By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 08 August 2009
Edit Thread
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

What do you disagree with what he said about south african countries Akuma?

That is what has caused a lot of countries problems afterall.

I don't think the phenomenon he is talking about has anything to do with socialism.  I don't think his example is at all relevant.  I think it has to do with some unscrupulous people getting in power and then using that power to abuse their citizens.  That has been happening for thousands of years before we even came up with the words capitalism or socialism.  I mean even in a capitalist country the government holds the reigns of the military and the police.  Do you honestly think if we elected a rogue leader in the United States that he couldn't do a lot of damage simply relying on military force?

An authoritarian dictator is a dictator whether you are in capitalist country or a socialist country.  Was Nazi Germany socialist?  Fascism is extremely different than socialism and is in many ways closer to capitalism.  That didn't make Hitler a nicer guy.

Actually the Nazi's were socialists.

They advocated "The third way".  Something that was neither capitalism or communism but a mix.

Also... a rogue US leader couldn't take control of our army eaisly.  So yeah I dont really think that could be the case currently.

Take a look at Zimbabwe.  Mugabe gained his position by life due to the people supporting him to make things "more equal" which lead to him gaining control over the army.

When smaller regulations leading to gradual change would of kept the country prosperous.

I don't really see you point.  You said that the Nazi's were neither capitalistic or communistic, but a mix of both.  That's exactly what I just said, that fascism is somewhere in between capitalism and socialism with elements of both.  In many ways it is closer to communism and in many ways it is closer to capitalism.

Last time I checked, the President is the head of the military.  He can order nuclear weapons be fired all in the comfort of his own office.  I don't think Robert Mugave or any South African countries could ever do that.  You really think he couldn't do some major damage if he went nuts and decided to go rogue?  I don't understand your logic.

Once again, you are giving isolated examples.  I don't disagree that some socialist leaders have used their power in authoritative ways.  But does that have anything to do with them being socialist?  All of the countries we have mentioned were unstable and had extremely poor populations.  Do you really think that is a coincidence? 

Point me to an example of a stable, modern, industrialized, socialist nation whose government has turned against its citizens.  I agree that unstable, backwards, developing nations are more likely to have people in power abuse their citizens.  But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the country is capitalist or socialist.

We're going to be stable forever?  We're not even that stable right now.

Putting in a bunch of controls and gettng people more used to and accepted to have government control their lives leads to trouble.

Also.  Russia was stable, modern, industrialized and socialist... and Putin has taken control... and people are happy... espiecially the young people.