What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

[DonFerrari]

Cubedramirez said:

Leadified said:

Social democrats will probably only consider criticism from the left since it's less inherently hostile than right wing ideologies. But social democrats have also wiped out the left in most countries and they themselves adopted the title of "socialist" so they've set themselves up in a trap.

The irony is that like any other capitalist nation, a social democracy still needs to rely on the same sources of cheap labour from the third world and material, which also often time comes from the third world. While the people of Sweden may live well, their nation is still built upon the backs of people who will never enjoy it and thus the whole world cannot hope to live as well as those do in Sweden. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to participate in the exploitation because you need to pay taxes, you need clothes, you need technology and so on. 

I consider the socdems to be lucky for now since they've been blessed with stable societies and resources such as oil to fuel their welfare states but times are changing and they have no answers.

Nice, whatever helps you sleep at night.

A very nice California King plush top. 

Something socialist societies would have never developed due to the large use of resources.  It's glorious.

Well it is when none of my kids decide to jumping in at night.

As said by a very wise man "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert,

in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand

Gamer147 said:
Socialism is bad. They take money from hard working companies. If you open a successful business you would not want to give most of your profit to government.

And the government is even worse when taking hard earned money through taxes.

ArchangelMadzz said:

DonFerrari said:

But do you like the idea that the government will take money from everyone to give it to possible ones that didn't make their own plans, savings, etc?

You're acting like somehow without healthcare taxes would be less?

The money is being taken regardless, if someone is paying taxes and they get a serious illness, or get into a car crash going to work, why shouldn't their own taxes be used? It's their money.

I'm acting like if government were smaller the taxes would be less.

The point is the government shouldn't be taking your money to offer you a service unless you request the service and accept the costs, just like you do to any private corporation.