January 15, 2010 8:35am CST
I am from an ex socialistic country. I was a child when socialism fell but I remember the enthusiasm of the people. I must say the way the socialism was enforsed was wrong even criminal - people sent to concentration camps, censorship, people even could not go on holiday abroad without a detailed verification. But i must say and guess many would agree that some of the main ideas of socialism was not so bad - free health service, free education, social equolity and so on. Even Thomas Mor wrote about something like that in his Utopia in 16th century So is socialism really so bad?
15 Jan 10
Probably you are right. The perfect situation - having only the good sides of socialism is impossible. But I want to ask you something too. Do you think there is a perfect political regime? Do you think capitalism does not have bad sides? Believe me I could write down many. So probably the right question is the one I posed a few rows above - is there a perfect political regime.
15 Jan 10
I believe that socialism is against Nature's Design, so in its fall personally I have felt like celebrating.In a way, my sefinition of socialism is [B]deification of mediocrity[/B]. But the ideas of socialism are not bad though, but in my opinion such concepts must find their way into peoples' hearts, through a greater purpose in life as shown by, say, any well practised religion. In short, if I would like to listen to someone saying that if I am a havemore, it must be shared with havenots, is an advice or appeal I would like to hear from a good religious principle rather than an association of people- an overlording Proletariat.
• United States
15 Jan 10
I don't think the "idea" of wanting entitlements such as those is a bad thing. But make no mistake about it, it's not "free." Someone's paying for it. Using America as an example, where I'm from, I just see no possible way it would ever work. The biggest reason being that, in order for everything to be shared through such a community pot, people's wages and lives need to be more tightly controlled. When you're talking about a country of 5 to 20 or so million people, with a firm grip on their own economic situation, immigration, and not to mention that they're not expected to be a super power with a big military presence nor are they expected to aid the rest of the world, then it's just a matter of taxing extremely high rates, watering down health services a bit, drastically lowing personal standards of living for the sake of the community, and weeding out the corruption in government. With 300,000,000 people, plus more unregistered illegals than these "social" countries even have citizens, plus more debt than many nations' accumulative wealth, plus our rich (read: most contributing taxpayers) being accustomed to free, rich lifestyles, you're talking about something different entirely. Not to mention that America's political and activist positions are primarily filled by outright money-stealing crooks at the worst and self-interested career-minded greed-mongers at the least. And should we get into the unemployment (non-taxpayer) rate? What about the amount of people America takes in and the amount of money we put out to aid other nations? I read on your profile that you're Bulgarian. I'm not sure of the situation there, so I couldn't comment accurately. But where I'm from, America, the idea of utopia is truly something that would come at far too steep a price for anyone with money. Ours is a system that, if implemented correctly, could produce the same end result without the idea of "free" things. Ours is a system that's supposed to reward people based on their merit. And if anyone is seriously struggling, they do have a safety net. But somewhere along the way, the idea that the rich should provide for everyone else took over and now the free market system is blamed for every one of America's ills. To implement socialism, essentially, you would have government taking from the haves and just giving entitlements to the have nots. And eventually, we'd all be have nots, because we wouldn't have industry at all. Executive positions and the idea of "celebrity" and other big-earning jobs and especially small busineses would be levelled due to "social justice." Everyone but politicians and the mega-rich would be living meager lives, at best, relying solely on entitlements. As far as social equality goes, in the sense that there's no "class," that can honestly never happen in a place like this. Maybe you'd get a few states doing well, but using a comparison to Europe, do 50 of 50 countries have utopia?