of being a socialist country IS “isolationist foreign policy”.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Protectionism is having laws that encourages buying products at home (I was going to say domestically but thought you might object). It does not mean absolutely closing your borders to trade and “foreign ideologies”, as you seem to think. It’s also in no way shape or form related to socialism. </p>
<p>A regressive tax means you tax rich people less (in percentages, less a percentage of their wealth to make this perfectly clear to you) as they make more money; I think you mean progressive, but then again you seem to like making up definitions to words as you see fit. And what word would you use to describe a for profit healthcare system? Obscene? Contemptible? But that’s scholarly, isn’t it? Double-plus-ungood? Does that work better for you? </p>
<p>Speaking of failing to look at the “big picture”, your solutions seem incredibly short sighted to what’s wrong with the world today. The problems of capitalism are more fundamental than what higher taxation and government spending can fix. Eg, the fact that corporate money is so entrenched (so a part of, but more precise and explicit) in the election process that higher taxes and more government spending will have a hell of a time getting voted in to law. Think of the men who are responsible for the economic crisis; where are they today? Even beyond that - for such a small part of the world the united states uses a plurality (i don’t have time to research this so my numbering might be off by a bit but I knew it’s waaaay out of proportion with our population (amount of people who live in our country)) of the world’s resources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it was clear, and like I said, begging for condescension.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>cool story bro</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ooh, burn</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that would be a complete waste of time</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably. Which is why it was weird that you presented such a narrow constraint on what socialism is earlier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I used the word recourse. If you haven’t heard of it, look it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you said non-isolationist policy => Sweden et al. aren’t socialist. That’s part of a definition.</p>
<p>I hope you understand that being a singer, rapper, or athlete isn’t easy. You cannot just say one day, “I want to be a singer, rapper, or athlete.” You gotta be good at it and have real talent. And most people aren’t even successful and only a small percentage can do it.</p>
<p>@Withnail</p>
<p>Wow really i’m surprised you think that protectionism has nothing to do with socialism. If you haven’t noticed, almost all socialist countries did and still have barriers to trade in place. Protectionism is integral to the success of socialism. Although protectionism may not come under the definition of socialism they are linked.</p>
<p>Second point, okay you got me there it’s progressive not regressive :P, mixed them up.</p>
<p>And yes there is a very succinct method to combat capitalism, for the US in particular, further regulation of the banking system, and removing the concept of having a central bank would go a long way. I still believe progressive taxation is a good way to combat the negative effects of capitalism. Look at countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland; the socialist government policies like high minimum wage laws and progressive taxes reduce the income gap, and still ensure that wages are merit based.</p>
<p>@ThisCouldBeHevn </p>
<p>I’m tired of your rude and arrogant posts therefore i’m going to stop replying to them. You may as well ■■■■ this thread if your just going to be a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>And it’s resource not recourse learn to spell. I stand by what I said, please don’t correct others when you aren’t right yourself. It’s called being a Hypocrite. </p>
<p>Please try not to reply, the cocky posts are starting to annoy me.</p>
<p>It’s funny that you were unable to pick out the one real flaw in my argument regarding the regressive taxes… I know portraying yourself as a scholarly figure on college forums may be your only way of getting recognition in today’s competitive world, but i’d rather you go ■■■■■ another thread thanks. k bye.</p>
<p>PS were you ever in you high school debate team? Because you would have failed miserably.</p>
<p>@Withnail Then please come up with a solution :P. The ones I have pointed have been proven to work in real life. I don’t know what else could work save blowing up the federal reserve and Wall Street (please don’t take that seriously it was a joke).</p>
<p>People have become so polarized that they only see capitalism or socialism,communism or fascism. There’s an in between, Scandinavian countries (generalization), tend towards being more socialist; however they are not communist states.</p>